Hsiang wrote:
How would you have ruled?
In some cases, that depends on the actually valid rulesets and tournament's arbitration context, where rules would be possibly insufficient. Needless to say, as a referee for a particular (international) tournament, I would know the valid tournament rules, rules and carry them with me all the time:)
Quote:
Case 1
Playing in an international match, a player put a captured stone into her opponent’s bowl [...] in this case, the game was played in Korea and the rules used are territory based. At the end of the game, this player lost by 0.5 point, even though everyone knew she had won by 0.5. The player requested replaying and recounting, her opponent refused. How would you rule?
If there are Korean tournament rules or tournament rules for the particular international match, I do not know them; they might alter my ruling.
My decision would be independent of the height of the score or what every kibitz "knew". What matters is whether prisoners do score at all, whether each prisoner scores the same as any other prisoner, whether prisoners may be put back to the bowl and when the opponent and / or referee intervened.
Bill has given some relevant citations from the now outdated Korean 1992 Rules of Play (I do not know the newer ones yet). More basically though, it is ultimately clear that Korean style rules of play use (Traditional) Territory Scoring, which scores all prisoners and does so equally for each of them.
Assuming that the particular tournament had a tournament rules / practice context of possible reconfirmation, the ruling becomes obvious: Apply Territory Scoring correctly, if necessary by replaying investigation of the already played game.
Quote:
Case 2
A player pressed the clock before removing a whole bunch of captured stones from the board. The opponent protested. How would you rule?
"pressing the clock" appears to mean "shifting the running time towards the opponent". If so, this is impossible, of course.
"a whole bunch" is a bit imprecise but apears to exceed the typical specific tournament rules, which might say something like "at least 2" or "at least 3" or "at least 4".
So under these circumstances, the player's action is illegal / void and is to be at least corrected (opponent gets back his lost time) and then proceeded normally and might, depending on the tournament (rules) context, possibly also include some penalty. (E.g., the EGF General Tournament Rules implicitly suggest first a warning, then (second minor infringement asserted by a referee by the same player during the same game) default loss.
Quote:
Case 3
A player uses a medicated cream to keep herself refreshed (say, the “Tiger Bond”), which has a strong scent but is commonly used in some countries. Her opponent finds the smell to be very annoying. How do you rule when a protest is lodged? If you rule that the medication should be removed, how do you handle the time taken to remove the medication? And what if the medication is needed for injury (for example scented, medicated, tapes used for muscle cramps); would you rule differently?
A ruling must depend first of all on whether it is indeed prescribed / obviously needed medication. Let me simplify by disregarding extreme side considerations:
1) Prescription: Allowed.
2) No prescription: Such a kind of "medication" should be done in the rest room because thereby the opponent's thinking is not disturbed unnecessarily. Go is a mental skill competition - not an outbeat by greater annoyance competition.
Quote:
Case 4
In a lopsided international match, the stronger player uses intimidation to try to get her opponent to resign. At first, she played loud and fast, slapping stones onto the board immediately after each of her opponent’s move; then she started complaining to spectators, “why hasn’t my opponent resigned”! When the referee interceded and warned her, the talking stopped, but the rude playing continued. Her opponent protested, the strong player insisted she did nothing wrong. How would you rule?
Assuming reasonable tournament rules.
Your description suggests that what the player did was meant to disturb the opponent's concentration and even permanently.
Go is a mental skill competition - not an outbeat by greater annoyance competition. Therefore (see above).
However, this case is harsher: the player's talk to kibitzes must also be prohibited.
Penalties? Assuming it to have been a subtle acceleration of annoyance and a tournament rules context similar to EGF GTR, I would first issue a warning and, when the opponent calls the referee a second time and facts are established, issue a default loss to the player.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
hyperpape
? I did the only rational thing 
.
