PDA

View Full Version : Do arbiters deserve respect??



CameronD
09-10-2007, 05:02 PM
Hi
Opinion sought to see if this is a problem everywhere??

It seems to me that at many tournaments, that arbiters aren't given the respect to perform their duties.

What do you think the disrespect comes from

Basil
09-10-2007, 05:19 PM
Clearly arbiters aren't treated in the same way by everybody. Further, not all arbiters command the same respect as others. There is a further requisite of respecting the office and not the person. I fear these concepts are beyond some people.

The poll asks if arbiters are disrespected. They are - no question. I do not mean to claim by everybody.

Sometimes this disrespect emanates as active behaviour from players and spectators (arguing/ ignoring directives). However, the vast majority is passive (such not listening to tournament announcements/ being slow or ignoring directives such as 'take seats').

Rincewind
09-10-2007, 05:26 PM
The title of this thread and the poll would appear to be cross purposes. I agree that arbiters need respect to discharge their duties efficiently. But part of that respect is generated from be able to discharge their duties efficiently. So it is a catch-22 scenario.

On the other hand, the poll seems to ask about the state of play and I think the current treatment of arbiters, while interesting to get a national appreciation, is really a function of the ability of each individual arbiter.

It is not surprising that juniors would be more respectful of arbiters as most children tend to respond more positively toward authority figures than do many adults. Also the comment about higher rated players doesn't surprise me either as those players know more about chess than the average arbiter and often make the mistake that they believe they know more about arbiting chess than the average arbiter. When you value your own opinion more than that of the arbiter you really aren't going to generate must interest in the instructions they are delivering.

That all being said, I will abstain from voting in the poll other than to say that I agree with the second part of the last option. That respect-wise, people tend to get what they deserve. However, arbiters probably do come off with slightly the rough end of the stick, more often than not.

The other thing to think about is that perhaps a function of the respect shown to arbiters has something to with the mechanics of appeals committees in chess. If three or four chess players can over-ride the decision of an arbiter then that is going to do very little in terms of increasing the respect of arbiters in the minds of players. I am not 100% convinced of the validity of this argument but it is an idea for discussion.

MichaelBaron
09-10-2007, 07:33 PM
I find the question funny. It is a bit like asking "Do software developers deserve respect?" or "Should we respect accountants?".

To me all professionals (including chess arbiters who do their job professionally) deserve respect. All of those, who are not able to handle arbiting duties professionally, should not be regarded as chess arbiters in the first place :).

ElevatorEscapee
09-10-2007, 08:02 PM
I agree with Myke's post above... Arbiters who are either accountants, or computer nerds deserve fully blown maximum respect! :)

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2007, 08:11 PM
My vote is based on my own experience, which may be biased as in some respects many things are a bit more laid-back down here.

I've been involved in arbiting of some sort or other for about 14 years. In all that time the sum total of verifiable disrespect (anecdotes regurgitated by antichrist's suspect memory do not count) that I can recall for my efforts has been:

* One parent who tried to tell me how to do my job, disturbing players in the process.
* A few juniors (maybe three out of thousands I have worked with) with serious mental,behavioural or compulsive cheating problems.
* One defamatory serial troll.

I also find that cases of disrespect towards other arbiters in my state, even where they are clearly in error in their decisions, are very rare.

ER
09-10-2007, 08:20 PM
I think the traditions and general culture of the place the tournament is held has a lot to do with the respect shown to the arbiters.
For example try to be desrespectful to the arbiters at the BHCC (either as a player and/or spectator) and you 'll have another thing coming!
Cheers and good luck!

WhiteElephant
09-10-2007, 08:42 PM
I don't believe that the office/position of arbiter has as much respect as it should in Australian tournaments.

It usually comes down to the individual...if the person doing the job commands respect then the players will listen, if the person is a pushover, then the players, spectators, etc will try to get away with whatever they can.

eclectic
09-10-2007, 08:49 PM
i voted "respected" as a way of saying arbiters should be treated with impartial respect

the "highly respected" option has underpinnings of grovelling

not sure why there are two respect options and three disrepect options

not exactly a balanced poll it would seem

Basil
09-10-2007, 09:31 PM
There appears to be a definition issue. Dare I say 'analogous' in effect to the problem with Tournament Noise #1 :uhoh:

When Charles Zworestine makes his round 3 announcement at 'nowhere comp' in a field of 80 - and 6 players are conducting their own conversations, then disrespect has occurred.

We have all witnessed that scenario. As such, there is no dispute as the either the existence of the facts (players chatting while Charles is talking) or the existence of the conclusion i.e. the existence of disrespect (except for the true snivel libertarians among us).

----------------------------------------

OK, thanks for your attention. Please continue fudging a very cut and dry issue and turning it (as well as any others presented to you) into a non-event.

Vive la status quo! Vive le right to be slightly ineffectual flops!

Garvinator
09-10-2007, 09:51 PM
When Charles Zworestine makes his round 3 announcement at 'nowhere comp' in a field of 80 - and 6 players are conducting their own conversations, then disrespect has occurred. I would venture that the players who kept chatting are the same ones who used to chat at school through the teachers instructions.

I take it from your post that Charles didnt stop the announcements and tell them to STFU or similar? If an arbiter allows it to continue, it is tough to say that isn't how he/she wants to be treated?

Basil
09-10-2007, 09:59 PM
I take it from your post that Charles didnt stop the announcements and tell them to STFU or similar? If an arbiter allows it to continue, it is tough to say that isn't how he/she wants to be treated?

I was talking general terms - this was not a specific event. 'Charles', as a respected and respect-worthy arbiter could have easily been Graeme, you or any one of a number of people for the purpose of the example.

In these numerous examples (wot I 'ave witnessed me' lud), the arbiter has often required a first or second round of shooshing, and generally settles in the end for all but complete compliance - generally to a point where he feels (I'm guessing) that the room is as quiet as one can expect.

I am only aware of one man who brings a room to attention, first with withering presence, and in default (from the mercilessly uninitiated), a public persecution that reduces continuing offenders to subservient acquiescence.

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2007, 10:04 PM
I have often had trouble with noise (mainly in junior events), but seldom had trouble getting players to pay attention when I needed to announce something. However, I have much better than average voice projection skills.

Allan Menham
26-12-2008, 09:20 AM
In any tournament, the Arbiter is entitled to respect and players must abide by his (or her) directions and decisions. With most tournaments, you sign on the nomination form that you will accept the Arbiter's decision.
End of problem!!

Bill Gletsos
26-12-2008, 10:28 AM
In any tournament, the Arbiter is entitled to respect and players must abide by his (or her) directions and decisions. With most tournaments, you sign on the nomination form that you will accept the Arbiter's decision.
End of problem!!Players should always have the right to appeal the arbiters decision.
This right should not be removed by tournament regulations.

Kaitlin
26-12-2008, 10:46 AM
Without haveing a proper reference point to make any obervation on this thread at all.. my opinon is:

Arbiters are respected (or should be ) and do deserve respect but it would be unAustralian to tell them that (so im not voting).. plus they should be made to wear white coats and white broad brimmed hats and fuffly silent slippers so you cant hear them sneeking around :D .... and know all the players middle names so they can use it when talking to them about issues... that would work :D

MichaelBaron
26-12-2008, 01:54 PM
Everybody deserves respect...including arbiters :)

Allan Menham
26-12-2008, 02:55 PM
Hi
How do you appeal against an Arbiters decision given on the day of the tournament with the next round to start in ten minutes?

antichrist
26-12-2008, 02:57 PM
Players should always have the right to appeal the arbiters decision.
This right should not be removed by tournament regulations.

I can remember your predecessor Bob Keast turning up at a touney with a legal document that we all had to sign that the arbitars decision was final etc etc. Was at Parra RSL I think?

ElevatorEscapee
26-12-2008, 03:41 PM
^^ Hi A/C, most of the chess entry forms I sign when entering a tournament have the disclaimer "I agree to abide by the arbiter's decisions". (Maybe this is a localised thingy).

Allan, from my experience (again this may be localised), normally there is an appeals committee nominated at the start of the tournament. If you wish to appeal an arbiter's decision, you must notify the arbiter, and/or a member of the committee as soon as possible. :)

Bill Gletsos
26-12-2008, 03:55 PM
Hi
How do you appeal against an Arbiters decision given on the day of the tournament with the next round to start in ten minutes?Simple.
You appeal it.
The onus is on the arbiter/organiser to form an appeals committee if one has not previously been formed.

CameronD
26-12-2008, 07:03 PM
Simple.
You appeal it.
The onus is on the arbiter/organiser to form an appeals committee if one has not previously been formed.

You would have to ask the organizers, but a lot of the minor weekend tournaments have arbiters rulings final on the entry form, which I would guess are used to remove appeal proceedures.

Do the laws of chess allow organizers to remove the right to appeal Bill

Bill Gletsos
26-12-2008, 07:33 PM
You would have to ask the organizers, but a lot of the minor weekend tournaments have arbiters rulings final on the entry form, which I would guess are used to remove appeal proceedures.BAsed on some decisions I have heard about, it appears a lot of those really should be allowing appeals.

Do the laws of chess allow organizers to remove the right to appeal BillThe current laws make no mention other than stating that Article 10.2 and Article D are final
The 2009 Laws explicitly state that other than those two Article all others can be appealed unless the rules of the competition say otherwise.

Kevin Bonham
26-12-2008, 08:23 PM
In my view all tournament committees should allow for appeals against the arbiters' decisions, unless there is nobody present but the arbiter(s) who is competent to rule on them.

The lack of appeal rights under 10.2 concerns me as I have heard of incorrect decisions made under this rule. I once made a decision under this rule that I am certain was correct but it disappointed me that the aggrieved player (who had lost on time in a fairly easily won position) did not have the option to appeal my ruling.

Allan Menham
27-12-2008, 06:40 AM
In my view all tournament committees should allow for appeals against the arbiters' decisions, unless there is nobody present but the arbiter(s) who is competent to rule on them.

The lack of appeal rights under 10.2 concerns me as I have heard of incorrect decisions made under this rule. I once made a decision under this rule that I am certain was correct but it disappointed me that the aggrieved player (who had lost on time in a fairly easily won position) did not have the option to appeal my ruling.

What about the case where an Arbiter is the only person not playing in a tournament. It would be a bit unfair to interrupt other players games if they are on an appeals committee and a decision was needed quickly. Therefore if the entry form says the decisions of the appointed Arbiter are final, that is the end of the matter. An Arbiter is usually appointed by the organisers of a tournament because they think he can do a good job. That is a good reason why an Arbiter should not play in a tournament so he can be fair and impartial

Ian Rout
27-12-2008, 08:15 AM
It's possible to compose exceptional circumstances where permitting appeals is inconvenient but even for those it's unclear that the "solution" is worse than the problem.

The fact is that arbiters make mistakes. Sometimes the arbiter is inexperienced (everyone has to start somewhere), sometimes is missing some information, sometimes just has to make a quick decision and gets it wrong. We have had over the years several instances reported here, including cases of the arbiter simply not knowing the rules.

Of course it's far more common for the arbiter to be right but people pay and often travel to attend tournaments. It's hardly reasonable for their entire tournament to be ruined by an easily correctable error just so that the schedule won't be set back ten minutes (or wouldn't be set back if it had happened at another point, more commonly appeals don't have this effect).

I think it's reasonable though to require a bond to submit an appeal to discourage frivolous appeals, though I've come across very few of these; most appeals even when dismissed have some reasonable basis.

CameronD
27-12-2008, 08:29 AM
Lawn bowls have a bond appeal system of $100 for an umpires decision, that can take weeks, but may end up overtuurning the result


It's possible to compose exceptional circumstances where permitting appeals is inconvenient but even for those it's unclear that the "solution" is worse than the problem.

The fact is that arbiters make mistakes. Sometimes the arbiter is inexperienced (everyone has to start somewhere), sometimes is missing some information, sometimes just has to make a quick decision and gets it wrong. We have had over the years several instances reported here, including cases of the arbiter simply not knowing the rules.

Of course it's far more common for the arbiter to be right but people pay and often travel to attend tournaments. It's hardly reasonable for their entire tournament to be ruined by an easily correctable error just so that the schedule won't be set back ten minutes (or wouldn't be set back if it had happened at another point, more commonly appeals don't have this effect).

I think it's reasonable though to require a bond to submit an appeal to discourage frivolous appeals, though I've come across very few of these; most appeals even when dismissed have some reasonable basis.

ER
27-12-2008, 11:04 PM
Lawn bowls have a bond appeal system of $100 for an umpires decision, that can take weeks, but may end up overtuurning the result

How about using that system at the GAP CC, carefull with the leeks tho, they might get rotten meanwhile :P

Kevin Bonham
28-12-2008, 07:25 PM
What about the case where an Arbiter is the only person not playing in a tournament. It would be a bit unfair to interrupt other players games if they are on an appeals committee and a decision was needed quickly.

Usually a game that is decided by 10.2 is one of the last remaining in a round so if there was an appeal it would be possible for players who have finished their game to rule on it. The problem is that nearly all players do not understand that rule (and a lot of arbiters struggle with it too, including Gijssen!)

I agree that where an appeal occurs mid-game it is impossible to convene an appeals committee from among the players and in such cases there is not much value having one (unless there's an option to reschedule the game after the apellant loses).


That is a good reason why an Arbiter should not play in a tournament so he can be fair and impartial

Or if you have too few entrants for the Arbiter to sit out then another option is to have assistant arbiters who rule on cases where the main arbiter is directly involved or has a personal interest in the outcome.