Good afternoon to every Go fan ... ^^

I missed Referee Workshop 2011 but I intend to come to Bonn for the 2012.

* Will it be organised ?
* Will it be (as usual) on the second Wednesday (01.08.2012) ?
* When can we apply ? On site I presumed. A few days before.

Thanks alot.

_________________
“I am easily satisfied with the very best.” Winston Churchill

KGS | EGF | GMT+1

We (rules commission) have not decided yet whether there will be one this year.

Good afternoon,

Is there a decision about a Referee Workshop in Bonn ?

Thanks alot.

_________________
“I am easily satisfied with the very best.” Winston Churchill

KGS | EGF | GMT+1

I will ask.

During this year's congress there will not be a workshop for creating new EGF Certified Referees. We are still considering though to possibly hold a short refreshment rules meeting for existing referees and anybody who wishes to listen; a date is not set yet.

Question for referees.

The tournament is played using an Ing Clock. Latest Model. Quite by accident, a player [A] presses the move button, he was fumbling for the look button. His opponent [B] now says "You have passed", and plays a stone, and presses his clock. [A] calls the referee in protest

What should happen.

1. B should be disqualified for cheating
2. Nothing
3. The referee should return the board position to how it was before [B] played a stone, and warn [A] to be more careful in future, and warn [B] to behave properly.

_________________
North Lecale

The facts are established easily: whose turn it actually was. The degree of penalty depends on the referee.

Was that an answer?

Yes. It is about as precise as one can be, except for pointing to the available penalties, see §8:

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/egfgtr.html

You aren't a very good referee if others can't understand your decisions. Which of Java's options (or another outcome?) was your decision?

I would suggest you can be more precise:

"Pressing the move button of the clock does not count as playing a move"
or
"Pressing the move button of the clock does count as playing a move"

My current understanding of the EGF's position, is that pressing the move button counts as a move, even if it is by accident.

_________________
North Lecale

Personally I think the epitome of a good referee would be someone that knows the rules well, carefully establishes the facts through his/her own investigation, and does not allow pushy spectators to sway/fluster them.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Others who do not read what I suggest them to read are responsible for their unwillingness to read.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/egfgtr.html

After reading, one knows about §5.4:

"[...]
1. A player passes and completes the move by pressing the clock. It is possible for the player to lose on time if the clock is not pressed.
2. The opponent passes and completes the move by pressing the clock. Again it is possible for the opponent to lose on time if the clock is not pressed."

This answers your question because the rules clearly describes how a pass is performed on the clock: by pressing the clock. The rule does not distinguish between intentional and accidental pressing of the clock (by the player whose turn it is). Since the rule does not distinguish it, pressing the clock (i.e. one's own move button) indicates a pass.

Of Javaness2's options, none applies: 1. does not apply because he did not cheat. 2. does not apply because the referee is called and must make some statement. 3. does not apply because it has been B's next turn.

Nevertheless, there is potential for advice or penalty depending on the exact players' behaviour beyond the obvious facts above. E.g., commenting A's move by the statement "You have passed" can unlikely but possibly be considered as disturbing. So it is not out of the question that a referee might issue more than pure advice, e.g., he could issue warnings to A to know the clock's buttons and to B not to make disturbing remarks for the remainder of the game. The referee, however, is not required to issue any such penalties, so it does depend on the referee.

Unless I have misconstrued your statement here Robert, this is a monstrous position. It is particularly unsettling as it is the position of the EGF.

One could argue that the definition of pass simply needs to be altered. A verbal utterance "Pass" must be given, optionally followed by the exchange of a pass stone, then followed by the pressing of a clock. This is a perfectly reasonable formulation.
For example, in Chess one must verbally offer a draw, and in the ruleset Robert references "A player may resign the game by clearly saying "I resign"..."

Let us simply point out the following rule within the ruleset, which is obviously relevant:


Yet, should a player's hand accidentally depress a button or a lever, perhaps while reaching for a coffee, perhaps while stumbling after getting out of their chair, the official ruling is that they have passed. I find this completely inexplicable.

Could it be, that winning a game, using such technique, is more satisfying?

_________________
North Lecale

Interesting... However, it would not seem on the face of it that the written statement is in line with the interpretation. Note the following:

First, under the section detailing how the game progresses there is a description of a play but no similar description of a pass. So the existing rules would seem to be ambiguous as to what constitutes a pass.

"2. GAME PROTOCOL

The following rules apply to the progress of the game:

1. Move

A move is either a play or a pass.

2. Making a move

A stone is played quickly as near as possible to its intended intersection. Once the stone touches the board, there should be minimal physical movement required to place the stone on its intended intersection, and then it should be released straightaway. Once the stone is played, any removal of the opponent's stones is carried out.

A move is completed by pressing the clock with the same hand that played the move. Once the clock is pressed, the hand used must promptly be removed from the clock.

3. Prisoners..."

Second, section 5.4 deals with Timing Rules not how moves are made.

Third, as correctly quoted by Robert, section 5.4 states "A player passes and completes the move by pressing the clock..." The crucial element to me is that there are two actions noted for the player:
1. passing, and
2. completing the move by pressing the clock.

To me this quite clearly would allow the referee to rule that accidentally pressing the clock (without the intent to pass) is not passing. What do I not understand here?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

There is no need to call an opinion "monstrous". I also do not call yours "monstrous" just because it differs from mine.



It is not necessary to call an EGF position "unsettling" just because you have a different opinion. However, you are over-interpreting my opinion. It is not the position of the EGF. If a rules dispute went through three instances, I participated in a decision on your (so far only) constructed case and the decision happened to agree to my current opinion, only then it became an EGF position.



One could.

OTOH, there is a reason why the execution of a "pass" is not defined in the tournament rules: different players (or even the same players) perform passes differently. Some say "pass", others say "I pass.", others simply press the clock, yet others express a pass yet differently.



Possible, but currently not a requirement. Currently simply pressing the clock is ok and, AFAIK, the most frequent choice in practice.



No. This rule refers to the position - not to the clock.



I find it completely explicable. Distinguishing intentional from accidental clock pressing can be hard to impossible. If you set such a rule, then players can construct new types of disputes, when noticing that their passes were wrong and teire still available.

Coffee? My bad. If you can't put coffee in a place far enough from the clock's move button, then learn it!

Coffee poured onto the clock? Frankly, I cannot imagine an opponent who would not treat this as a case of sportsmanship rather than of move making. It is a different caliber than reaching out one's hand in an ambiguous manner so that the opponent cannot know whether the player wants to press the clock or drink.

The difficulty of distinguishing intention from accident.

Is pretty much non-existent for passes.

When somebody happens to press the move botton while not saying "pass", how do you distinguish intention from accident?

Why, Robert, do you say that rule 4 only applies to the board position? This is not indicated anywhere in the ruleset you link to. Do you mean to say that you have to update rule 4 to specify board position?

You do your self a dis-service by trying to invent problems where they do not exist. If a pass was defined properly, there would not be such a problem. If a player must say "Pass" when he passes, there can be no confusion. This adds clarity to the game mechanics. You could even say "A player may indicate a pass by clearly saying 'Pass', or by giving a pass stone to his opponent"... and then pressing the clock.

How can this be abused in practice?

* A player who repeatedly hits the clock 'by accident' to annoy his opponent can still (rightly) be punished by the referee.
* A player who misses a dame point will find it difficult to pull off such an undo if he has not said Pass. It will be pretty obvious to people playing nearby, and it will be very obvious to the referee, who can see that they are filling dame.

I know people who have done this sort of 2 moves in a row nonsense, and it is not to their credit. It is to the detriment of the EGF's reputation that this should be acceptable practice.

_________________
North Lecale