EGF Referee Workshop 2012

[RobertJasiek]

Unless I have misconstrued your statement here Robert, this is a monstrous position.

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

It is particularly unsettling as it is the position of the EGF.

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 argue that the definition of pass simply needs to be altered.

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.

A verbal utterance "Pass" must be given

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

[rule 4 Position disturbance] which is obviously relevant:

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

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.

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.

[RobertJasiek]

What do I not understand here?

The difficulty of distinguishing intention from accident.

[HermanHiddema]

What do I not understand here?

The difficulty of distinguishing intention from accident.

Is pretty much non-existent for passes.

[RobertJasiek]

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

[Javaness2]

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.

[ez4u]

What do I not understand here?

The difficulty of distinguishing intention from accident.

Sorry old boy, but you have descended into ambiguity again. Are you saying that because distinguishing is difficult, the referee should take an easy way and simply quote an unclear rule and get on with life?

Beyond that, in this particular case, it is not at all clear why you think the situation is difficult? It may be that there circumstances that make it unclear, e.g. the player who punched their clock was in severe time trouble. However, absent such easily distinguished cases, why would the referee presume that a player deliberately intended to pass in the middle of the game? Actually, the case as stated by Javaness2 is that player A clearly hit the button by accident. Thus the intention vs. accident issue is not even on the table.

[Javaness2]

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

A number of ways:
1 - Their opponent can clarify that they passed with them verbally.
2 - Their opponent can call the referee to clarify this. (This may lead to 1.)
3 - One can ignore their unclear action and play on, in which case the opponent may protest if he did not intend to pass. (This may lead to 1 or 2.)

A player not following the rules, can always be sanctioned.

[HermanHiddema]

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

By having an IQ over 70?

[RobertJasiek]

Why, Robert, do you say that rule 4 only applies to the board position?

1) I do not remember what the intention was during the writing of that rule.

2) "position" is a term for board position.

3) The rule does not explicitly mention disturbance of playing material in general.

Do you mean to say that you have to update rule 4 to specify board position?

No.

You do your self a dis-service by trying to invent problems where they do not exist.

I do not interpret rules with the intention of pretending an interpretation I do not see in them, in particular not for a side aim such as getting more or fewer problems. (It is unclear whether there would be more or fewer. You guess fewer but other guesses are possible.)

If a pass was defined properly, there would not be such a problem.

There would be other problems. How often do you want players to call a referee per game to enforce their opponents' proper passes with properly announcing "pass"? Maybe we avoid one problem but we get others! Things are not as simple as you paint.

This adds clarity to the game mechanics.

I would have no problem with always saying "pass" but I expect many others to make big fuss about having to say "pass". Can you convince them to also always say "pass"? "pass", not "Finished?". In English, not in Japanese.

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.

Sure. See above.

How can this be abused in practice?

The problem is not abuse but refusal.

It is to the detriment of the EGF's reputation that this should be acceptable practice.

Convince all players, change their practice. I have no problem with such a rules change for myself as a player. As a referee, currently I would be scared by many complaints about opponents not always saying pass and not always doing so properly

[Javaness2]

Convince all players, change their practice. I have no problem with such a rules change for myself as a player. As a referee, currently I would be scared by many complaints about opponents not always saying pass and not always doing so properly

This would be quite a ridiculous fear.
The change would be a simple improvement in the game mechanics. The number of people who would actually abuse the 'pass problem' I describe is very small. It is probably about the same number of people who 'abuse' the pass rule change I propose. Nevertheless, the principle is important, people should not win games by cheating. They should not win games by abuse of the rules. This brings the game into disrepute. The EGF should correct the rule, or correct the interpretation of the rule.

[RobertJasiek]

you have descended into ambiguity again.

One cannot deny existing ambiguity.

Are you saying that because distinguishing is difficult, the referee should take an easy way and simply quote an unclear rule and get on with life?

No. I am saying that a referee must apply the rules, regardless of whether the player behaviour is ambiguous. Where the rules do not provide a solution, the referee must not take an easy way but a way as close to the rules as possible.

No, I am not complaining about an unclear rule. In fact, the cited rules are clear.

why would the referee presume that a player deliberately intended to pass in the middle of the game?

It is not the task of a referee to make assumptions about (im)perfect play. §7.1: "[...] In particular, no attempt should be made to use positional judgement in reaching a decision [...]" Go is a game where it is the player's right to make mistakes; this is a key excitement of the game. If all players were perfect Gods, then the game would be boring.

Actually, the case as stated by Javaness2 is that player A clearly hit the button by accident.

The description was. "Quite by accident, a player [A] presses the move button, he was fumbling for the look button." What Javaness2 describes as "accident" "for the look button" is only A's perspective. What everybody else present including the opponent saw was A's "fumbling" and "pressing of the move button". The referee must not believe A more than B or witnesses; he must believe A and B equally much, where facts are not unambiguous. Javaness2 describes B's perspective: "His opponent now says 'You have passed', and plays a stone, and presses his clock." So B's perspective is that A established facts rather than having an accident. The referee does not have witnesses in this case. So he can rely only the objectively available facts. They are that A's pressing of the move button could have been either intentional or accidental; it cannot be established which of the two. Regardless of an IQ higher than 70. Impartial decisions do not mean to believe A more than B.

"in the middle of the game" is invented by you. From Javaness2's description, we do not know whether it was during the middle of the game or during the likely end of the game.

[RobertJasiek]

A player not following the rules, can always be sanctioned.

If there were the rule that a player must announce "pass"...

(In some tournaments, there are tournament-specific rules to do so. Some rules of play can specify so. So the previous discussion was in a context where neither was given.)

[Matti]

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 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 played a stone, and warn [A] to be more careful in future, and warn to behave properly.

This case is analogous to one, where a player accidentally drops a stone on the board. [A] should immediately admit his error and offer to correct it. If he does not, I would be inclined to let the game continue. If he does, and refuses, should be calling the referee. As he didn't, both would get a warning, choice 3. Here I assume that no prior incidents happened in the game.

[RobertJasiek]

[A] should immediately admit his error

This is an interesting approach to the problem, thank you! Immediately (within a few seconds) admitting his action of pressing the move button as being accidental is a good condition for considering it, as you suggest, analogous to accidentally disturbing the [board] position.

The aspect of immediate admitting does not occur in Javaness2's dispute description, where the order is: first B notices that something happened, then B moved, then (supposedly not immediately after his action) A argues about it having been accidental.

[Kanin]

[A] should immediately admit his error

This is an interesting approach to the problem, thank you! Immediately (within a few seconds) admitting his action of pressing the move button as being accidental is a good condition for considering it, as you suggest, analogous to accidentally disturbing the [board] position.

The aspect of immediate admitting does not occur in Javaness2's dispute description, where the order is: first B notices that something happened, then B moved, then (supposedly not immediately after his action) A argues about it having been accidental.

Even then a player about to lose on time could press the button and immediately say it was a mistake and that way buy himself another byo-yomi period (atleast). I agree with Matti that there is no difference between accidentally pressing the clock and accidentally placing a stone where one did not want to place it. It's impossible to create safety nets in the rules for these accidents. Most players will see that their opponent made an unintentional mistake and allow them to take it back, and no dispute arises. The current rule for passing can't be abused. It can only cause dispute if an accident occurs. This means some will suffer for mistakes they make, which is much better than suffering for another player's abuse of a rule.