| |
BGonline.org Forums
Another ruling situation and questions
Posted By: Mike Clapsadle In Response To: Another ruling situation and questions (Benf)
Date: Thursday, 7 June 2018, at 3:25 a.m.
I was thinking about this rule again today, and it still bothers me.
If a checker is explicitly hit but not moved to the bar, the play is illegal.
First, I don't even read this rule to include this situation. To me, "explicitly" hitting a checker, would be removing it from its position. Then maybe you leave it in your hand, put it in the tray, off the board, in the outfield somewhere...but not in it's origial position when hitting isn't forced. Explicit means: In a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt. How does tapping a checker fit this definition? Is there anywhere in the rules that references tapping checkers to indicate a hit?
Second, in this position, playing 7/6, 6/1 is a legal play. Why does a player's "intent" or precieved intent factor in to what can be constituted as a legal play? It should not change the fact that 7/6, 6/1 is a legal play. What if the player tapped the checker and either, did not actually intend to hit it, or intended to hit it and then changed his mind...but ultimately decided against the hit. Should I inform him that not hitting is not a legal move since he tapped the checker?
And, if it is deemed an illegal move, does the player now have the right to make ANY legal move they wish? In the situation where they didn't want to hit, but it was pointed out that that's illegal because they showed intent, are they allowed to put the checkers back and play without hitting? I would say that they shouldn't be, because not hitting has already been deemed an illegle move, for some reason.
It would be interesting to see what the USBGF gestapo intended when said "explicitly hit".
I'm glad there are still tournaments that play legal moves like Novi and Cleveland, and hope that they continue to do so.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.