So you want to be an international Go referee...

[tj86430]

So you think you want to be a Go referee? Here are a few very recent cases in international tournaments where the referees were called. In each case, there was also a ruling. How would you have ruled?

Case 1
Playing in an international match, a player put a captured stone into her opponent’s bowl, which is a common practice in games based on area counting. But 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?

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?

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?

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?

I don't think I will ever be a go referee, but I'd like to have a go just for fun.

1) If there is a reasonable way for replay and recount it should be done. If not, if there is other overwhelming evidence that one stone was misplaced, it should be corrected. If neither, the result should stand.

2) I think capture should be completed before pressing the clock. The only other option is stopping the clock for both players, if stipulated by the rules.

3) The cream should be allowed

4) Slapping stones and playing quickly should be allowed.

[mohsart]

No intents to be a refferee, but my 2 cents:

1. If the player who put the stone in the bowl agrees that s/he did that, it should be regarded as a prisoner when counting.
If it was pointed out right when s/he did it and there are witnesses and/or s/he agrees it should be regarded as a prisoner when counting.
If it can be deducted from the position at the time where the complaint was made that there are too few prisoners for one side, and the player with appearantly too few prisoners have no reasonable explanation it should be regarded as a prisoner when counting.
In most other cases that prisoner should not be regarded as one when counting.

2. In practice, I believe that most players would just press the clock back and say "pick up the stones first!", I think that would be the right thing to do (at least with byo-yomi). If the opponent doesn't do this and lose on time it's his/her own fault. With Canadian overtime, I'd say add some "reasonable" time (depending on settings) to his clock, something like add up to full starting time plus 10% of that time.
Edit: Maybe add "at least the time lost" is better, be it twise the time or three times the time as long as both agrees it is longer or the same.

3. A player could stop taking a shower one week before the tournament. Some people have bad breath. Some people like garlic, some hate the smell from people who have eaten it. Where to draw the line here?
I think rubbing a skunk to your face mostly disturbs your own playing, but if a player maybe because of reduced smelling capabilities "just smells bad" according to at least the referee, the opponent and maybe one or more others s/he should be asked to wash it off. It goes into absurdity though. What if someone has eaten detritus for the last week, and smells it?

4. Slamming OK, fast play OK, talking to spectators not OK.
In theory I'd think warning first time "if you do this again you lose" and forfeit second time, but in practice maybe 1. Don't do this 2. You'll lose if you do it again 3. Forfeit, but I'm to soft sometimes...

/Mats

[entropi]

I agree with Helel, referees should be severe. If people are not able to play like civilized human beings, I would go even further and disqualify both of the players, also the complaining one. I would even ban their KGS, IGS, DGS and OGS accounts for at least one month

[gaius]

About case 4: assuming that we are playing under EGF rules, this kind of play is most definitely NOT allowed.

# 3.2.2 Sportsmanship

Application of the rules takes priority, but if even after careful consideration they turn out to be insufficient, then the players' behaviour should still express a spirit of mutual respect and fairness while each player seriously strives for winning his games.

# 3.2.3 Disturbance

A player may not disturb others by making noise with stones, commenting on moves, improper making of moves, bad body language, nor placing distracting items on the table.

Not only is this player guilty of "improper making of moves" which is not allowed per 3.2.3, her behaviour is also clearly unsportsmanlike. If my earlier warning included this information, then I would probably give a second warning now, which means: game loss by forfeit. If I forgot to include that in my earlier warning, then I would now make very clear that this fast stone slapping is not allowed and will lead to a second warning - then I would hang around the board for a while, just in case.

[Harleqin]

So you think you want to be a Go referee? Here are a few very recent cases in international tournaments where the referees were called. In each case, there was also a ruling. How would you have ruled?

This always depends so much on the actual rules in force that each case you present here is incomplete. There are also many important details missing.

Case 1
Playing in an international match, a player put a captured stone into her opponent’s bowl, which is a common practice in games based on area counting. But 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?

It depends on the rule set and further details: when did the player protest? Many rule sets have a specific instant where the players confirm the result; after both have confirmed, the result cannot be changed. This also implies that it can be changed before that.

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?

Again, it depends on the rules. Many rule sets have a provision that the clock may be stopped for the removal of more than e.g. 3 stones. Of course, simply pressing the clock before finishing the move is not right. I would like to restore the opponent's time and give him some extra time, if the rules in force allow this kind of decision.

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?

I think that not having any strong smell is part of proper attire. However, it is a judgement call, and a question of whether the rules in force demand proper attire.

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?

There is never an obligation to resign. Each player has the right to play to the end. Of course, the player also has the right to slap stones as fast and loud as he wishes, as long as the board position and other players are not disturbed. The exact action taken in such a case depends on an assessment of the situation and what instruments are given to the referee by the rules. I might be inclined to give a second warning with the note that the game can be ruled forfeit by the offending player.

[Hsiang]

The actual rulings:

Case 1
This incident happened during an international women’s match. The referee first ruled that the game should be replayed and recounted – the game was recorded, BTW. The player who would have lost refused and her coach appealed to the chief referee on her behalf. The chief referee changed the initial ruling, and ruled that the game be annulled and a new game be played. To keep with the tournament schedule, a hayago game was assigned as a replacement…

I personally do not agree with the chief referee in this case. I think the first ruling was correct, particularly in light of the fact that replaying and recounting at either player’s request is a common occurrence in professional matches.

Case 2
In all international playing rules, the players are required to remove the dead stones, however many, before pressing the clock. The clock may be stopped only if that player is in overtime AND there are MORE than 2 stones to capture. The problem is, none of the rules states how to penalize the player if a violation occurs. The Chinese referee in this case ruled that the violator would have 2 points taken off her score (1 stone in territory counting), 10 seconds added to her opponent's time, plus a warning that a second violation would cause a forfeiture. The logic for this decision was based on similar penalties established for other violations such as inadvertent moving of stones, ko violation, etc.

Case 3
In this case, the referee refused the protest, citing, as our astute readers pointed out, there are often other offensive odors in playing rooms.

This was apparently not the end of the story. The protesting player later sought help from her home association and the latter promised to raise a stink if something like this happens again in international matches. One of her fellow players declared, “if they do it again, our team will all eat raw garlic just before the games!” I hope he was only joking. ☺

Personally, I sympathize with the protesting player. I would definitely rule in the protester’s favor if she had even the slightest sign of allergic reaction, such as sneezing.

By the way, the fact that this even became an issue speaks well of Go – in Chess tournaments for example, bad odors are a way of life! ☺

Case 4
This was a landmark case. As pointed out by several readers, there are currently no rules against rude playing and the referee really did not have much weapon at her disposal. However, it was also clear that, for everyone to enjoy the game and to maintain the civility in Go, this rudeness must be stopped. This case has led to the establishment of a “code of conduct” with real teeth in enforcement. The code will now be sent to all international players starting 2011.

So, what do you think of these rulings?

[pwaldron]

I think the referee blew the call on the first case. The game is the game, and the record should be replayed.

The resolution in the second case sounds about right, although I wouldn't award a point penalty because it will actually affect the game result. The only injury in this incident was the loss of time suffered by the complainant. I would assess a time penalty on the offender and credit time to compensate the complainant.

The last two strike me as judgment calls by the referee, although I am glad to see that a code of conduct will go into place. Courtesy in go matches should not be optional.

[Li Kao]

I agree with pwaldron. The ruling I disagree the most with is the first one. In the second case I think a larger timebonus/timepenalty but no point penalty would have been appropriate.
And I'm happy that the fourth one didn't escalate. That situation sounded pretty explosive.
Rules of conduct are always a difficult call. For example I think that KESPA overdid it a bit with their restrictions.

[hyperpape]

I happened to read John Fairbairn's "Behind the Scenes at the Meijin" today, and he reports that Sakata was reputed to do "crude things with his toes." So perhaps we win some, we lose some when compared to chess.

By the way, the fact that this even became an issue speaks well of Go – in Chess tournaments for example, bad odors are a way of life! ☺

[cyclops]

Do we have bad luck or are women more quarrelsome or both?

[TMark]

I don't think that they were all women. I think that the OP used a generic "she" throughout. I have seen a similar case at a European event to case 4, where a referee ruled in favour of the complainant, that the other player was using unsportsmanlike behaviour and that he had forfeited the game. In these days I expect we would have the lawyers in, but then both players accepted the ruling without argument.

Best wishes.

[willemien]

I am just trying for Chess arbiter so i just use chess arbiting rules where applicable: (and fiddle a bit with it:))

So you think you want to be a Go referee? Here are a few very recent cases in international tournaments where the referees were called. In each case, there was also a ruling. How would you have ruled?

Case 1
Playing in an international match, a player put a captured stone into her opponent’s bowl, which is a common practice in games based on area counting. But 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?

is there a game sheet? the game sheet decides.

In absence iof a game sheet did anybody see the stone putting in the wrong bowl ect

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?

Grant the protest. give the complainer some extra time and tell that the clock may be stopped if more than x stones are captured.
It is bad taste to do it in the opponents time.

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?

Sorry you have tio stick with it. If you like maybe i can organise a cventilator for you

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?

Intimidating the opponent is bad practice. as she did first are definitly out of order.

The hard and immediate slamming of stones i would have no problems with that. "rude playing" is a cultural issue. but still it may not distract players at OTHER boards. (but stay at the board does the rude playing move stones? There is a big chance it will cause stones to moves from one place to another and then the rude player has to reinstate the position., what she probably cannot do so she loses

[Matti]

The actual rulings:

Case 2
In all international playing rules, the players are required to remove the dead stones, however many, before pressing the clock. The clock may be stopped only if that player is in overtime AND there are MORE than 2 stones to capture. The problem is, none of the rules states how to penalize the player if a violation occurs. The Chinese referee in this case ruled that the violator would have 2 points taken off her score (1 stone in territory counting), 10 seconds added to her opponent's time, plus a warning that a second violation would cause a forfeiture. The logic for this decision was based on similar penalties established for other violations such as inadvertent moving of stones, ko violation, etc.

So, what do you think of these rulings?

It was ingenious to penalize with two points of score. However, if I were to invent a new penalty, I might rule that prisoners taken after pressing the clock would not count for the player who takes them and thus penalize the player with number of prisoners taken after pressing the clock, but giving no other penalties.

[gaius]

The actual rulings:
Case 2
In all international playing rules, the players are required to remove the dead stones, however many, before pressing the clock. The clock may be stopped only if that player is in overtime AND there are MORE than 2 stones to capture. The problem is, none of the rules states how to penalize the player if a violation occurs. The Chinese referee in this case ruled that the violator would have 2 points taken off her score (1 stone in territory counting), 10 seconds added to her opponent's time, plus a warning that a second violation would cause a forfeiture. The logic for this decision was based on similar penalties established for other violations such as inadvertent moving of stones, ko violation, etc.

Did this happen at the WMSG? That ruleset is the only one I know (aside from Ing timing system) that gives 2 points penalty for this kind of thing.

[Fedya]

It was ingenious to penalize with two points of score. However, if I were to invent a new penalty, I might rule that prisoners taken after pressing the clock would not count for the player who takes them and thus penalize the player with number of prisoners taken after pressing the clock, but giving no other penalties.

Except that in Hsiang's example, they were using area scoring. Not getting the prisoners doesn't affect the score.