| |
BGonline.org Forums
Ruling in Chicago
Posted By: Daniel Murphy In Response To: Ruling in Chicago (Rich Munitz)
Date: Thursday, 3 June 2010, at 6:05 a.m.
Well, we disagree. That's fine.
I don't think the "and roll" was meant to mean anything at all except to say that's what you can do: roll or double, but not dispute the last play. I do think that the rule writer, if he thought of it, may have assumed -- when he direected a player to first "stop the clock" and second "inform the opponent" of the misplay -- that the dice would still be on the table so that the dispute could be resolved with a minimum of controversy over the facts. "It is done that way without clocks" -- so? This is yet another way in which using clocks is advantageous -- it's always clear what one player's roll was until the dice are picked up by the other player.
You and Sam and Steve want to have the director get involved when a player wants to dispute a play but has already destroyed the evidence of the roll by picking up the dice. But none of you have addressed why that player should still have the right to object to a play, given that he hasn't followed the procedure that the rule however unclear it may be does specify of what to do when one wants to dispute an allegedly illegal play -- stop the clock, point out the misplay. On the other hand, he has begun doing what the rule says you should do when you don't want to dispute a play -- pick up the dice.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.