| |
BGonline.org Forums
ruling in Madison
Posted By: Rich Munitz In Response To: ruling in Madison (Gregg Cattanach)
Date: Tuesday, 8 September 2009, at 5:00 a.m.
"5.2 STOPPING THE CLOCK. A player stops both clocks, ... (d) to contest an opponent’s action,"
Why would an illegal play not fall under (d)? Certainly if it is immediately obvious that you want the play corrected, nothing requires that you stop the clock, but I would interpret (d) as if you want to contest the action of an illegal play and want to consider the choice that you could stop the clock, state that they have moved illegally to do so. As Neil points out, why should your time be penalized because of an opponent's illegal move? Now I'd also say that you should not be given unlimited time to count pips or compute match equities and things of that nature in order to decide about correcting the illegal play. So what's reasonable?
In my opinion, the rule should be ammended so that the opponent considering correction of an illegal play should immediately state "illegal play" then think, then either state "play legally" or "illegal play stands" and then hit the clock regardless. The player then corrects the play if required, or does nothing if required and then hits the clock. The idea being that the opponent has the delay time to consider whether to require correction and is then on his clock if he wishes to think longer. He then gets a new full delay time to make his move.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.