| |
BGonline.org Forums
Comments from Richard Munitz (on USBGF rules committee)
Posted By: Bob Koca In Response To: Rules revisions comments (Bob Koca)
Date: Wednesday, 28 June 2023, at 3:41 p.m.
Richard responded to me via email. He needs to get his BgOnline account fixed and he said I could share his comments here. As a general question is there a way to put things in bold or larger or different font posting here. Would help with seeing structure of a post with a list in it.
----
Regarding the premature actions:
i) Is the opponent of the premature acting player having unlimited time problematic?
It is unlikely to be problematic since a fast grab typically happen when a player is finalizing their move. But yes, this is a valid concern, but not worth attempting to codify. The WBGF has had this rule in effect for quite some time and it has not caused problems that needed fixing. The remedy is for the player to call the TD if their opponent’s time usage really becomes excessive. If the TD thinks it is a problem for the tournament, they can make an exception and start the clock. If the tournament has all the time in the world, then sit and wait and don’t fast grab again. If a player earns a reputation for abusing the “pause” rule, a TD can make an exception for that player and say “no more pausing for you”.
ii) How does the delay forfeit work in practice? Is it just that the player cannot grab the dice to roll them until the delay has delayed away or if possible on the clock would the reserve time just start immediately. It can make a difference, especially if the opponent is then contemplating cubing.
Correct. A player must not pick up their dice until the delay time has counted down to zero. My interpretation would be that there is no problem with them considering the cube, counting pips or doing anything else during that count-down. But if they do turn the cube, then they should then lose the delay time prior to rolling if the opponent takes the cube. Because the rules don’t actually say this, it is up to TD interpretation, but the Ruling guide will be written that way. The WBGF with their 20 pages of rules, never saw a need to detail that.
iii) It seems strange to me that an intentional infraction is being promoted. I see this as saying: You already did an infraction, if you don't like the penalty consider doing this further much more severe infraction instead.
I understand completely, though let’s not call it “being promoted”. The mitigation available for a corner case is being pointed out. The rationalization is to view a premature action on an unended turn as all one and the same; you’re just finishing what you started. In the real world, any judge will tell you to go through a red traffic light if it means saving a life. Regardless, of how it reads on paper, this is the fair thing to do. No system of justice should impose the death penalty for someone breaking the window of a jewelry store when it will give them only a year in prison if they proceed to grab the jewels.
Regarding illegal moves:
MY COMMENT: My guess is yes but I would like to see a clarification. In a responsible moves tournament is a player playing a 42 roll as 24/18 without hitting when hitting would be forced included in the type of illegality which is not allowed to be condoned? Does it matter if 24/18 could possibly be played as a 51 roll which does not hit in which case it might be considered as being related to an error with the dice roll in which cases it could be condoned?
Not quite sure I understand the question. However, if you get a roll and make a play from point A to point B that must hit, but you did not hit, then the play made is illegal. Specifically, it is an illegal checker play. Effectively, an illegal checker play is anything illegal that you do or fail to do with regard to the movement of checkers after you roll and before you end your turn. In a Responsible Moves tournament you can condone any illegal checker play. When it says you can’t condone any other kind of infraction it means you can’t condone any infraction that is not an illegal checker play. That means you don’t have license to condone your opponent’s cube during the Crawford game because it is a Responsible Moves tournament.
As an aside, there is one exception given to my above definition of illegal checker plays. That is the case where you explicitly hit a checker and then forget to place it on the bar. In that case, the Rules state explicitly that the checker just goes to the bar; the player doesn’t get to redo their entire move by calling it illegal, and it goes to the bar even if the non-hitting play would have been a legal alternative. This presumes of course that the explicit hit was legal. Isn’t this what happened in your scenario? No. Because even though the checker had to be hit, the checker wasn’t explicitly hit. By “explicit” we mean that you tapped on it while passing by, or took some other overt action to indicate that you hit it.
Regarding incorrect match length
MY COMMENT: Suppose players are supposed to be playing to 7 but think they are playing to 9. The score is 6 to 0
and the player with 0 doubles. Then a few rolls later the error in matchlength is discovered. Should the cube possibly be
nullified as it should have beeen the Crawford game?
No. That game shouldn’t have been the Crawford game because the rule requires the game in progress to be completed before the match length could potentially be corrected. With a match length of 9 currently in effect, it is not the Crawford game and was never the Crawford game. What’s interesting is what happens afterward. If the leader wins the 2 points, the score is 8-0. Since they have reached the posted length of 7, the match length is not adjusted and they continue to their original match length of 9. Since one player has reached 8, the next game is Crawford. Otherwise, if the trailer wins the 2 points, the score is 6-2. Since they have not reached either the original length of 9 or the posted length of 7, the match length is adjusted to 7. Since the score is 6-2 and is the first game in which a player is within 1 of the match length they are playing to, the next game is Crawford.
As a general axiom you may apply when interpreting rules – errors never occur retroactively; if they didn’t actually occur at the time that history was being recorded, they can’t suddenly appear in the history books when we look back later. That should not be taken to apply to errors that actually did occur at the time but that nobody noticed at the time. Those errors have occurred and correction may remain pending for a very long time. For example, if after the first game of the match both players erroneously score the game as 1 point when 2 points should have been scored, then if the error is realized an hour later, it must be corrected by adding a point to someone’s score. It doesn’t matter that they both made checker and cube decisions the entire match based on the wrong score.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.