Bill Spight wrote:k0n0 wrote:Bill Spight wrote:Players should call the referee or TD when an irregularity has occurred, to protect themselves.
The question is: what is an irregularity?
The text "to protect themselves" indicates "irregularities" might be regarded from the point of view of players.
Better safe than sorry.
Knotwilg wrote:
Although contrived, we can think of many irregularities in face to face play:
1. A player observes that his clock is rusty and when he pushes, it takes a few attempts to push through. It's mildly irritating but no big deal. This can happen in multiple games of one player, or across a few players. They may report the nuisance or not. At one point some player tries to push and the damn thing won't. Would he lose on time for failure to report on prior nuisance?
Did that player fail to report the problem with the clock? If so, and Kim was the TD, probably tough luck. But in any event, the failure of other players to report the rusty clock did damage to the event. Somebody should have reported it.
2. A player observes that the opponent is putting his stones not quite on the intersection. But from the logic of the game, the intention is pretty clear. Occasionally the player (subject) moves the opponent's stones a few inches to get them spot on.
They are playing on a 5 foot by 5 foot board?
A nuisance but nothing worthy of reporting.
I do believe that failure to play a stone on an intersection is an infringement of the rules, and the TD should be called. The logic of the game is not a good enough guide to tell where a stone is played. However a TD may use it in ascertaining what happened. For instance, he may ask the offender why he played where he said he did, instead of on the adjacent intersection.
Then the opponent claims his stone is actually on the adjacent intersection in a vital capturing race. The subject loses the capturing race, because he failed to report the earlier nuisance
I doubt it. The TD may rule that 1) the opponent committed an infraction by failing to play the stone on an intersection; 2) the subject condoned the infraction by making another play; 3) but the stone is still not on an intersection; 4) since the stone is not on an intersection, it is deemed to be unplayeed, and all subsequent plays are invalid; play is rolled back to the point where the stone was incorrectly placed, and put on the intersection indicated; 5) play is resumed from that point; 6) The opponent receives a warning about not playing his stones on the intersections, and told that in any future doubtful case his word will not be accepted.
Remember that the main principle is to restore equity if possible, the responsibility of the player to protect himself is secondary. In this case, the opponent may have lied about where he intended to play the stone, and may have benefited from observing later play, in which case the subject's failure to protect himself is costly. But the plays after the infraction being canceled, maybe there will be no cost.
3. A kid walks about the tournament hall and bumps into the table, twice. No harm done, just a nuisance. Then the third bump pushes a few stones off the table. The opponent claims they were never there. The subject loses, with aggravating argument that he didn't report the earlier nuisance.
The first time the kid bumps into a table the TD should have been called. When finally called, the TD tries to ascertain what happened. The kid is a witness. Maybe he noticed whether he knocked stone off the table or not. Assume that the kid noticed nothing. Assume also that the number of stones on the board and prisoners are consistent with whose turn it is to play. Assume also that neither player can remember enough of the play of the game to tell whether any additional stones belong on the board or not, or where they should be. There is no satisfactory solution, is there? Since the players do not agree on the state of the game and the TD cannot tell anything, either, I would void the game. I might even declare that both players lose. The referee's decision is final.
BTW, in a local tournament I once noticed that two stones were misplaced, on J-16 and L-16 instead of K-15 and K-17, where I had played them. Neither my opponent nor I knew how or when they had taken their new positions. (Neither of us had left the board during play.) Fortunately I had kept a game record. Not to protect myself, but better safe than sorry.
Are these all cases of "better safe than sorry"?
Cases 1) and 3) are about protecting the integrity of the
tournament. You can't just have faulty clocks and kids bumping to boards. Case 2) is more troubling, as it may indicate sharp practice. The aim of rulings is not to punish players, so I think the TD should warn the player first. After the warning, later infractions should be ruled against the player if equity cannot be restored.
A nuisance but nothing worthy of reporting.
If that is what a player thinks, then he should be prepared to live with the consequences.
What would the organizers have done if the subject had reported the nuisance?
The clock would have been removed, the kid would have been sidelined, the sloppy player would have been warned. If I were the TD, anyway.
Is the player observing any kind of nuisance fully responsible for the eventual result?
No. But if equity cannot be restored, he may pay a cost for condoning an infraction or ignoring a problem.
And is an unobserving player protected from the loss by his lack of observance?
In the example where the kid knocked some stones off the board and the player is unable to give the TD enough information to reconstruct the board, he may pay a price. But in general you can't report what you don't observe.
It is a useful lesson for Mateusz: in legal affairs and in go disputes, natural logic may be surpassed by formalism.
". Aha! caught him, he has lagged before so loses on time.