| |
BGonline.org Forums
KIbitzers should STFU unless asked or appointed as monitor
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: KIbitzers should STFU unless asked or appointed as monitor (Daniel Murphy)
Date: Friday, 25 February 2011, at 9:11 a.m.
Daniel, I like your list for discussion, but I'd like to add a couple of things:
1. ...
a. Should certain kinds of misplays be deemed "impossible," not "illegal," and thus should always be corrected?
b. If so, at what time does that misplay become uncorrectable?
c. Should the rules allow a player to condone an illegal play, or should the rules require "legal moves only"?
d. If the rule is "legal moves only," at what time does an illegal move become uncorrectable?
e. If the rule is "legal moves only," should spectators be allowed to comment on a play that may have been illegal?
I think from reading this thread, that there is some ambiguity about how a "legal moves" rule would be worded and how it should be interpreted.The main issue is this: Do the non-offending player have an obligation to call an illegal move? Or is it rather an option, as in the current rules? There's no doubt, that if the player making the illegal move spots it and yell out before his opponent rolls he is within his right to correct that move. But are you as the opponent bound to call it if you see it? I think some of the posts in this thread, mainly by MCG and Stick, opens the door on letting it pass. If you spot it and don't speak up then what the heck! I think MCG even used the word "may" instead of "must" in his post describing the WBA rule.
If this is the case then "legal moves" become something in-between, which might be very useful - especially if combined with a rule listed impossible moves, that must be corrected.
It would eliminate the "monitoring duty" that Gregg and others describe, which they feel they are given for their opponents play, in a legal moves game.
It also eliminates the "cheater" aspect completely. No need to ponder if your opponent really didn't see that negative equity illegal move you just played! Did he let is slip pass because he wanted the shot i volunteered by mis-reading the dice?
And finally, if you supply a list of "impossible moves" you'd get rid of these completely stupid situations where something crazy happens, that costs double digit match equity, because your opponent simply try to exploit the rules to the max for his own benefit (without cheating I must add).
----
Ideas to the list of "impossible" moves:
Putting a checker on the bar that is not hit.
Removing a checker from the game, that is not borne off legally.
Removing a checker from the bar, which hasn't entered legally.
Moving your opponent's checkers.
Moving backwards.
Not moving at all (not rolling or not playing a roll that could be played)I imagine that illegal moves in this category should be corrected, if noticed before the end of the next turn. That is, even if the other player has rolled his dice, these moves should be corrected, and the player should re-roll.
----
You'd in effect end up with a rule that:
- Enforced strict legal moves only, for the above group of major misplays. Not even giving the other player a chance to "condone" it by rolling fast.
- Allowed a player to correct his "minor" illegal move until his opponent have rolled his dice. - Allowed a player to condone a minor illegal move by rolling his dice, thus not requiring that you monitor all your opponents moves and help him, and not giving you a feeling of being a cheat, if you honestly miss an illegal move and roll.How about that?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.