[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Time to stir the cauldron again... Appeals committee

Posted By: Robert Maier
Date: Saturday, 24 October 2009, at 8:06 p.m.

In Response To: Time to stir the cauldron again... Appeals committee (Chuck Bower)

I don't understand the explanation. If the situation calls for a ruling, and one player feels like a committee is required, then whichever way the ruling goes, whomever makes it, one player is going to have a bad taste in their mouth about the tournament. If the director makes the final decision, then the bad taste is also associated with him/her personally. Also, the taint is directly associated to them, if the ruling is controversial and in favor of a known friend and/or against a known adversary. If a committee makes the final decision, doesn't that disperse some of the ill will? I mean, if the three folks are actually disinterested and knowledgeable, and all three of them think you are wrong, that should mean something to you. I know when 3 smart people tell me I'm wrong about something, I recheck what I'm doing. I'm willing to bet that most of the time I'm the one making a mistake in that case as well.

Note that I'm not saying that every time a director makes a ruling that they should be required to call a committee when asked. One of the rules at the last LA tournament was, paraphrasing....if your opponent punches the clock without rolling the dice, in a position where he could move, he does not lose his turn. his clock should be restarted and he should roll... apparently, some folks get used to auto punching the clock when they are closed out, and punch it again after the six point is cleared. It is a rule/interpretation that at least at time, and probably now as well, was not by any means universally agreed with. I'm nearly certain that none of the US clock rules or tournament rules address the issue. I'm sure Patrick could easily have picked 3 disinterested and knowledgeable players for a committee and been unanimously overruled. However, Patrick wasn't interpreting a rule or an ambiguous sequence of events. He had already made the rule, if A happens then B results, period. I happen to agree with him, irrelevant or harmful as it might be to say so.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm glad the rules include a provision for an appeal, which I'm more than happy to cooperate with, and as of yet do not understand why others would not. It also doesn't particularly bother me if others don't. They are welcome to as much abuse as they like.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.