[Vampyr]

jh51, on 2012-May-04, 15:13, said:

The OP notes that on the first instance there was a warning. I was not there when this occurred with the OP, but the wording of the warning is often, "You were late. You will be penalized on the next occurrance".

From the OPs words, the TDs did advise the players of their responsibities, and they apparently chose to ignore them.

Best to read more than the first post before replying. The OP was mistaken at first and makes this correction soon after:

Quote

There was no verbal warning.

[Trinidad]

jh51, on 2012-May-04, 15:13, said:

The OP notes that the TD claims to have "made a gerneral announcement befroe the start of play. Why would the TD make up such a thing if it were not true. It has been my experience that the announcement contains words to the effect that there will be a warning on the first occurance, but after that penaalties will be assessed without further commont.

The OP notes that on the first instance there was a warning. I was not there when this occurred with the OP, but the wording of the warning is often, "You were late. You will be penalized on the next occurrance".

From the OPs words, the TDs did advise the players of their responsibities, and they apparently chose to ignore them.

I suspect that the OP was one of those assessed a penalty and was upset about it. I have overheard this discussion at a local tournament between a TD and one of those penalized. It seems most everyone else heard the director and followed instructions. Sour grapes is sour grapes.

I don't know what OP you are reading, but the one on my screen clearly says:

awm, on 2012-April-15, 22:05, said:

Each time they finish late, they are assessed a penalty (actually a "warning" the first time, 2 VPs the second time, 4 VPs the third time). The teams so penalized were never informed that such a penalty was being assessed, and were quite surprised to find that their final scores were not what they had expected.

and

awm, on 2012-April-15, 22:05, said:

They [The TDs] admitted that no effort had been made to notify the specific teams being penalized.

and in post #7 of this thread, this is clarified further:

awm, on 2012-April-15, 22:59, said:

blackshoe, on 2012-April-15, 22:20, said:

I would expect they knew they got a warning.

Nope. The "warning" was just that the first penalty was 0 VPs. There was no verbal warning.

That is what the OP writes and that is what I have responded to.

Maybe you know something that is not in the OP. That is fine. Your version may be the one and only correct one. Heck, maybe the original poster twisted the truth. Or maybe he was talking about a hypothetical case.* I don't care. When I am replying to a post, I reply to the situation as described in that post and not to the situation that somebody else will describe in a post 2.5 weeks later. I am not clairvoyant.

Rik

* I can only add that Adam's reputation makes it unlikely that he twisted the truth or was talking about a hypothetical case without mentioning that.

[vigfus]

In Iceland, at club level, penalties for late play is seldom given.
In Regional and national, the condition of contest is clear about time limits.
In IMP's, TD announces usually when 15 minutes are left of time, but not required to do so.
When I enter late table in teams, I tell the playeres that there is VP penalty for late play. That is all.
Players usually speed up after having such warning. They know I am watching the time limits.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-04, 16:06, said:

bluejak, on 2012-April-25, 00:47, said:
DPs and PPs may be appealed. It is rare that an AC will over-rule a TD unless they decide it is a judgement matter, which is perfectly possible for a PP, much less likely for a DP. Late penalties are PPs, not DPs: discipline is not involved.

Any ruling may be appealed (Law 92A). However...

Quote
Law 91A: In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof. The director’s decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee (see Law 93B3).

It is the EBU's view that the final sentence, which refers to a clause not sentence, only applies to suspending a contestant and not to DPs. This is logical, reasonable and follows the English.

blackshoe, on 2012-May-04, 16:06, said:

Quote
Law 93B3: In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the director, except that the committee may not overrule the director on a point of law or regulations or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the director that he change such a ruling.)

I hope no appeals committee will attempt to overrule the TD on a DP.

ACs are primarily to exercise judgement. So it is not impossible that an AC might sensibly think the issue of a DP should be varied based on their judgement of the situation. At such time they should tell the TD they think he should re-consider. It is the EBU's view that at such a time the TD should have a very strong reason before he fails to follow AC's view.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 15:33, said:

It is the EBU's view that the final sentence, which refers to a clause not sentence, only applies to suspending a contestant and not to DPs. This is logical, reasonable and follows the English.

Does it? I'm not so sure. I've always read "this clause" as referring to the entirety of Law 91A. Perhaps that's another case of American English vs. English English. It would be nice to get an official interpretation from the WBFLC — and one from the ACBLLC, just to see if they differ. IAC, so far as I know the ACBLLC has not offered an interpretation, and I'm not in the EBU, so...

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 15:33, said:

ACs are primarily to exercise judgement. So it is not impossible that an AC might sensibly think the issue of a DP should be varied based on their judgement of the situation. At such time they should tell the TD they think he should re-consider. It is the EBU's view that at such a time the TD should have a very strong reason before he fails to follow AC's view.

Surely — although "fails to follow" (as opposed to, say, "chooses not to follow") is a bit strong. Also, if I were the TD I'd want to hear the AC's reasoning.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 15:33, said:

It is the EBU's view that the final sentence, which refers to a clause not sentence, only applies to suspending a contestant and not to DPs. This is logical, reasonable and follows the English.

I know it's their view, and so I follow it, but it's not how I would otherwise read it.

I think the clause referred to should be "the director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof".

[barmar]

I also think that it's normal to interpret "clause" as referring to the smallest labeled sections of the laws, not in the grammatical sense as referring to parts of sentences. I find that EBU view surprising.

Plus, if you're going to use the grammatical sense, and a sentence contains the phrase "this clause", shouldn't that refer to the clause containing the phrase, not a clause from another sentence? The latter meaning would be expressed with "that clause" or "the preceding clause". E.g. "This short sentence contains six words. The preceding sentence contains six words, but this clause has five words."

[mycroft]

Okay, another one for Grattan's list, I guess. I always read that as the entirety of L91A (especially when L93B3, to which L91A refers, states specifically that the AC "may not overrule ... exercise of [the TD's] Law 91 disciplinary powers" (my emphasis). There is no subclassing of Law 91 in L83B3.

Having said that, my belief is that the ACBL's philosophy is "while the TD should have a very strong reason before overriding the AC's suggestion to reconsider, the AC should have a very strong reason before requesting reconsideration". I've certainly never seen this in practise (which likely means that the TDs aren't assigning enough DPs, on the same idea that if you set all the contracts you double...)

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-May-09, 08:09, said:

I also think that it's normal to interpret "clause" as referring to the smallest labeled sections of the laws, not in the grammatical sense as referring to parts of sentences. I find that EBU view surprising.

I find it incredible that clause should be understood as referring to something that is a sentence not a clause. Why should clause not refer to a clause? That seems much more normal to me.

[blackshoe]

That's because you're thinking like a grammarian rather than a lawyer.

From my online dictionary:

clause |klôz|
noun
1 a unit of grammatical organization next below the sentence in rank and in traditional grammar said to consist of a subject and predicate. See also main clause, subordinate clause.
2 a particular and separate article, stipulation, or proviso in a treaty, bill, or contract.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-May-10, 18:24, said:

I find it incredible that clause should be understood as referring to something that is a sentence not a clause. Why should clause not refer to a clause? That seems much more normal to me.

Perhaps you would extract the clause you think is referred to, as I have done above? I do not see a clause in that sentence that gives the meaning ascribed to it in the White Book.

[Zelandakh]

On a strict interpretation, all of

1. the whole of 91A
2. "the director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points", and
3. "the director is empowered to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof"

might be referred to as a clause. For me it seems clear that the whole of 91A is meant as otherwise there is no obvious differentiation - the last object that appears to qualify for this is the Law numbering. Would you prefer the term "sub-law" or "law subsection" to "clause" here David? If so, perhaps this should be flagged as a possible change to the Law wording. I am pretty confident that while an English professor might interpret Law 91A in the way the EBU appears to have done, a lawyer would certainly take it to mean what everyone else understands it to be.

If an AC decision were to cause a DP to be withdrawn and this resulted in a change of winner at an important event, would the new runners-up have any right of appeal or challenge to the adjusted result?

[bluejak]

I am not justifying the actual wording of the Law. This forum is to help people to rule correctly: no doubt the wording could and should be better but we have to work with what we have. Frankly, there are too many posts, in my view, that suggest Laws or Regulations could be better worded. Absolutely true, but so?

In my view, while the meaning is ambiguous, it obviously does not refer to the whole sentence. Now it is all very well calling me a grammarian, even though I am obviously not, but it seems pointless: what do you want me to do, change my view because you have called me a name I do not think has any application to myself? As for your dictionary, I know what a clause is, and if you want to quote a confusing dictionary, feel free.

I really wonder at some of the posts. If a player is suspended for a session or part thereof, all this Law has done is stop him making a complete nuisance of himself: by the time any appeal would be heard it would be moot. Is it not completely obvious this cannot be appealed?

As for DPs, some of the comments remind me of references to the ACBL about ten years or so ago on RGB. There seemed an opinion that one of the things law-makers had to do was control the ACBL. Very strange. If you cannot trust people to act reasonably you have a problem whenever they have some authority anyway. This idea that we must not overturn TDs on a DP seems crazy: when he should be overturned, why not?

Let me make up a case. A player is told by some behind him to "F*** off". He goes to the nearest TD, who decides he must make an immediate stand. Brushing aside the player's protests, he fines him 2 VPs, double standard DP in the EBU.

Fortunately this is the EBU, and the player appeals. Not only does he explain to the AC that it was not him who spoke those words, but he brings along the player who did who readily admits it, though he said he was not speaking to the player who was upset, but to the player appealing, a close friend of his who is not upset by the language! The AC tell the TD he has fined the wrong person, and suggest he withdraws the DP: naturally the TD does.

Or would you really prefer a jurisdiction where the player unjustly penalised cannot appeal?

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-May-11, 18:34, said:

In my view, while the meaning is ambiguous, it obviously does not refer to the whole sentence.

It's not obvious to me.

<sigh>

All I was trying to do was to point out that there is more than one meaning to the word "clause", My opinion at the time was that the EBU has chosen the wrong one. That's still my opinion.

bluejak, on 2012-May-11, 18:34, said:

INow it is all very well calling me a grammarian, even though I am obviously not, but it seems pointless: what do you want me to do, change my view because you have called me a name I do not think has any application to myself? As for your dictionary, I know what a clause is, and if you want to quote a confusing dictionary, feel free.

I didn't call you a grammarian, I said you were thinking like one, rather than like a lawyer. The latter would certainly gravitate to the second meaning of "clause", which does exist in spite of your reluctance to admit it. And the definition of "clause" that I quoted is no more confusing than any other definition of a word with multiple meanings, and no less right for having not been from the OED (which, I would guess, probably has the same "confusing" definition).

Speaking of definitions, Black's Law Dictionary, a highly respected reference, at least in this county, defines "clause" thusly: "A single paragraph or subdivision of a legal document, such as a contract, deed, will, constitution, or statute. Sometimes a sentence or part of a sentence."

bluejak, on 2012-May-11, 18:34, said:

I really wonder at some of the posts. If a player is suspended for a session or part thereof, all this Law has done is stop him making a complete nuisance of himself: by the time any appeal would be heard it would be moot. Is it not completely obvious this cannot be appealed?

As for DPs, some of the comments remind me of references to the ACBL about ten years or so ago on RGB. There seemed an opinion that one of the things law-makers had to do was control the ACBL. Very strange. If you cannot trust people to act reasonably you have a problem whenever they have some authority anyway. This idea that we must not overturn TDs on a DP seems crazy: when he should be overturned, why not?

Let me make up a case. A player is told by some behind him to "F*** off". He goes to the nearest TD, who decides he must make an immediate stand. Brushing aside the player's protests, he fines him 2 VPs, double standard DP in the EBU.

Fortunately this is the EBU, and the player appeals. Not only does he explain to the AC that it was not him who spoke those words, but he brings along the player who did who readily admits it, though he said he was not speaking to the player who was upset, but to the player appealing, a close friend of his who is not upset by the language! The AC tell the TD he has fined the wrong person, and suggest he withdraws the DP: naturally the TD does.

Or would you really prefer a jurisdiction where the player unjustly penalised cannot appeal?

I won't speak for anyone else, but I certainly never said that a player cannot appeal a TD's ruling. The law is clear: any ruling made by the TD may be appealed (92A), but rulings made under 91A cannot be overturned by an AC (93B3). All the AC can do is recommend that the TD change his ruling (93B3 again), which, strangely, is exactly what you posit happens in your hypothetical case above. So what's the fuss about?

Note also that an appeal at the tournament level is a prerequisite for an appeal to the National Authority (see Law 93C), who certainly can overturn a TD ruling, whatever law it was made under.

BTW, if this guy wasn't upset by the language, what was he running to the TD about?

Quote

Zel asked: If an AC decision were to cause a DP to be withdrawn and this resulted in a change of winner at an important event, would the new runners-up have any right of appeal or challenge to the adjusted result?

This seems to me a legitimate question. My answer: Only, as I read the law, by appealing to the National Authority under 93C.

Of course I want to help people rule correctly, particular those on committees, who may well not be conversant with the laws. That you and I differ in our opinions how the law is to be applied here does not change that.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-11, 20:00, said:

BTW, if this guy wasn't upset by the language, what was he running to the TD about?

The player who ran to the TD was not the one who was not upset.

A says "F off" to B. B takes no offense.

C hears this, and thinks it was B talking to him. He takes offense, complains to the TD, who penalizes B.

B appeals, the AC hears all the facts, and recommends that the penalty be reversed.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-May-13, 10:28, said:

The player who ran to the TD was not the one who was not upset.

A says "F off" to B. B takes no offense.

C hears this, and thinks it was B talking to him. He takes offense, complains to the TD, who penalizes B.

B appeals, the AC hears all the facts, and recommends that the penalty be reversed.

Sure, but the way David wrote it up, it doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't read (at least to me) the way you say it which, I grant, is almost certainly what David meant. Actually, looking at it again, it looks like in the first paragraph, it's C who is penalized, and later somebody (which has to be C) appeals, and that person tells the AC he wasn't offended. So first he was upset, and then he wasn't.

BTW, David didn't say which law the TD used, but if it was 74A2, which makes the most sense to me, that law says that one should avoid comments that might annoy another player. I don't think the fact that B was not offended lets A off the hook here. Suppose C was aware the comment wasn't addressed to him, yet is still annoyed by it. Also, even if B and C were both not offended, some other player might have been. So I think the fact the comment was made is an infraction of 74A2, willy-nilly.

[billw55]

I thought the point of late penalties was to try to get the event running on time. If you don't tell anyone they are penalized, then there is no reason at all to think they will speed up. On the contrary, they can be expected to think that if the director does not address them about their pace, then it must be ok.

Maybe the directors were hoping that the players will speed up at the next tournament?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-13, 11:54, said:

Sure, but the way David wrote it up, it doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't read (at least to me) the way you say it which, I grant, is almost certainly what David meant. Actually, looking at it again, it looks like in the first paragraph, it's C who is penalized, and later somebody (which has to be C) appeals, and that person tells the AC he wasn't offended. So first he was upset, and then he wasn't.

"A player is told by some behind him to "F*** off. This is C hearing the cursing - he thinks it was directed at him, and it was B who committed the offense, so he goes to the TD. The TD believes C and penalizes B. C is the one who is upset.

"the player appeals. Not only does he explain to the AC that it was not him who spoke those words, but he brings along the player who did who readily admits it, though he said he was not speaking to the player who was upset, but to the player appealing, a close friend of his who is not upset by the language". This is B appealing, he brings along A, who says that he was saying it to B. B says he was not upset at A.

Quote

I don't think the fact that B was not offended lets A off the hook here.

True. But A was never accused or penalized in the first place, so the AC can't penalize him. Can the TD retroactively penalize A when they realize the AC tells him he penalized the wrong person the first time?

[mycroft]

I still remember my story about the second half of the flight A pairs, and the pair who had a sub-40% in the first half, and so were perhaps a little worse for wear after dinner. I can't remember the statement made (to partner), but it was clearly: unprintable, much louder than perhaps was warranted, intended without offense despite the language, and taken that way.

After dead silence for about 5 seconds, the next line was audible to a table or so, and was "one nice thing about TDs is that they sometimes have selective hearing." My response was "well, if *anyone* had had a problem with it, I would have to apply a penalty. As it was, it was clearly not intended to offend, but you might want to keep your voice down in future." And They Did. I think the point got made better than any score penalty would have, frankly.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-May-14, 10:25, said:

But A was never accused or penalized in the first place, so the AC can't penalize him. Can the TD retroactively penalize A when they realize the AC tells him he penalized the wrong person the first time?

I don't see why not, although it may depend on whether the correction period has expired.

mycroft, on 2012-May-14, 11:54, said:

I still remember my story about the second half of the flight A pairs, and the pair who had a sub-40% in the first half, and so were perhaps a little worse for wear after dinner. I can't remember the statement made (to partner), but it was clearly: unprintable, much louder than perhaps was warranted, intended without offense despite the language, and taken that way.

After dead silence for about 5 seconds, the next line was audible to a table or so, and was "one nice thing about TDs is that they sometimes have selective hearing." My response was "well, if *anyone* had had a problem with it, I would have to apply a penalty. As it was, it was clearly not intended to offend, but you might want to keep your voice down in future." And They Did. I think the point got made better than any score penalty would have, frankly.

I'd say so. BTW, did they do any better in the second half?