FIDE Arbiters' Magazine #4

[losboba]

Has anybody already seen the last issue of the the Arbiters' Magazine? (http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stor...ruary_2017.pdf)

The "Case C – Displaced Captured Piece" (pag. 12) is quite surprising - for the 'official'(?) opinions expressed at the end: "The White player captures a Black piece, by using a White piece to push aside the Black piece that is being captured. However, the White player performs the capture by just slightly pushing the captured Black piece aside, but does not actually remove the captured Black piece from the chessboard. The White player then presses his clock ... " (then the article continues).

Isn't this an illegal move, accordingly to article 3.1? ... If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move...

losboba

[Ian Rout]

I think the point is that it's not deemed to be a "move" as it's an act of negligence rather than specifically placing a piece in a position, and therefore only deserving of a lesser penalty than loss of the game. In the same way, knocking over a piece, or accidentally pushing one to another square would be handled that way.

However as noted in the ruling, the arbiter was at fault in not stepping in when the piece was left on the board. The laws require the arbiter to ensure that the laws are followed, and it's therefore not Black's responsibility to claim. Black, who was the only participant not at fault, is somewhat unfortunate to be the one who loses. It sounds like the result is so tainted by the arbiter's error that the games should be replayed.

[Kaitlin]

And an investigation commenced into whether any illegal bets were placed that that would happen on that specific move number. Got to come down hard on this type of stuff now before it gets more entrenched

[Pierre Dénommée]

In my opinion, the correct ruling is a penalty for pressing the clock without making a move.

6.2

a. During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
1. the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c, 9.6a, 9.6b and 9.7), or
2. the player has made his next move, in case his previous move was not completed.
b. A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move. The time between making the move on the chessboard and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.
c. A player must press his clock with the same hand with which he made his move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the clock or to ‘hover’ over it.
The players must handle the chessclock properly. It is forbidden to press it forcibly, to pick it up, to press the clock before moving or to knock it over. Improper clock handling shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9.

Instead of "press the clock before moving", "press the clock before a move have been made would have been better", but it is still clear from the bolded part of 6.2.a that a clock cannot be pressed without making a move.

The greatest sin of this article, speaking as a local lecturer (not FIDE), is that all beginning arbiters should be instructed to look for defeat avoidance tactics in blitz games and declare the game lost for the offender. For example, a player drops a piece to the ground, press his clock, stand-up, gets the piece an put it back on the right square, there is one second left on the player's clock. The arbiter must declare the game lost for the player because clearly, if he had followed the rules, his flag would have fallen. Article 7.4 does not limit the penalty to a mere one minute. Arbiters should ensure that, contrary to many other sports, there should not be cases in which it is advantageous for a player or a team to deliberately take a minor penalty rather then face more dire consequences. This is why a single illegal move looses the game in blitz, otherwise, it could be advantageous for a player who is out of time to give his opponent one minute in exchange for a game stoppage at the right moment. The player could continue thinking on the game until the arbiter arrives, add the one minute and resume the game. Before the game resumption, the offending player could easily get two extra minutes thinking time, enough to find a win that he has not seen previously.

[Jesper Norgaard]

In my opinion, the correct ruling is a penalty for pressing the clock without making a move.
Instead of "press the clock before moving", "press the clock before a move have been made would have been better", but it is still clear from the bolded part of 6.2.a that a clock cannot be pressed without making a move.

This formulation of 6.2.a is a clumsy attempt to state that you are only allowed to complete a move (by pressing the clock) after you have actually made a move. However, there are several obvious problems. First of all you are allowed to press the clock (without moving) as Black before White makes his first move. This may be within the arbiter's duties to start the clock in some jurisdictions, not in others. Second, what if you thought you just made a move, but you have forgotten to press the clock? Only a fool would deny the player the right to press the clock, but as we see, it really depends on what moves and clock presses have just been made. Once my opponent went to the loo and came out and saw I hadn't played a move, but his clock was stilling running, so naturally he pressed the clock, thinking he had forgotten to press the clock. In fact I had played Kg2 to protect my queen, although the position appeared unaltered to him.

If being very literal (and perhaps a bit pathetic), before moving 2.Nf3 you were allowed to press the clock, when completing the move 1.e4, so it becomes a tale of if the hen or the egg came first.

Consider these events
A. White plays 1.e4
B. Black quickly responds 1...c5
C. White presses the clock to complete 1.e4
D. Black presses the clock to complete 1...c5

Clearly in C and D the player was not moving immediately before pressing the clock, although they were in a technical sense since C came after A, and D came after B.

The greatest sin of this article, speaking as a local lecturer (not FIDE), is that all beginning arbiters should be instructed to look for defeat avoidance tactics in blitz games and declare the game lost for the offender. For example, a player drops a piece to the ground, press his clock, stand-up, gets the piece an put it back on the right square, there is one second left on the player's clock. The arbiter must declare the game lost for the player because clearly, if he had followed the rules, his flag would have fallen. Article 7.4 does not limit the penalty to a mere one minute. Arbiters should ensure that, contrary to many other sports, there should not be cases in which it is advantageous for a player or a team to deliberately take a minor penalty rather then face more dire consequences. This is why a single illegal move looses the game in blitz, otherwise, it could be advantageous for a player who is out of time to give his opponent one minute in exchange for a game stoppage at the right moment. The player could continue thinking on the game until the arbiter arrives, add the one minute and resume the game. Before the game resumption, the offending player could easily get two extra minutes thinking time, enough to find a win that he has not seen previously.

This is the first full explanation I have seen why a single illegal move must lose in Blitz and Rapid. I appreciate that. I don't know if that is the only purpose, or it was also an attempt to avoid that arbiters will be bothered with illegal moves in quick games, as in "we shoot horses, when they break a leg, don't we?"

I think that a better option would be to deduct half the time as the penalty for making an illegal move, which would be a fair (and proportionate) penalty for all clock times in Standard, Rapid or Blitz games. That would not make it so attractive to commit the infraction deliberately as it is now in Standard games, and it would be less Draconian than the loss of game that prevails in the quicker formats of chess.

It has always felt wrong to me to give the penalty for an illegal move as two minutes added to the clock of the opponent. It is like telling a bank robber "You won't go to jail, but instead we will give the terrible punishment that we give a raise to the bank manager". Ahem, ridiculous, isn't it?

[Kevin Bonham]

The case for illegal move:

3.1 It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour. If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.

3.10

A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9

The case for pressing the clock without making the move:

4.7
When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is considered to have been made in the case of:
a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand.

My ruling would be illegal move. The reason is that if you deem the player to have not made a full move but just pressed the clock without making a move, you open the door to other such claims. For instance the player slides their knight from c3 to c4 to d4, releases it on d4 and presses their clock. They then say that they meant to move it to d5 and hadn't finished their move. Pressing the clock means an incomplete move that is on the board becomes completed as an illegal move. There is strictly no such thing as "making" an illegal move.

Whatever it is, it isn't "displaced piece". Which piece is displaced, the moving piece? No, it has moved where it was meant to go. The captured piece? No, it hasn't moved at all and anyway its proper place is off the board. Displaced piece is a concept that refers to accidents, like knocking pieces over or off the centre of their squares, not to failure to finish the requirements of the move.

PS I thought Pierre's explanation of why illegal move should be a loss in blitz was excellent.

[Jesper Norgaard]

You are right that a transposition of pieces on the board that could never constitute a legal move, per the article 3.10 CAN be interpreted as an illegal move. However, the obvious question is what the articles 7.4 and 7.6 are for at all.

7.4
If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position in his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the chessclock and ask for the arbiter’s assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.

7.6
If, during a game, it is found that any piece has been displaced from its correct square the position before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

The case details are: "The White player captures a Black piece, by using a White piece to push aside the Black piece that is being captured.
However, the White player performs the capture by just slightly pushing the captured Black piece aside, but does not
actually remove the captured Black piece from the chessboard. The White player then presses his clock."

The captured piece could be displaced on any square on the board. Since the move of the white piece was a legal move, the only thing missing was removing the piece captured, it was only pushed aside. It doesn't matter if it was pushed to an adjacent square, or the majority of the piece in fact stayed on the square it was before the move, or lying on the board. It would be displaced in my view. I don't know if you see the case different whether it was displaced to a different square or it stayed on the same square, I insist they should be handled the same way.

FEN Viewer

In the above position White plays Re1xe8 but knocks over the Black queen, removes the black rook from the board, and presses the clock. The black queen was displaced in the process. I would clearly invoke 7.6 in this case. The black queen is not on the correct square d5 (it is lying on the board).

Likewise if White plays Re1xe8 and pushes the black rook towards e9 but not quite outside the board and presses the clock, it is still a displacement in my view, the black rook has no correct square on the board any longer after the move, so it is a displacement if it occupies a square (e8) on the board.

You wrote "Displaced piece is a concept that refers to accidents, like knocking pieces over or off the centre of their squares, not to failure to finish the requirements of the move." That was exactly what happened here to the black rook, it was displaced off the centre of its square (e8). If it had been displaced to d8, would it have been a different case for you?

To me a legal move will always be moving your own piece from one square to another, and anything else that happens to the pieces on the board is irrelevant, it will not make the move illegal, but will instead be a piece displacement. The sole exception is castling.

However if we reverse the rooks, and the white rook ends up on d8, and the black rook on e8, a rook cannot be moved from e1 to d8, so it is an illegal move.

If the forefathers of Laws of Chess would have wanted the infraction of not removing a captured piece from the board as an illegal move, they would have said so explicitly IMHO.

The following two similar cases should be handled exactly alike, as a piece displacement. They both end up with exactly the same placement of pieces.

FEN Viewer

White picks up the white rook on e1 and places it on e8, but then removes a black rook from the side and places it on e8, and presses the clock.
The only legal move is Re1-e8. There is a white rook and a black rook on e8.

FEN Viewer

White picks up the white rook on e1 and places it on e8, but doesn't remove the black rook from e8. The only legal move is Re1xe8. There is a white rook and a black rook on e8.

[Kevin Bonham]

Displaced piece also refers to a player accidentally causing a piece to be on the wrong square. For instance a player knocks some pieces over, puts them back on the board, but in the process puts a bishop on the wrong colour square and now has two bishops on the same coloured squares. The most likely explanation if the arbiter sees this is an accident rather than an actual illegal move.

In the above position White plays Re1xe8 but knocks over the Black queen, removes the black rook from the board, and presses the clock. The black queen was displaced in the process. I would clearly invoke 7.6 in this case. The black queen is not on the correct square d5 (it is lying on the board).

I would invoke 7.4 in this case not 7.6. 7.4 seems more to refer to the case where it has just happened, 7.6 to the case where it is found that it happened earlier in the game.

Likewise if White plays Re1xe8 and pushes the black rook towards e9 but not quite outside the board and presses the clock, it is still a displacement in my view, the black rook has no correct square on the board any longer after the move, so it is a displacement if it occupies a square (e8) on the board.

While pushing a piece one millimetre outside e8 is technically legal as the piece has been removed from the "chessboard", it is not how the very vast majority of players capture pieces, and it should not be encouraged. Maybe the player actually intended to push the piece just off e8 but wasn't successful, but far more likely the player was in such a rush to press the clock that they didn't even care about making a proper attempt to take the piece off the board.

You wrote "Displaced piece is a concept that refers to accidents, like knocking pieces over or off the centre of their squares, not to failure to finish the requirements of the move." That was exactly what happened here to the black rook, it was displaced off the centre of its square (e8).

Not the same thing. By knocking pieces off the centre of their squares, I mean something like that a pawn is standing on d4 and while moving another piece, the player brushes the pawn so it is either right on the edge of d4 (off-centre) or perhaps even partly on another square. The piece was meant to be on d4, it is just accidentally not clearly in the centre of its square. Whereas with the capture of the black rook, it is meant to no longer be on the centre of e8 - the problem is that it is meant to be off the board entirely but the player hasn't made enough of an attempt to put it there.

If it had been displaced[sic] to d8, would it have been a different case for you?

No. I would also call that an illegal move.

To me a legal move will always be moving your own piece from one square to another, and anything else that happens to the pieces on the board is irrelevant, it will not make the move illegal, but will instead be a piece displacement.

Except this is not what the Laws say. 3.1 and 3.10 make it completely clear that the concept of legal move is not solely concerned with moving one's own pieces, but in the case of captures also involves one's opponents pieces.

If the forefathers of Laws of Chess would have wanted the infraction of not removing a captured piece from the board as an illegal move, they would have said so explicitly IMHO.

In my view they do say so explicitly via 3.1 and 3.10. Even if that is somehow not considered explicit, I can think of cases where the intentions have been known and yet things are much less clearly spelled out. An excellent example being the case of the player who moves on their opponent's time (after the opponent has moved but before the opponent has pressed their clock.) This is legal and has been clarified as legal over and over again. But it is nowhere near as explicit as it could be. The Rules Commission have actually ruled that they do not think they need to spell it out and that the current Laws make it clear enough. So obviously they don't think anything near to your desired level of nailing things down is a good idea, probably because they don't want the Laws to be 100 pages long.

White picks up the white rook on e1 and places it on e8, but then removes a black rook from the side and places it on e8, and presses the clock.

Why on earth would White even do this? This is a situation so bizarre that I do not think it is explicitly covered. If the player has done it deliberately I am just going to default them for cheating and invoke the Preface (uncovered situation analogous to deliberate illegal move). They can appeal if they like but I don't like their chances of convincing the appeal committee that my ruling is wrong.

If they have somehow accidentally knocked the black rook from off the board onto e8 then that is an accident and I treat it as similar to the displaced piece rule. The difference is that in this case the player has not failed to complete any required action, they have just accidentally knocked a captured piece onto the board. Whereas with the capture a required action is to remove the piece.

[Pierre Dénommée]

This formulation of 6.2.a is a clumsy attempt to state that you are only allowed to complete a move (by pressing the clock) after you have actually made a move. However, there are several obvious problems. First of all you are allowed to press the clock (without moving) as Black before White makes his first move.

Only with obsolete mechanical clocks and one model of non-FIDE endorsed electronic clock that I know. DGT 2000, 2010, and XL clock are started by pushing the start button. C.02.5.1 is silent on how the clock is activated at the beginning of the game.

Article 6.2.a begins with during a game. At the beginning of the game, we follow Article 6.6. At the time determined for the start of the game White’s clock is started. The Article does not care how the clock is started or by whom it is started.

Once my opponent went to the loo and came out and saw I hadn't played a move, but his clock was stilling running, so naturally he pressed the clock, thinking he had forgotten to press the clock. In fact I had played Kg2 to protect my queen, although the position appeared unaltered to him.

If being very literal (and perhaps a bit pathetic), before moving 2.Nf3 you were allowed to press the clock, when completing the move 1.e4, so it becomes a tale of if the hen or the egg came first.

Consider these events
A. White plays 1.e4
B. Black quickly responds 1...c5
C. White presses the clock to complete 1.e4
D. Black presses the clock to complete 1...c5

Clearly in C and D the player was not moving immediately before pressing the clock, although they were in a technical sense since C came after A, and D came after B.

There is no requirement to press immediately after making a move. A player may play 1. e4, go the washroom, order a coffee and press upon returning to the board. The requirement is that first a move is made and only after, the clock is pressed. The relevant Article ia 6.2.a

During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c, 9.6a, 9.6b and 9.7), or
the player has made his next move, in case his previous move was not completed.
A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move. The time between making the move on the chessboard and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.

Actually, you could get many moves behind. Two children playing in the beginner's section of the 2015 Canadian Open did complain to the arbiter that the clock has failed to add time at move 40. They have reached move 40 in around 30 minutes of real time. Inspection of the clock revealed that it has been pressed only 23 times. I have suggested to FIDE that the clock should a all time display the number of times that it has been pressed, but this has been rejected. That would remove all the problems caused by the omission to press or by pressing without making a move. On many chess clocks, the player can press a button to obtain this information, but it is rarely done.

This is the first full explanation I have seen why a single illegal move must lose in Blitz and Rapid. I appreciate that. I don't know if that is the only purpose, or it was also an attempt to avoid that arbiters will be bothered with illegal moves in quick games, as in "we shoot horses, when they break a leg, don't we?"

I think that a better option would be to deduct half the time as the penalty for making an illegal move, which would be a fair (and proportionate) penalty for all clock times in Standard, Rapid or Blitz games. That would not make it so attractive to commit the infraction deliberately as it is now in Standard games, and it would be less Draconian than the loss of game that prevails in the quicker formats of chess.

It has always felt wrong to me to give the penalty for an illegal move as two minutes added to the clock of the opponent. It is like telling a bank robber "You won't go to jail, but instead we will give the terrible punishment that we give a raise to the bank manager". Ahem, ridiculous, isn't it?

FIDE has removed all mandatory time deductions from the Laws of Chess. In the 1977 version of the Laws, 5 minutes were subtracted from the clock of a player for a false triple repetition claim. Now, FIDE believe that is is unreasonable for a player to loose the game for this violation. As time goes, this penalty has become more and more lenient. I agree that time subtraction is the right way to deprive a player who is seeking an illegitimate game stoppage of the advantage that he his seeking. I will apply the rules as voted by FIDE, which means no time deduction for illegal moves and for false triple repetition draw claims. The Laws of Chess are frozen for the next 4 years.

[Pierre Dénommée]

The case for illegal move:

3.1 It is not permitted to move a piece to a square occupied by a piece of the same colour. If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.

3.10

A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9

The case for pressing the clock without making the move:

4.7
When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is considered to have been made in the case of:
a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand.

My ruling would be illegal move.

When the new Laws of Chess come into force, there will be no practical difference for a first offence.

7.8.1 The player is not allowed to press the clock without making a move.
7.8.2 For the first violation of the rule 7.8.1, the arbiter shall warn the player and may give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second violation of the rule 7.8.1 by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

Illegal move and making a move without pressing the clock will carry the exact same penalty. But if it is not the first offence, then it would be extremely relevant. For example, if a player has played Nc3-d4 in the same game and got a 2 minutes penalty, your ruling would cost him the game.

In the next Laws of Chess, FIDE has moved this from rapidplay to standard game An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock, it will replace the expression an illegal move has been completed. This will give a different criteria for the completion of a move and for the completion of an illegal move. If a player has played 30 moves but has pressed the clock 28 times, his move will be completed when his next move has been made.

Article 6.2

a. During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move. A move is also completed if:
the move ends the game (see Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c, 9.6a, 9.6b and 9.7), or
the player has made his next move, in case his previous move was not completed.

But with the new wording, any illegal move played by the player will be immediately completed as soon as the clock has been pressed even if the move is not completed under 6.2.a . We now have 2 definitions, one for a completed move and one for a completed illegal move.

Before Stewart Reuben's rewriting of the Laws of Chess in 1997, we had those Articles

4.1 With the exception of castling (Article 5.1(b)), a move is the transfer by a player of one of his pieces from one square to another square, which is either vacant or occupied by an opponent's piece.
[A capture is, therefore, merely a certain type of move.]

4.2 No piece, except the rook when castling (Article 5.1(b)) and the knight (Article 5.5), may cross a square occupied by another piece.
4.3 A piece played to a square occupied by an opponent's piece captures it as part of the same move. The captured piece must be removed immediately from the chessboard by the player making the capture (see Article 5.6(c) for capturing "en passant").

The removal of the piece was mandatory. but not a formal part of the definition of a move which was 4.1 . Under those Laws, the player would have made a move even without removing the piece.

I agree with your argument and I find it disturbing that two conclusions could be reached without violating any rules. The only way that I could demolish your argument is by stating that the removal of the piece is not a relevant part of Article 3.1, but that would be ludicrous. Off course, the captured piece must be removed.

[Jesper Norgaard]

There are 2 other moves that involves several pieces besides the capture. Those are castling and promotion of a pawn. Evaluating them I have come to the conclusion that I cannot see any point in considering them partly executed as anything other than an illegal move.

Suppose a player pushes a pawn to the eighth rank, but does not replace it with a promotion piece (not a pawn). That is explicitly stated as an illegal move in
article 7.5.a, but it is also pretty clear from 3.7.e that the pawn must be replaced with a promotion piece.

Suppose a player moves the king two squares towards a rook with which it is legal to castle. But when doing so, he forgets to move the rook over the king onto the adjacent square. For instance White plays Ke1-g1 but then refrains from moving the h1 rook to f1, and presses the clock. I cannot see that as anything other than an illegal move.

Comparing these two cases to the capture, it follows that performing the capture without actually removing the piece from the board, is also an illegal move. So I have to retract what I argued in post #7, I no longer hold that view.

However, I still hold the view that any displacement to pieces on the board which are not explicitly part of the move, should be handled by the article 7.4 about piece displacement, not considering that displacement as a proof of an illegal move. That is an important conclusion, however Kevin Bonham already agreed that White performing Re1xe8 and thereby knocking down the black queen on d5, was a piece displacement that should be handled with 7.4.

[Pierre Dénommée]

White picks up the white rook on e1 and places it on e8, but then removes a black rook from the side and places it on e8, and presses the clock.
The only legal move is Re1-e8. There is a white rook and a black rook on e8.

I would declare the game lost for anybody who does that. We have 11.5, 11.1 and the preface to support this decision. The attempt to resurrect a captured piece is cheating.

[Kevin Bonham]

Illegal move and making a move without pressing the clock will carry the exact same penalty. But if it is not the first offence, then it would be extremely relevant. For example, if a player has played Nc3-d4 in the same game and got a 2 minutes penalty, your ruling would cost him the game.

Yes. On the other hand if the player had earlier in the game pressed his clock without making a move, then my ruling of illegal move could save him whereas a second case of being ruled to have moved without pressing the clock could cause him to lose. That is less likely since illegal moves would be more common.

There is an odd situation in the 2017 Laws. A player who twice makes an illegal move and presses their clock loses. A player who twice presses without moving at all loses. But a player who does one of each does not lose. Also in Blitz and Rapid, a first instance of pressing the clock without moving does not mean a loss, whereas the first instance of a completed illegal move does.

[Pierre Dénommée]

Suppose a player moves the king two squares towards a rook with which it is legal to castle. But when doing so, he forgets to move the rook over the king onto the adjacent square. For instance White plays Ke1-g1 but then refrains from moving the h1 rook to f1, and presses the clock. I cannot see that as anything other than an illegal move.

Actually, this one is a touch rule violation if the arbiter witness it or if it has been properly claimed .

4.7

When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is considered to have been made in the case of:

a capture, when the captured piece has been removed from the chessboard and the player, having placed his own piece on its new square, has released this capturing piece from his hand.
b castling, when the player's hand has released the rook on the square previously crossed by the king. When the player has released the king from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is legal. If castling on this side is illegal, the player must make another legal move with his king (which may include castling with the other rook). If the king has no legal move, the player is free to make any legal move.

Any arbiter that sees this sequence must force the movement of the rook. FIDE has clearly established that arbiters must enforce touch rule violations even in the absence of a claim.

[Jesper Norgaard]

Actually, this one is a touch rule violation if the arbiter witness it or if it has been properly claimed .

I would dispute that, and moreover the illegal move has a harsher penalty than the touch-move penalty. We do agree that in this case "the player no longer has the right to make any move other than castling on that side", but he didn't complete the castling and his actions should be deemed an illegal move IMHO.