| |
BGonline.org Forums
CA State Champion*/LA Calcutta {long, boring}
Posted By: Bill Riles In Response To: CA State Champion*/LA Calcutta {long, boring} (Jason Lee)
Date: Thursday, 10 December 2009, at 12:04 a.m.
I must have arrived about the same time as Jason -- I did not see the director action on the time loss; I did not see the first rolls of the subject game, including the 3-3; but I did see/hear all of the discussion thereafter.
As a first aside, I will note I played with two different clocks in LA with plungers so sensitive it was all but impossible to center them. So, I'll accept the prior clock episode as incidental.
I know Ray much better than I know Joe, I regard them both as friends. I personally have never seen nor experienced any play by either that would cause me to question their integrity. Both have treated me well and have been most helpful -- in person and on the forum. Ray has his emotional moments, but I take them at face value -- I've had my own moments. He hates to lose (as many of us do) but I've never seen him try to illegally win.
I know Ray and Joe have a personal history in match play between themselves and, doubtlessly/obviously, get under each other's skin -- naturally and, at times I feel, purposefully. I know Norm Wiggins is a good friend of Ray's, and has previously had his own incident(s) with Joe. I know Bob Glass is a good friend of Joe's and, seemingly, does not get along with Ray.
I, like Jason, think Patrick made the wrong decision at the time. If he was going to discount Norm's testimony based on his history with both players, then he should have never asked for Norm's testimony, nor Bob Glass's testimony. I don't know Richard Armbruster, his history, allegiances, or reason for not wanting to tell what he saw -- his comments and actions made it appear he knew but preferred not to say, perhaps not wanting to alienate one of the players. I know Stepan Nuniyants quite well and asked him, point blank, the next morning who had the first roll -- he said he would have stepped up and said if he knew, but he didn't know (he may have only arrived slight before me, I don't know.)
I find it most unfortunate that two world class, respected players cannot agree three rolls into a game the sequence of the obvious rolls -- there was no question by anyone, including the players, that a 6-5, 4-3, and 3-3 had been rolled; only the sequence (was the 6-5 first or the 4-3 first?). I am convinced both of the players knew the sequence and someone was not being truthful, and that is egregious. What brought it to that point I don't know, I wasn't there earlier.
Yes, both players testimony and answers at times seemed uncertain. However, Patrick was asking each for not only their recollection but also was asking each conditional questions -- 'if' this happened, then what? 'if' that happened, then what? is this/that possible?. So, I can see the uncertainty and hesitancy by each when trying to defend or analyze a negative.
Patrick has a terribly difficult job and I have the utmost respect for him. I know he always attempts to objectively make the most fair ruling based on the evidence. But by asking Norm what happened and then discounting his testimony -- the only non-participant testimony -- does he not call Norm's integrity into question? As an aside, I can think of no one I know in the ABT community I have a higher regard for than Norm Wiggins -- certainly, in my estimation, a number of others equal his integrity and regard, but none surpass.
How could it have been most fairly resolved? I don't know. I think all tournament directors must recognize in such circumstances who the witnesses are (and ascertain any potential bias) and establish, among the witnesses, who was there during the actual event in question. Only then, should the director ask for input from those witnesses he/she deems qualified, impartial, and whose testimony he/she will accept. Among these 'qualified' witnesses, testimony, and refusal to testify, should then be considered. And, of course, a director's 'qualification' of witnesses can only take us down another slippery slope.
I don't personally know for certain what happened or who was telling the truth. Based solely on the testimony of Norm Wiggins I would have decided in favor of Ray -- it being the only non-participant testimony. Rolling for high die to make a decision must be the absolute last option -- these are civil matters (usually, lol) so the 'preponderance of the evidence' should govern, not 'any reasonable doubt'.
I doubt the one ruling on the third roll of a game significantly influenced the outcome of the match -- we'll never know. Joe and Ray are both great players and both played well throughout the weekend. I congratulate them both -- Joe for winning the tournament, Ray for placing third and winning the 2009 ABT title.
We should learn from the dispute (all of us) and move on.
And, Patrick, next time put a monitor on their match !!
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.