| |
BGonline.org Forums
Backgammon and The Rule of Law
Posted By: joe freedman In Response To: What to do about this what-a-to-do? (Steve Mellen)
Date: Monday, 6 July 2009, at 6:35 p.m.
My initial reaction was to agree with fnurt, and I still agree with his preferred outcome. But the Rule cited -- "No set of rules should deprive the Director of his freedom of judgment or prevent him from finding the solution dictated by fairness and compatible with the circumstances of a particular case." -- does have the potential to undermine all of the other written rules. It gives the Director virtually unlimited, arbitrary power. Most directors would presumably use that power wisely, and would otherwise be directing empty tournaments in the future. But I do think it's worth reconsidering this particular rule. "Fairness" is an extremely subjective concept, over which reasonable people can disagree. If an elderly player puts his own checkers on the bar, is it "fair" to require that they stay there? What if he "bears off" the opponent's checkers? What if the player is not so elderly, but is new to tournament play (or not)? I doubt if all readers of this post will agree on the answer to these questions. I don't think that directors should be able to depart from clear, specific rules. But the rules themselves could and should be improved from a standpoint of fairness. For example, they could incorporate the principle of equitable estoppel (sorry for the legal phrase) and also provide that certain "illegal" plays, such as those mentioned above, cannot stand, and that spectators are allowed to point them out. Also, the new rule allowing the roll to stand at the opponent's option seems needlessly draconian. I would think that allowing the opponent to see the roll before making his play is sufficient.
In this particular case, I would think the opponent's repeated tolerance of illegal play should estop him from invoking a penalty when it is to his advantage.
This seems to me an interesting recapitulation of the broader political/judicial debate between "strict constructionists" favoring the "rule of law" and those who prefer to see the judge deliver "justice" based on their concept of fairness and justice. My guess is that there's unlikely to be an end to the larger debate, and probably not to this one either.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.