| |
BGonline.org Forums
A Very Tough Ruling in the Cleveland Finals
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: A Very Tough Ruling in the Cleveland Finals (Chuck Bower)
Date: Wednesday, 30 March 2011, at 8:27 p.m.
Chuck, I think this should be possible (to slowly iron out the differences in rules over time).
More and more games are played between players from different federations, more "tours" are crossing borders and federations and as a result, the "need" to adjust and/or adopt rules are bigger than ever.
However, it's not something that can be accomplished in a weekend. But if the various stakeholders can agree to this as a long term goal, slow progress could pave the way to one unified set of rules for the entire BG world.
I know for certain, that the current DBgF tournament committee is a very openminded set of people, not being stubborn about our rules being best or never going to be changed. You have Steen as the chairman, who have applied changes/adoptions to make Nordic Open fit with other tournaments in Europe. You have me, who was co-author of the DBgF v2.0 rules, and we still have contact with Morten Aagreen who was the main architect of that rule revision. The committee is just 4 persons, so our decision process is not that cumbersome.
Of course all changes would need careful discussion in and between the different federations. But why should it be impossible? Once you get enough people pushing in the same direction, everyone will move.
----
On the topic of rules being more specific covering all thinkable scenarious, and the discussion on USBGF's role in the process of unifying and optimizing the rules across the US (to begin with), I would recommend an idea that we did in the DBgF some years ago (as follow up to the big rule-change back then): Publishing DBgF Rule Decisions.
It's a very flexible way of continually improving the impact of the rules and focusing on issues that seems to come up often, due to TDs ruling different, or players not knowing the rules properly.
One thing we did with the rule change back then was to make tournament directors report any disputes and rulings to the DBgF after their tournaments. That way we could track if TDs were ruling in the spirit of the rules, the way we intended them. And we could publish "official decisions" in case it was needed. Finally it allowed us to monitor, if any TDs were abusing their position (eg. you can reject any player to participate at your event, without giving that player a reason/explaination, but you have to explain it to the DBgF afterwards - so private reasons such as "I just don't like him" or "He owes money to one of my friends", etc. will not be acceptable reasons and that TD will be told so.
Maybe the USBGF could slowly come into play by publishing similar decisions - or interpretations - of the rules used at the ABT and other tours in US. Writing supporting documents such as the ethical one, the detailed clock etiquette, etc. Going in that direction, you could become the community for the TDs that you want to be, working towards consistency across the individual ABT tournaments. If you succeed, the next steps from there are obvious.
----
And Chuck, BTW: we are currently discussing on the DBgF forum, if we should change the exact rule that you referred to here - sparked by that very bgo thread about the LHS ruling. I think the broad opinion is, that an even more "open" rule on LHS would be very useful, allowing all rolls to stand which comes to rest flat on the playing surface (no matter what side of the board).
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.