| |
BGonline.org Forums
KIbitzers should STFU unless asked or appointed as monitor
Posted By: Robert Maier In Response To: KIbitzers should STFU unless asked or appointed as monitor (Daniel Murphy)
Date: Friday, 25 February 2011, at 11:46 p.m.
"2. Could you clarify what, in your mind, leads you to make a different TD decision (under current U.S. rules) in the Ray/Bill position and Matt's position? Seems to me that although different (in one, Player plays 15/11*/bar instead of 15/11*/7/3, in the other Player plays 3/bar instead of 3/off), but nearly the same (your question, "did you mean to put yourself on the bar?" applies to both positions). So what's the key difference for you? Is it only the weight of precedent in such positions? Or is there something else?"
in the Ray/Bill position, I assume that the checker Bill was moving 4 at a time actually hit the blot on the 3 point, and the blot on the 3 point went on the bar. In other words, his physical actions indicated he thought he was hitting that checker and placing it on the bar.
The US rules 4.4 read "4.4 CHECKER HANDLING. Checkers which have been hit must be kept on the bar pending reentry. ***Checkers which have been borne off must be kept off the entire playing surface for the rest of the game.*** A player with a checker illegally removed from play may still be gammoned or backgammoned.
So I suppose what I'm saying that is if you intend to bear a checker off, and you grab it, it's borne off at that time. If it's borne off, it doesn't belong on the bar.
In my mind, there is plenty of precedent in the US for a player hitting his checker and putting it on the bar. Most (not all) rulings that I'm aware of require the checker to remain on the bar if the opponent wishes it to.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.