“Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A”

[Javaness2]

Point 3 seems relevant here. The event's own rules specify that the decision of the appeals committee is final. If we interpret that as a variation to the EGF general tournament rules, then there is no further avenue for appeal. If we think the EGF rules cannot be altered on this issue and keep superceding the the PGETC rules, then there is a possible appeal to the rules committee, and no winners can be declared, nor prizes awarded. (This appeal would have to come from the Israeli team, BTW. Neither rules allow outsiders to appeal AFAICS)

There seems to be no specific stipulation of how much time is allowed for an appeal (mostly, I think, because these rules are very much written for over the board tournaments, where there's a next round coming up and everything needs to happen a.s.a.p)

This is a good review of the process, perhaps indeed the appeal from Israel is just finished in this case.
However, I would remind you of 2016-01

Considering the article 3.4.2 of the Constitution, the founding and prevailing ruleset governing the EGF, stating that "The Executive Committee shall decide on all matters not otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF. [..]", this gives the Executive Committee the authority to decide and act on the matter of the requested case, even if the specific action ‘change the results after a tournament’ is not mentioned in the regulations.

Which effectively gives a free hand to the EGF Executive to itself change tournament results if there is a complaint.

[HermanHiddema]

Point 3 seems relevant here. The event's own rules specify that the decision of the appeals committee is final. If we interpret that as a variation to the EGF general tournament rules, then there is no further avenue for appeal. If we think the EGF rules cannot be altered on this issue and keep superceding the the PGETC rules, then there is a possible appeal to the rules committee, and no winners can be declared, nor prizes awarded. (This appeal would have to come from the Israeli team, BTW. Neither rules allow outsiders to appeal AFAICS)

There seems to be no specific stipulation of how much time is allowed for an appeal (mostly, I think, because these rules are very much written for over the board tournaments, where there's a next round coming up and everything needs to happen a.s.a.p)

This is a good review of the process, perhaps indeed the appeal from Israel is just finished in this case.
However, I would remind you of 2016-01

Considering the article 3.4.2 of the Constitution, the founding and prevailing ruleset governing the EGF, stating that "The Executive Committee shall decide on all matters not otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF. [..]", this gives the Executive Committee the authority to decide and act on the matter of the requested case, even if the specific action ‘change the results after a tournament’ is not mentioned in the regulations.

(emphasis added)

Doesn't the phrase "not otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF." exclude this case? Seems to me that the tournament dispute/appeals process is reserved to the Rules Committee? Or am I interpreting that wrong?

I could understand that a separate case could be made before the executive, i.e. someone might lodge a complaint that a player's behaviour is unbecoming of an EGF member, and the executive might, if they agree, punish such a player by e.g. banning him from official events for a certain period of time (I think this is not uncommon in sports?). But to alter a tournament result after the normal appeals process has run its course? Imagine the FIFA Executive altering the result of one of the World Cup matches now by altering a referee + VAR decision. The world would be up in arms.

[HermanHiddema]

Oh, and on a separate but related matter. Simba wrote:

Bojanic: If the appeals committee refuse to restart things after their EGC excuse, please contact me directly by email and I'll open a new complaint against him.

Regardless of whether the appeal can be reconsidered, a new complaint on a different game (in a different phase of the tournament) is possible.

However, the EGF General Tournament rules state, in section 7.3

In the event of a dispute, the player has the following responsibilities:

A player should call the referee as soon as possible, and may not delay in order to gain a favourable decision.

It is of course questionable whether Simba's complaint would be "as soon as possible", since he's made his accusation public about two weeks ago.

IMO, given that players should go to the referee as soon as possible in the event of a dispute, Simba should make his case now or never, especially since the appeals process for the original case gives every indication of being over.

[Javaness2]

Doesn't the phrase "not otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF." exclude this case? Seems to me that the tournament dispute/appeals process is reserved to the Rules Committee? Or am I interpreting that wrong?

Normally I would agree entirely, but in this appeal 2016-01 one of the issues was exactly if the EGF Executive had the right to bypass/overrule the Rules Committee. The decision of the appeals committee, which was ratified by the AGM, was that it did.

[HermanHiddema]

Doesn't the phrase "not otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF." exclude this case? Seems to me that the tournament dispute/appeals process is reserved to the Rules Committee? Or am I interpreting that wrong?

Normally I would agree entirely, but in this appeal 2016-01 one of the issues was exactly if the EGF Executive had the right to bypass/overrule the Rules Committee. The decision of the appeals committee, which was ratified by the AGM, was that it did.

Can you link me to that decision? I can't seem to find it. If this is the case I think it is (the EWGC), wasn't it an issue of the rules committee not being consulted at all? I.e. no appeal was made during the tournament (so no appeals committee was involved) and after the tournament the executive was approached directly and made a decision directly (so this would be a case of bypass, rather than overrule, the rules committee).

[RobertJasiek]

These are the general tournament rules of the European Go Federation (EGF) and are used in the tournaments of the EGF. The following rulesets apply:

1. These General Tournament Rules.
2. The Tournament System Rules of the EGF.
3. The event's own Particular Tournament Rules specifying details or variations to the General Tournament Rules.

The event's own rules specify that the decision of the appeals committee is final.

There are two possibilities:

a) PETGC is an EGF tournament. Then the EGF General Tournament Rules apply with their list of decreasing priority. Since point 1 overrides point 3, the event's own rule specifying that the decision of the appeals committee was final is void.

b) PETGC is not an EGF tournament. Then the event's own rule specifying that the decision of the appeals committee was final applies. (Unless the PETGC tournament rules say something about using the EGF General Tournament Rules nevertheless, in which case details about this matter.)

I still do not know whether PETGC is an EGF tournament.

[Javaness2]

Can you link me to that decision? I can't seem to find it. If this is the case I think it is (the EWGC), wasn't it an issue of the rules committee not being consulted at all? I.e. no appeal was made during the tournament (so no appeals committee was involved) and after the tournament the executive was approached directly and made a decision directly (so this would be a case of bypass, rather than overrule, the rules committee).

Inline is the final judgement section, if you really want the whole thing I can pm it.

In this case (EWGC) the rules committee was not consulted at all, and indeed resigned when it found out about the matter. The appeal process was started during the tournament, but step 2 was never invoked since there was no appeals committee, and step 3 went to the wrong body. The exec should have just redirected it to the rules committee.

The judgement states that step 3 effectively can still stand. That judgement appeared odd to me, because is it not exactly the duty of the rules committee to decide as to whether or not an appeal is valid? That is to say, isn't this a matter reserved for the rules committee. The judgement says that is not so, but I am not clear on what grounds it is not so. I don't see how it matters if the rules committee was bypassed, rather than overruled, but I could well have overlooked something there.

(I highlighted one sentence in pink) Final Decision: Considering the article 3.4.2 of the Constitution, the founding and prevailing ruleset
governing the EGF, stating that "The Executive Committee shall decide on all matters not
otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF. [..]", this gives the Executive Committee the
authority to decide and act on the matter of the requested case, even if the specific action
‘change the results after a tournament’ is not mentioned in the regulations.
As the Executive Committee is the body specifically appointed to “define [..] sport policy”
(article 3.4.1 of the Constitution), it is the maximum authority that can decide and rule on this
matter directly or establishing a relevant Commission, and only the General Meeting can
surpass its decisions.
Given the current complicated status of the Tournament rules and Tournament system rules,
the Appeals Committee urges an intervention of the Executive Committee to restore a
shared and accepted ruleset governing tournaments and then give a proper visibility to the
changes. The Executive Committee already committed to improve the ruleset for European
Championships and set up procedures to better manage communication in case of
controversies to improve transparency and speed of the process. The Appeals Committee
invites the Executive Committee to report these decisions and actions during the next
General Meeting.

[HermanHiddema]

These are the general tournament rules of the European Go Federation (EGF) and are used in the tournaments of the EGF. The following rulesets apply:

1. These General Tournament Rules.
2. The Tournament System Rules of the EGF.
3. The event's own Particular Tournament Rules specifying details or variations to the General Tournament Rules.

The event's own rules specify that the decision of the appeals committee is final.

There are two possibilities:

a) PETGC is an EGF tournament. Then the EGF General Tournament Rules apply with their list of decreasing priority. Since point 1 overrides point 3, the event's own rule specifying that the decision of the appeals committee was final is void.

b) PETGC is not an EGF tournament. Then the event's own rule specifying that the decision of the appeals committee was final applies. (Unless the PETGC tournament rules say something about using the EGF General Tournament Rules nevertheless, in which case details about this matter.)

I still do not know whether PETGC is an EGF tournament.

Oh, I see I failed to spot section 1.5 on the priority of rules, which say that in EGF events the only thing taking precedence over the EGF General Tournament Rules are "changes to a ruleset made by the EGF (in order: EGF annual general meeting, EGF committee, EGF rules commission, the tournament's tournament supervisors)"

The EGF Championships and Top Events list includes the PGETC (refering to the Pandanet page for "full info") so it is definitely an EGF tournament.

In that case, I think an appeal to the Rules Committee is possible, but there should be a reasonable time limit on it, so that things are not help up indefinitely. Given that the EGF has decided to move forward and declare winners, maybe the Isreali team has explicitly informed them they will not appeal, or perhaps they have already decided that too much time has passed (6 weeks now) for another appeal.

[HermanHiddema]

@javaness: Thanks! Indeed a bit odd, and I agree the executive should have just referred to the Rules Committee. I can sort of see where the Appeals Committee is coming from though.

There's some question of what "reserved" implies. Does that mean it is specifically *excluded* from the responsibilities of the executive? (e.g. the Auditors do work that is specifically independent from the Executive).

Also, there is a question of what constitutes "another body of the EGF". The AGM is definitely another body, and so are the Auditors, and I guess the same would apply to any committee that can only be appointed by the AGM, rather than those that can also be appointed by the Executive.

Complicated stuff.

[Gobang]

In this case (EWGC) the rules committee was not consulted at all, and indeed resigned when it found out about the matter. The appeal process was started during the tournament, but step 2 was never invoked since there was no appeals committee, and step 3 went to the wrong body. The exec should have just redirected it to the rules committee.

Thank you for providing this information.

[Matti]

As my last task as an EGF officer I prepared the proposal for the AGM 2013 to install the EGF appeals committee, which by the constitution should exists, but didn't exist before. The idea was to direct the appeals to the appeals commisson instead of the rules commission. This would separate making the rules and applying the rules to separate bodies. Apparently this idea got never updated to the EGF tourmament rules.

[RobertJasiek]

As my last task as an EGF officer I prepared the proposal for the AGM 2013 to install the EGF appeals committee, which by the constitution should exists, but didn't exist before. The idea was to direct the appeals to the appeals commisson instead of the rules commission. This would separate making the rules and applying the rules to separate bodies. Apparently this idea got never updated to the EGF tourmament rules.

Separation of powers is good in principle, as is expertise of judges. For the EGF Appeals Commission to meaningfully become the third instance of arbitration in rules matters, its members ought to have education with the rules and as referees. The EGF Rules Commission (or whatever the current name is) has this education.

The EGF has further bodies with conflicts of power because, it has been thought, the EGF does not have enough manpower to install a full separation of powers yet. IMO, cutting conflicting powers from the EGF Committee is the most urgent to prevent such incidents as in the EGC 2009 with rules change AFTER the end of the tournament to determine tournament results.

[Matti]

As my last task as an EGF officer I prepared the proposal for the AGM 2013 to install the EGF appeals committee, which by the constitution should exists, but didn't exist before. The idea was to direct the appeals to the appeals commisson instead of the rules commission. This would separate making the rules and applying the rules to separate bodies. Apparently this idea got never updated to the EGF tourmament rules.

Separation of powers is good in principle, as is expertise of judges. For the EGF Appeals Commission to meaningfully become the third instance of arbitration in rules matters, its members ought to have education with the rules and as referees. The EGF Rules Commission (or whatever the current name is) has this education.

Does the EGF has access to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) possibly via IGF and GAISF? If so, I expect it to have enough expertice.

[Javaness2]

... cutting conflicting powers from the EGF Committee is the most urgent to prevent such incidents as in the EGC 2009 with rules change AFTER the end of the tournament to determine tournament results.

What is this thing that I have surely forgotten about?

[Uberdude]

Changing the rules after the tournament to change the results sure sounds bad, but I could see it being justified in some circumstances (though which body should do it is debatable). For example, imagine a comedy 6-dan who is really 1-kyu is entered in the supergroup of the EGC (this did happen one year after 2009). If a real 6d who ends up placing highly in the final standings played him in the first round his SOS would suck. If that meant real 6d only got 7th place instead of 3rd (in the case of comedy 6d got an average 6d supergroup SOS) then real 6d would be understandably aggrieved. More so if it changed the tournament winner. So changing tournament rules to use SOS-1 instead of SOS as a tiebreaker might be justified. But then another 6d who lost their first game (against 1st place say) and then beat comedy 6d in round 2 and ended in 7th might have got 4th if comedy 6d was a real 6d. So maybe you'd say SOS-2, or give the fake 6d half a point per round for the purposes of SOS (probably my preferred option as more focused and SOS-1 upsets someone who beat a strong person in round 1).