PDA

View Full Version : proposed warning for mobile phone sf. third footwear poll



Garvinator
06-04-2008, 09:45 PM
IA Reuben has recommended that the automatic loss of game under the mobile phone rule be replaced with a warning first as part of the current revision process for the next issue of the Laws.
Well I really do hope this is one that Reuben loses.

The mobile phone loss rule, while generally heavy handed, solves exactly the problem it was designed to solve.

If the one warning system is allowed, then there is nothing stopping repeated mobile phones ringing in the playing hall.


The mobile phone rule has been very problematic in its enforcement, so-called forfeits under it frequently creating unpleasant scenes at local competitions where there is no reason to believe anyone is cheating and where a sternly-worded warning to switch the damn thing off (accompanied, if need be, by a threat to throw it in the nearest lake) would more than suffice.

My experience at different tournaments in different states has been the exact opposite. Players know the rule, they know the penalty and expect it to be enforced. I have found that more mirth is created when the rule is not enforced.

It is a simple rule with a simple penalty- turn the damn phone off or risk losing the game if it rings.

Garvinator
06-04-2008, 09:47 PM
Indeed, and I would say it! The mobile phone rule has been very problematic in its enforcement, so-called forfeits under it frequently creating unpleasant scenes at local competitions where there is no reason to believe anyone is cheating and where a sternly-worded warning to switch the damn thing off (accompanied, if need be, by a threat to throw it in the nearest lake) would more than suffice.
By the way, where did you find this out from?

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2008, 09:49 PM
By the way, where did you find this out from?

Find what out from - that there have been unpleasant incidents?

Bill Gletsos
06-04-2008, 09:49 PM
he mobile phone loss rule, while generally heavy handed, solves exactly the problem it was designed to solve.You mean the stopping the possibilty of cheating via outside communication?

CameronD
06-04-2008, 10:02 PM
IA Reuben has recommended that the automatic loss of game under the mobile phone rule be replaced with a warning first as part of the current revision process for the next issue of the Laws.

Everyone will leave their phone on during their game and turn it off after the warning, I wouldn't bother checking if mines off before the round starts as people do religiously. And that would be a warning per round, not tournament if I'm correct.

Maybe middleground would be better.
Forfeit is to strong a penalty, maybe a 5 minute deduction in time for a classic game for the first offence and then forfeit would scare people enough.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2008, 12:22 PM
Apologies, poor quoting ;) Meant to chop the first part and keep the second :doh:

Will try again :)

My source is a set of recommendations from Reuben, Gijssen and others that have been forwarded to Reuben's email list of arbiters, which is large.

Naturally these are still only in the form of proposals by individuals/groups at this stage; the stage for a FIDE draft recommendation has not been reached so it remains to be seen what support there is for Reuben's view.

If you're interested I can forward you the email.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2008, 12:24 PM
Maybe middleground would be better.
Forfeit is to strong a penalty, maybe a 5 minute deduction in time for a classic game for the first offence and then forfeit would scare people enough.

I agree with you that there should be a time penalty for first offence.

Garvinator
07-04-2008, 01:12 PM
I agree with you that there should be a time penalty for first offence.

I do not share this opinion, clearly ;)

In a classical game, most of the time a five minute penalty is rather insignificant to the game as a whole.

With most laws of chess where a time penalty is applied, it affects only the game to which is it being applied and has no affect on all the other games in the hall.

A mobile phone ringing in the playing hall is heard by all and sundry. It affects everybody, with the boards nearby most affected.

What I think is the most difficult is that there is no real fair penalty.

The mobile phone loss, while a bit harsh for an individual game, has solved the issue of mobile phones ringing in the playing hall. Players know the penalty and that the breach is a serious one.

I think it needs to be added to this debate that if a player says I need to have my phone on for (insert reason here) that most arbiters would tell the player to have the phone on silent and to take the call OUTSIDE.

Any dilution of the penalty does need to be weighed up against what is really does take to prevent the phone ringing, which is just turning the phone off.

If the change to warning/time penalty does get voted in, but the banning of mobile phones in the playing hall stays, then it might/will lead some organisers to banning mobile phones in the playing venue completely.

Is this the best road for all?

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2008, 05:46 PM
A mobile phone ringing in the playing hall is heard by all and sundry. It affects everybody, with the boards nearby most affected.

The same is true of many other kinds of noise pollution by players - the most common one being noisy post-mortems in the tournament room. Yet such noise problems are not generally greeted with a response on a par with immediate loss of game.

The problem with the mobile phone rule as it stands is that a penalty was applied that is proportional to the offence of cheating, but applied to an offence that nearly always occurs not as cheating, but as unintentional noise pollution. Cheating can be dealt with under existing Laws.


Any dilution of the penalty does need to be weighed up against what is really does take to prevent the phone ringing, which is just turning the phone off.

Curiously enough, with some phones, turning the phone off so that it stays off is actually quite difficult. Some phones if carried in a pocket can sometimes turn themselves back on again if even very light pressure is applied. Turning them on silent as well as off is often necessary.

Garvinator
07-04-2008, 05:59 PM
If you're interested I can forward you the email.Got rant happy in previous reply and forgot to reply to this :uhoh:

This would be appreciated.

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2008, 06:57 PM
I agree with you that there should be a time penalty for first offence.
Me too, but quite substantial, like 30 min.

Axiom
07-04-2008, 07:16 PM
Me too, but quite substantial, like 30 min.
agreed, at least until full conditioning and fundamental cultural change is exacted.
Personally i would favour a pre tournament ceremonial mobile phone bonfire as a sacrifice to the gods of common decency.

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2008, 11:27 PM
agreed, at least until full conditioning and fundamental cultural change is exacted.
Personally i would favour a pre tournament ceremonial mobile phone bonfire as a sacrifice to the gods of common decency.
Yeah, I hate mobile phones. I'm sick of disruptions, as well as being an unwilling hearer of one side of a soap-operatic conversation.

Axiom
07-04-2008, 11:38 PM
Yeah, I hate mobile phones. I'm sick of disruptions, as well as being an unwilling hearer of one side of a soap-operatic conversation.

...and not too mention the imprisoning of the spirit, the wasting of the mind , and the heaviness of the heart.

Garvinator
07-04-2008, 11:45 PM
Yeah, I hate mobile phones. I'm sick of disruptions, as well as being an unwilling hearer of one side of a soap-operatic conversation.
I have an idea for announcements at the next tournament. Program into mobile phone the mobile phone rule and then play it at the start of the tournament :owned: :owned: :owned:

Trent Parker
08-04-2008, 01:23 AM
well..... call me a mobile phone rule nazi......

I reckon that people should be required to take their batteries out before the game so as to not allow them to turn back on..... but I argued that In a thread somewhere a long time ago.....

CameronD
08-04-2008, 01:50 AM
Instead of the time penalty, the rules could state that the arbiter can take a sledgehammer to the offending phone (applies to spectators as well)

Ian Murray
08-04-2008, 08:03 AM
From the outset I thought the mobile rule was unnecessarily draconian. I support its dilution

Garrett
08-04-2008, 08:12 AM
I have no problem with the current rule regarding mobile phones.

But.........

if a minor dilution led to tournaments being perceived to be more family friendly and therefore encourage more participation then I wouldn't get too cranky.

Perhaps half remaining time or 10 minutes (whichever max) would suffice ? This means a loss would still occur if a mobile goes off at the business end of a round.

Cheers
Garrett.

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2008, 11:59 AM
From the outset I thought the mobile rule was unnecessarily draconian. I support its dilution
Me too. But as long as the rule exists, arbiters should enforce it.

Bob1
16-04-2008, 08:57 PM
as rules go..

This is a better rule than the lightning rule regarding taking a King left in Check. (that sucks - If you have won - you have won!)

As an arbiter the first time I announced the Mobile Phone rule ----
My Mobile rang less than 2 minutes later (a late entry) - my credability shot to pieces (again!)

I have seen events run underneath live music (dance competition), fire evacuations and Club PA announcements - most people just deal with it! (unless they are losing)

But a rule is a rule - better than a rule that is not a rule (ie 1 warning etc)

Basil
16-04-2008, 10:04 PM
... But a rule is a rule - better than a rule that is not a rule (ie 1 warning etc)
Give. That. Man. A. Medal. :clap:
Sounds like you've had some real world experience managing people as opposed to some of the flippy floppy piddly drippy poo that gets flouted around here and in chess circles generally ;)

Southpaw Jim
17-04-2008, 07:16 AM
I'm in two minds on this one.

One one hand, the rule seems a bit draconian given that it would generally be a very brief disruption (with the exception of the player at our club the other week that let their phone keep ringing and ringing).

OTOH, it's not that hard to avoid the rule. I'd hazard a guess that all phones can be put in silent mode, and those that can't have a power button. AFAIK, for 'serious' tournaments the arbiters give a clear warning on the rule.

My wife knows to only call me in an emergency, so if I get a call from her (mine's on silent), I know to answer it. Anyone else, I let it go through to messagebank.

I guess I'm tending toward the status quo, since the penalty is easy to avoid. Exceptions could be made, I guess, for doctors on call and the like.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2008, 09:20 AM
One one hand, the rule seems a bit draconian given that it would generally be a very brief disruption (with the exception of the player at our club the other week that let their phone keep ringing and ringing).
Yeah, and compared to other disruptions that are common in tourneys, it's questionable that the punishment fits the crime. But a warning is silly; there should be some severe punishment, just not automatic loss.


My wife knows to only call me in an emergency, so if I get a call from her (mine's on silent), I know to answer it. Anyone else, I let it go through to messagebank.
Although apparently it's not even allowed to vibrate, at least when Garvin Gray is directing ;)

My wife knows I hate them anyway so will rarely carry them anyway. Good grief, I'm not that ancient, but well remembered life when these things were a rarity, yet we managed OK.


I guess I'm tending toward the status quo, since the penalty is easy to avoid. Exceptions could be made, I guess, for doctors on call and the like.
One of my most respected clubmates thinks that those on call should not be playing, because playing should require a commitment to the game.

Phil Bourke
17-04-2008, 10:14 AM
I support the rule as it stands. Anyone who needs to be contacted, i.e on call, wife expecting, etc, can easily inform those that may need to contact them of the playing venue and a number that can be used to get a message to them. Granted, not as convenient as your mobile or pager, but if you are thinking of playing a tournament, a small price to pay.
My suggestion would be for TD's to have their mobile number or landline nr of the venue printed on a large notice so that anyone requiring the need to be contacted can give that number to the relevant parties. Then there would only be one phone, and I am sure that even if the TD was playing, they wouldn't mind passing on any message and everyone would understand if the TD stepped away from their game to answer their mobile.
FWIW In light of what others have recounted and personal experience, I have a profile, "Chess", no ring, no vibration alert, that I use whenever I am playing in a tournament. It means that if the phone should accidently switch itself on, or I forget to turn it off, the chances are that should it be rung, no one, including me, will know that it did :)

Garvinator
17-04-2008, 11:41 AM
Although apparently it's not even allowed to vibrate, at least when Garvin Gray is directing ;)
While I highly suspect your response is meant to be tongue in cheek because of the ;), My interpretation is not something I have just pulled out of thin air.

It does have sources.

From Geurt Gijssen chesscafe articles:


My mobile phone makes a sound and lights up when the battery is low. Does this mean a player loses if it happens during play? The phone is not ringing.


Let me refer to Article 12.2b:

It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter.

In my opinion, only mobiles that are switched off are allowed in the playing hall. So the arbiter should announce at the start of the round to switch off the mobile phones. During the 2006 Turin Olympiad, I also added: “and the built in alarm.” If the phone is off, then it should not make a sound.

So, I just make the warning a little more clear since not all players are experienced chess players and I do not give them an attempted 'get out clause'.

There was also an incident last year from the NSW Open regarding vibrating phones or similar.

CameronD
17-04-2008, 11:42 AM
http://www.gulfnews.com/sport/Chess/10205867.html

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2008, 12:38 PM
While I highly suspect your response is meant to be tongue in cheek because of the ;),
Of course. At least we all know where we stand when you're arbiting. No one has just cause for complaint, because they were all given clear and distinct warnings.

Bill Gletsos
17-04-2008, 12:44 PM
While I highly suspect your response is meant to be tongue in cheek because of the ;), My interpretation is not something I have just pulled out of thin air.

It does have sources.

From Geurt Gijssen chesscafe articles:


So, I just make the warning a little more clear since not all players are experienced chess players and I do not give them an attempted 'get out clause'.Just because thats the way Geurt does it doesnt make it so as Article 12.2b does not preclude the arbiter allowing mobile phones to be set to vibrate/silent.


There was also an incident last year from the NSW Open regarding vibrating phones or similar.I am unaware of any such issue at last years NSW Open. Can you please elaborate.

Phil Bourke
17-04-2008, 01:08 PM
A quick check of the dates, I think GG may be referring to the 2006 NSW Open where there was an incident over a player allegedly using his mobile phone while playing, or something like that. I am not sure of all the details, as I was playing at the time, but did notice a bit of commotion, and all the talk after seemed to centre on the previously mentioned theme.

Garvinator
17-04-2008, 01:11 PM
I am unaware of any such issue at last years NSW Open. Can you please elaborate.
Ok maybe not NSW Open. Now I think a bit more about it, Jason Lyons was arbiter and it involved Trent Parker.

Bill Gletsos
17-04-2008, 01:37 PM
A quick check of the dates, I think GG may be referring to the 2006 NSW Open where there was an incident over a player allegedly using his mobile phone while playing, or something like that. I am not sure of all the details, as I was playing at the time, but did notice a bit of commotion, and all the talk after seemed to centre on the previously mentioned theme.I dont recall a problem at the 2006 one either. There was the Ilic incident over a mobile phone at the NSW Open in 2004.

Bill Gletsos
17-04-2008, 01:40 PM
Ok maybe not NSW Open. Now I think a bit more about it, Jason Lyons was arbiter and it involved Trent Parker.That was at the 2007 Ryde-Eastwood Open involving a players builtin alarm on their mobile going off and had nothing to do with vibrate/silent mode.

Denis_Jessop
17-04-2008, 05:32 PM
Guert's statement, as quoted by Garvin, was clearly expressed to be an "opinion".

Art.12.2.b ( now called 12.2.2 on the revised FIDE web site) is as follows:


It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. If a player`s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter.

This contains three elements, the first of which forbids bringing mobile phones etc "not authorised by the arbiter" into the playing venue (note, not just the playing area). So what Geurt is doing is authorising the bringing into the venue of phones that are switched off. Another arbiter may give a different kind of authorisation and 12.2.2 allows that.

The second element is the meaning of "ring" which is a separate issue.

The third element is the penalty.

The matter is then affected by Art 13.7.2 which reads as follows:


It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue and any area designated by the arbiter

This Article has no provision for the arbiter to authorise use though it does allow him to extend the area of prohibited use.

The upshot seems to me to be that the arbiter may allow mobile phones to be brought into the playing venue on conditions set by the arbiter. But those conditions cannot go as far as allowing either a situation in which a mobile phone might "ring" because of the second sentence of Art. 12.2.2 or the "use" of a phone because of Art 13.7.2 each of which is absolute.

DJ