[ 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: Daniel Murphy
Date: Sunday, 25 October 2009, at 5:56 p.m.

In Response To: Time to stir the cauldron again... Appeals committee (Robert Maier)

if the three folks are actually disinterested and knowledgeable, and all three of them think you are wrong, that should mean something to you.

Especially if you were the one that picked the three others, eh?

The case you mention is interesting. I'm not sure I buy the argument that Patrick wasn't interpreting a rule and that no rule applied to the situation. One could point to the plain text of Clock Rule 3.4 ("A player completes his turn by “hitting” the clock with the same hand used in moving, leaving the dice in place on the board") and rule that 3.4 fully covers the situation, and that Player A ended his turn when he hit his clock.

In the 1999 Nordic Open final, one of the players paused, whether to count or consider doubling or assess the position I don't recall, but then hit his clock without rolling or doubling. His opponent then rolled and the match continued. No ruling was asked for.

I don't think Patrick's ruling was bad or unfair, but I don't see that it was more "common sensible" than ruling that Player A's turn was over. Patrick's ruling required more on-the-spot rules revision, since the opposite ruling can be supported with the bare text of the rules. It could be argued that Patrick's ruling added an "idiot rule" clause to Rule 3.4, similar to ruling that borne off checkers that a player has inadvertently placed on the bar aren't really on the bar. But alternatively, one could argue that Patrick's ruling was in accord with one of those unwritten "commonly accepted rules of backgammon" that a player can't (inadvertently or not) pass his turn.

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.

Oh my ... another ambigious rule. I agree that not all rulings can be appealed. But which and why?

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.