The idea that the rule as written allows for the choice of requiring a reroll can only have the intent of permitting the player to make the choice based on whether or not they like or dislike the roll, regardless of how obvious their play may be. The ABT rule was specifically changed to introduce the reroll option with the idea that there should be a punishment for fast rolling in situations like the bearoff when there is otherwise virtually no value in being able to make a better play knowing the opponent's roll in advance - as the plays are automatic, if not forced. Yet, the rules as written clearly intend to allow a player rolling non-doubles in a simple acepoint 2-roll bearoff position to require his fast rolling opponent to reroll if he has rolled doubles, even though the plays are all forced. It seems no different than the posted position.
I was not in favor of the change in the premature action rule to allow this choice of requiring a reroll. In my opinion, premature actions should stand as is, and ignored warnings to stop should be punished by the director. I believe that giving this choice opens the door and effectively condones unsportsmanlike decisions like this. With the same reasoning, I strongly support "legal moves", as allowing a player to condone an opponent's illegal play like putting his own checker on the bar is just as bad. It provides no protection against the cheater and punishes honest mistakes.
Once you start making ethical judgments, it becomes a slippery slope. Ultimately, it is best that all exceptions be codified in the rules once realized rather than rely on ongoing and potentially inconsistent judgments and people needing to guess whether or not following rules to the letter is or is not good sportsmanship.
Witness the following position. The play of 21 is not forced, but is absolutely clear to any sane person and lets say that blue has already played 2/off 2/1 but not yet lifted the dice. What if white has fast rolled and double 6s pops out of his cup. Do we allow blue to insist upon a reroll? Blue has an even better option. He can allow the 66 to stand and replay the 21 and take two checkers off, and thus guarantee winning the match. Is it unethical for him to do so? Given that it was not a forced move, is it somehow more ethical than insisting upon a reroll in the originally posted position?
| White | 78 |
|---|---|
| |
| Blue | 6 |
| Position Id: 23YHAEAbAAAAAA Match Id: QYmoADAACAAA | |
