| |
BGonline.org Forums
Legal plays??
Posted By: Matt Cohn-Geier In Response To: Legal plays?? (Gregg Cattanach)
Date: Tuesday, 22 February 2011, at 3:42 p.m.
Since you asked:
How can anyone determine if Opponent B even notices the illegal play that Opponent A didn't notice when he made it?
1) This is perhaps the core of why a 'legal plays' rule makes no sense
There seems to be a logical leap here from "the rule wouldn't always be enforced" to "the rule makes no sense."
and would be un-enforceable.
So that we're not speaking on vague terms, let's clarify with a proposed rule change:
3. ILLEGAL MOVES.
1. If an illegal move is noticed before the opponent has rolled his dice it must be corrected. Only the two players and tournament officials are allowed to point out an illegal move.
2. Undoing of illegal moves in matches played without the use of game clock. Demands for undoing are made by presenting the opponent with the fact. Once the opponent has accepted the fact the dice must be replaced on the board showing the correct value and the move must be remade.
3. Undoing of illegal moves in matches played with a game clock. Demands for undoing are made by stopping the game clock and presenting the opponent with the fact. Once the opponent has accepted the fact, the opponent's time must be restarted on the game clock. When the delay time has run out, the opponent may make a legal move.
4. Repeated illegal moves may result in a warning. If the player continues to make illegal moves, penalty points may be awarded.
This happens to be the current WBA rule. Is there anything unenforceable there? Any more so than any other rule?
It would be impossible to prove that player B saw player A's illegal play and didn't correct it, (and what would be the punishment, anyway?) And any attempt to allow kibitzers to speak up would drive me away from the game in short order.
Why should someone be interested in proving what B saw and punishing B? The rule provides a specific timeframe during which either player or a tournament official (not a kibitzer) can correct an illegal move.
2) If the rule was 'legal plays', then if I innocently DID fail to notice an illegal play by my opponent (perhaps because I was busy contemplating my own next moves instead of worrying about how my opponent was moving his checkers), then in the mind of kibitzers I would instantly be branded a cheater, when actually was merely unobservant.
I can't recall any instance of anyone being branded a "cheater" at any event this rule has been used at. However, when someone condones an illegal (impossible) play as in this thread, some people might see that as unsporting. No rule change is necessary for someone to be branded something unpleasant.
3) 'Legal plays' creates an ethical dilemma EVERY time my opponent makes a negative equity illegal play. I can pretend to not see it and gain equity (and perhaps even gain thousands of dollars), or I could follow the 'rule'. This IS a dilemma no matter how much you whine 'I wouldn't be that way'. The current rule NEVER puts anyone in such a bind.
Where is the ethical dilemma? How does the rule create it? The rule outlines a code of procedures.
The dilemma you are talking about can only arise from morals and ethics (personal, religious, philosophical, political, otherwise), not from the ruleset. One could face all kinds of other dilemmas that don't have anything to do with the rules (for example: I am a skilled dice mechanic. I can manipulate the dice, and perhaps gain a few thousand or hundred thousand dollars, or I can shun my talents).
'Legal plays' is a horrible idea and I've always been amazed how many otherwise terrifically rational people can actually think it would be a good idea. It's stunning, actually. Is it just because the positive word 'legal' is in the phrase??
This is an ad hominem argument (logical fallacy) dressed up in a bunch of rhetoric.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.