PDA

View Full Version : Darling Downs mobile phone, appeal rights (sf illegal move in blitz)



Capablanca-Fan
06-08-2007, 03:41 PM
The arbiter's decision was simply wrong.
What recourse does a player have against this? And in another tournament, an arbiter twice failed to award a loss to a player whose mobile phone rang, so what recourse do this player's opponents have?

Garvinator
06-08-2007, 04:14 PM
And in another tournament, an arbiter twice failed to award a loss to a player whose mobile phone rang, so what recourse do this player's opponents have?
Surely this would never happen :whistle: ;)

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2007, 07:02 PM
What recourse does a player have against this? And in another tournament, an arbiter twice failed to award a loss to a player whose mobile phone rang, so what recourse do this player's opponents have?

The affected player(s) should appeal the ruling; the arbiter should then refer it to an existing appeal committee or assemble one under the guidance of whoever appointed them as arbiter.

Appeals committees generally overturn decisions that are clearly incorrect while leaving intact those that are merely disagreed with on points of opinion. Of course, they too are capable of error.

Capablanca-Fan
06-08-2007, 11:10 PM
Surely this would never happen :whistle: ;)
Not if you were arbiting. But if not, and there is no appeals committee, what then?

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2007, 11:30 PM
Not if you were arbiting. But if not, and there is no appeals committee, what then?

There should always be an option of appeal (except for 10.2s where the Laws expressly prevent it). I guess if an arbiter makes a really bad decision and won't allow it to be appealled to anyone, you can threaten to boycott future tournaments involving that arbiter.

CameronD
06-08-2007, 11:33 PM
Is their an option to appeal to the CAQ or ACF if its a rated game

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2007, 11:51 PM
Is their an option to appeal to the CAQ or ACF if its a rated game

Whether a game is rated or not has nothing to do with who there is an option to appeal to.

Of course if there was an especially great injustice done and this became well known then there would be the possibility that the ACF would refuse to rate the game. However, I wouldn't assume that this would be so; many who have requested that their games not be rated because they thought they got a raw deal in the past have failed.

CameronD
06-08-2007, 11:59 PM
This is why arbiters need to be accredited. A day will happen when an arbiter is taken to court over a decision in a local big money tournament. It has happened in other sports with similar prize money (around $1000). You cant just hope it'll never happen

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2007, 12:10 AM
This is why arbiters need to be accredited. A day will happen when an arbiter is taken to court over a decision in a local big money tournament.

If an arbiter is incompetent enough to make a clearly wrong decision, stick by it and refuse to allow any form of appeal then (a) they deserve to be personally sued and nobody else is harmed if they are (b) you won't find them running "local big money" tournaments since those virtually always have appeal committee arrangements of some kind. Doesn't seem like any kind of case for accreditation to me - not that accreditation is much of a solution as even some IAs come up with all kinds of shockers sometimes.

CameronD
07-08-2007, 12:16 AM
I just hope it never happens.

ps- when I umpired in another sport, all umpires were actually insured against such action.

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2007, 12:18 AM
This is why arbiters need to be accredited.The issue isnt accreditation but competence.
After all one would assume that IA's would be accredited and competent but even they make mistakes.

A day will happen when an arbiter is taken to court over a decision in a local big money tournament. It has happened in other sports with similar prize money (around $1000). You cant just hope it'll never happenUnlikely it would have any legs if the arbiter allowed an appeals committee to be formed.
However even if he didnt, the Laws of chess dont explicitly allow for an appeal to an appeals committee.

After all if talking referees who made clearly wrong decisions to court was an option then surely the AFL and NRL would always be in court. :hand:

CameronD
07-08-2007, 12:39 AM
Cant find the case.

Basically, what happened is that the umpire made a decision of law (not a judgement decision which cant be appealed (like a forward pass etc) which the player disagreed with. In this sport, all decisions of law can be appealed to the national body with a $100 deposit. Not sure if they appealed, but they took the umpire to court for the prize money (around $1000, I believe) and won the case

Garvinator
07-08-2007, 06:32 PM
Perhaps a thread title change is now required as we are moving into the territory of arbiter decision in general?

Garvinator
07-08-2007, 06:37 PM
Since the situation of the Darling Downs tournament has come up- I will try and give as fuller picture as possible so others can have as much information as possible and see where we end up.

2007 Darling Downs and mobile phones.

IA Alan Thomas tells everyone to start their games. Everyone gets under way for round one. No special announcements are made regarding mobiles.

Just after everyone starts, one mobile phone clearly rings in the playing hall. I look up to see whose phone it was and it was Ross Mills (main organiser). I was not Ross Mills's opponent in the first round. That usual slight sound from everyone of [oh dear, he is in trouble] was evident in the playing hall. While most players are not the proficent in the laws of chess, most players have grown accustomed to that if your phone rings in the playing hall, it is an automatic loss if you are still playing.

So, nothing happens.

I then speak to Alan Thomas outside the playing hall a few minutes later regarding the mobile phone rule and I asked why Ross's game wasnt declared lost.

I received varying responses, which all amounted to that his game would not be declared lost and I should get back to my game. I then said that I wanted to appeal the decision as it is clearly against the 2005 fide laws of chess. I was told that the arbiters decision is final and there are no appeal options. I responded, so this applies even when black and white laws of chess are being ignored? (While this 'discussion' was taking place, I was aware that I was not Ross Mills's direct opponent, but thought that maybe they werent aware of the rule change from 2001 to 2005. Also I was concerned about the predecent set for other players mobiles ringing in the playing hall during there games.)

Alan Thomas gave me the same response and I realised I was getting nowhere and it was pointless to keep arguing as all I was acheiving was making myself more annoyed and ruining any possible good relations for the future with a different set of organisers.

I then spoke to Ross Mills regarding what rules were actually being used for the tournament. Ross Mills told me that I shouldnt take things so seriously as this is a fun tournament as stated on the tournament entry form. Ross also said that I signed the entry form where it says arbiter's decision is final. The fun response made me even more angry as it gave me the impression that the situation of the mobile phone loss wasnt been taken seriously by the main organiser. Basically an attitude of, well this is a fun tournament, so what are you worried about.

I replied that yes I did sign the entry form, but I signed it under the assumption that the 2005 fide laws of chess would be enforced. The entry form never mentioned anything about exceptions or allowances for changing or varying from black and white laws of chess.

Again the argument became circular and pointless.

I did say during the debate with Ross Mills that either Alan Thomas, who is an International Arbiter, is not aware of the 2005 fide laws of chess or is choosing to ignore some of them as he sees fit, which is just unacceptable and wrong. Ross replied that Alan Thomas has a great reputation over many years of service. I replied that is nice, but doesnt change the simple fact that he either doesnt know the rules as they stand or is choosing to ignore them.

Ross asked me- isnt the rule that players must be informed of the mobile phone rule before play starts? My response was no.

The mobile phone announcement is a courtesy to try and reduce the number of mobile phone losses, but it is only a courtesy. The rule is that if a players mobile phone rings during play, it is an automatic loss.

Ross then tried to say that as he hadnt made a move, then he shouldnt be declared lost. I replied that as the game had started and the clocks had started (Ross was playing black), it is a clear case of a lost game.

So at the end of all this, the game was not declared lost.

In the final round, Ross's phone rang again during his game and for the second time in the tournament. He was allowed to keep playing. I had already finished and was outside speaking to others and didnt hear the phone ring. I was only informed of the second situation from quite a few players, as they were expecting me to 'blow up big time' if I was still playing.

My initial response was to have a chuckle as I couldnt believe that it would allow it to happen again, but then speaking to others outside my tone was rather more abrupt.

In all, had I been at the tournament by myself, instead of having travelled up with someone else and staying the night, I would have walked out after the first incident and lack of action by the arbiter and organisers, informing the organisers that I did not agree to play in a tournament where the 2005 fide laws of chess were not being enforced. Especially clear black and white rules like the mobile phone penalty.

I have since been asked by a couple of caq council members whether I want to file a report regarding what occurred to council. I havent done so yet as I am not sure what it will really achieve.

Basil
07-08-2007, 07:24 PM
Hi Garvin

Thomas and Mills are wrong. I regret that I am no longer on Council. I would like to see you report this to CAQ.

The situation is poor because:

-- the laws, as you say, are clear
-- players expect uniform application
-- the decision reinforces the 'Hicksville' mentality
-- the fun tournament thing is rubbish
-- Mills has let himself down as an organiser
-- Thomas has let himself down as an IA

What a cock-up! The CAQ needs to let these people know the standard that is expected of them and their tournaments, by both the CAQ and the chess players. And that their perception of a fun day while well-intentioned, is misguided.

CameronD
07-08-2007, 07:43 PM
The time control was 60+10, I am not sure wheather they are going to be rated.

- Will the CAQ/ACF allow the tournament to be rated concerning the alledged disregard for the rules of chess

Makes me wonder whats going on in Queensland with this allegation and the BCC disgrace.

Ian Rout
08-08-2007, 02:13 PM
After all if talking referees who made clearly wrong decisions to court was an option then surely the AFL and NRL would always be in court. :hand:
I suspect the case referred to is either an urban myth, an American case, an episode of Boston Legal / Ally McBeal / LA Law, or there is something else to the story. I would except judges to recognise that umpiring errors are both a fact of life of which participants in sport accept the risk, and that they even out over time.

Moreover suing for a sum as small as $1,000 is a poor strategy without the near certainty of winning. If there is anything to the story I think it more likely that someone threatened to sue and the organiser gave them an ex gratia payment to go away.

Maybe if malice or bias could be proved it might be different. Perhaps Denis or somebody with legal training could give us an opinion.

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2007, 04:17 PM
I replied that yes I did sign the entry form, but I signed it under the assumption that the 2005 fide laws of chess would be enforced. The entry form never mentioned anything about exceptions or allowances for changing or varying from black and white laws of chess.
That's right. His argument is fallacious. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption to hold, because adherence to FIDE Laws would be implicit in this contract since it is a chess tourney. That the arbiter had an official FIDE title should strengthen this assumption.

The benefits of the rule of law are not so much that the laws are decent, but that there is certainty in their application. I personally think it's a harsh law, but it is still the duty of an arbiter to enforce it.

CameronD
19-08-2007, 10:20 PM
I see that the dowling downs tournament is to be rated. I dont understand how you can have a "just a fun tournament" and rated tournament refer to the same tournament??

ps- please cancel BCC disgrace to BCC sitauation (I'm not as frustrated by it as I once was)

Basil
19-08-2007, 10:34 PM
Your point is very well made.