|
Post by jisidro on Oct 11, 2017 11:56:13 GMT
This never seems like a cheating thing to me, it always looked like logistics gone wrong + preassure to leave + final WTC round confusion
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 12:01:58 GMT
I think we just interpret these statements differently. You see "There was a disagreement about how the gameplay infraction was handled" and conclude that the "handling" in question was entirely rules technical, and that it is literally impossible that there were any non-rules factors in play. I see the statement and conclude that there were problematic factors of a private nature that made the handling of the disagreement about the gameplay infraction into a sensitive, "sucky" issue, as octavius put it, that they don't want to talk about. If there were no non-rules factors in play, why did the WTC state that they were being intentionally vague in order to protect the individuals involved? Do people really need protection from "person A made a rules error and a judge made a ruling that overruled a previous judge ruling"? But it seems like you are un-convinceable in this matter, which is cool, different opinions are to be expected... The captains got involved and the head judge had to come over to adjudicate. Regardless of the issue itself, that indicates the situation around it was not copacetic. What it doesn't necessarily indicate is cheating. That said, I'm fairly sure the captains getting involved is an infraction of the event rules. If I recall correctly, players are not allowed to communicate with other team members during ongoing games with the one exception of telling them the outcome of another game. Clearly that line was crossed in this instance, by both parties even. Now, seeing as this as far as I can tell wasn't done to cheat (no advice was given) and both teams were at fault, I can see why the committee might not want to make too big a deal out of it and certainly not a public one. Hence the attempt to remain tactful and circumspect. Best way to go about this? That's certainly debatable. Evidence of players trying to cheat? Not at all. Depends on which Captain interfered first, and looking at how the judges rules I could hazard a guess at which one it was...
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 12:40:42 GMT
If I were a gambling man I would bet that the issue escalated to the head judge was one of team captains getting involved with the whole countercharge ruling, and one party ended up feeling like they had been browbeaten or coerced into accepting the result. Issues are meant to be resolved between the two people actually playing, and a judge if needed, if you are anyone else, even the team captain, then you are meant to keep your beak out of it.
edit, actually thinking back to Jarle's original blog post he even said that both players and team captains agreed on the countercharge ruling, what struck me when I read that was 'why are the Captains getting involved?', it his not hard to imagine a captain sticking their oar in and being forceful in trying to get a win for their team
This seems like a pretty good explanation to me, even if it's just speculation. Your point that the captains should not get involved makes sense, but seems to go against what the head judge says is common practice: "I would like to clarify that the 3rd party who asked the floor judge to escalate was the in the french team (I think the captain, I'd have to check my notes) and this has been done at previous WTCs and I see no reason to break with precedence. I'm sorry, use of 3rd party was unclear and inconsistent there. It was not just a passerby." Captains getting involved and escalating disputes to head judges seems to be a normal thing.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 12:42:37 GMT
The captains got involved and the head judge had to come over to adjudicate. Regardless of the issue itself, that indicates the situation around it was not copacetic. What it doesn't necessarily indicate is cheating. That said, I'm fairly sure the captains getting involved is an infraction of the event rules. If I recall correctly, players are not allowed to communicate with other team members during ongoing games with the one exception of telling them the outcome of another game. Clearly that line was crossed in this instance, by both parties even. Now, seeing as this as far as I can tell wasn't done to cheat (no advice was given) and both teams were at fault, I can see why the committee might not want to make too big a deal out of it and certainly not a public one. Hence the attempt to remain tactful and circumspect. Best way to go about this? That's certainly debatable. Evidence of players trying to cheat? Not at all. Depends on which Captain interfered first, and looking at how the judges rules I could hazard a guess at which one it was... Nope. “He did it first” is no excuse to do it, whatever it is, too. We’re not six anymore. Looking at what we know and accepting what we don’t, I’d say it’s plausible the judges made a decision purely based on the game situation (rules/table state disagreement is escalated, one party is not present when judge arrives and game can’t be finished > win is accorded to remaining party). The communication around the whole thing is a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 12:46:16 GMT
If I were a gambling man I would bet that the issue escalated to the head judge was one of team captains getting involved with the whole countercharge ruling, and one party ended up feeling like they had been browbeaten or coerced into accepting the result. Issues are meant to be resolved between the two people actually playing, and a judge if needed, if you are anyone else, even the team captain, then you are meant to keep your beak out of it.
edit, actually thinking back to Jarle's original blog post he even said that both players and team captains agreed on the countercharge ruling, what struck me when I read that was 'why are the Captains getting involved?', it his not hard to imagine a captain sticking their oar in and being forceful in trying to get a win for their team
This seems like a pretty good explanation to me, even if it's just speculation. Your point that the captains should not get involved makes sense, but seems to go against what the head judge says is common practice: "I would like to clarify that the 3rd party who asked the floor judge to escalate was the in the french team (I think the captain, I'd have to check my notes) and this has been done at previous WTCs and I see no reason to break with precedence. I'm sorry, use of 3rd party was unclear and inconsistent there. It was not just a passerby." Captains getting involved and escalating disputes to head judges seems to be a normal thing. A player flagging his captain or coach to ask him to call the head judge over is not the same as a captain involving himself in one of his players’ ongoing games. The latter is explicitly not allowed by the event rules. The former seems permissible, even if possibly only due to a technicality.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 12:49:54 GMT
Not un-convincable just not convinced. Where is your back up that there where any sports issues where incorporated into the ruling? I showed in three separate places where they said a rules violation was at fault. Alright, I accept my failure to convince you. I'll keep following the argument, because I obviously don't know the story, I'm just interpreting what I see. Maybe new explanations will come to light that will change my interpretation...
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 12:52:20 GMT
Depends on which Captain interfered first, and looking at how the judges rules I could hazard a guess at which one it was... Nope. “He did it first” is no excuse to do it, whatever it is, too. We’re not six anymore. Looking at what we know and accepting what we don’t, I’d say it’s plausible the judges made a decision purely based on the game situation (rules/table state disagreement is escalated, one party is not present when judge arrives and game can’t be finished > win is accorded to remaining party). The communication around the whole thing is a separate issue. If you were watching your team mate playing game, and then the other teams captain gets involved and starts trying to get things to go his teams way when he has no business doing so, then I would not place blame on you for having your team mates back and coming to his aid.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 12:53:19 GMT
A player flagging his captain or coach to ask him to call the head judge over is not the same as a captain involving himself in one of his players’ ongoing games. The latter is explicitly not allowed by the event rules. The former seems permissible, even if possibly only due to a technicality. Okay. And the distinction is that in the former, the player is asking the captain to help, and in the latter, the captain is butting in against the player's will?
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 12:55:47 GMT
Nope. “He did it first” is no excuse to do it, whatever it is, too. We’re not six anymore. Looking at what we know and accepting what we don’t, I’d say it’s plausible the judges made a decision purely based on the game situation (rules/table state disagreement is escalated, one party is not present when judge arrives and game can’t be finished > win is accorded to remaining party). The communication around the whole thing is a separate issue. If you were watching your team mate playing game, and then the other teams captain gets involved and starts trying to get things to go his teams way when he has no business doing so, then I would not place blame on you for having your team mates back and coming to his aid. And if you did so by reminding the other captain he is out of line, that’s fine. If you get a judge to remind the other captain of this, that’s fine too. If on the other hand you involved yourself in the argument, that’d be not so fine.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 12:59:33 GMT
If you were watching your team mate playing game, and then the other teams captain gets involved and starts trying to get things to go his teams way when he has no business doing so, then I would not place blame on you for having your team mates back and coming to his aid. And if you did so by reminding the other captain he is out of line, that’s fine. If you get a judge to remind the other captain of this, that’s fine too. If on the other hand you involved yourself in the argument, that’d be not so fine. I agree it is still 'not so fine' but it is not equally 'not so fine' compared to the person who instigated it.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 13:02:55 GMT
A player flagging his captain or coach to ask him to call the head judge over is not the same as a captain involving himself in one of his players’ ongoing games. The latter is explicitly not allowed by the event rules. The former seems permissible, even if possibly only due to a technicality. Okay. And the distinction is that in the former, the player is asking the captain to help, and in the latter, the captain is butting in against the player's will? Asking the captain to go get the head judge so he could stay at the table himself. That’s not the same as asking for help with the game (or with convincing his opponent). Whether the captain butting in does so against the player’s will or not doesn’t change the fact that he’s doing something not permissible under event rules. The distinction is that the rules explicitly don’t allow anyone to speak with a player during an ongoing game other than to tell him the result of another game, while to the best of my knowledge they don’t forbid a player to say something to someone else (assuming that someone else is not in an ongoing game, of course).
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 13:06:06 GMT
And if you did so by reminding the other captain he is out of line, that’s fine. If you get a judge to remind the other captain of this, that’s fine too. If on the other hand you involved yourself in the argument, that’d be not so fine. I agree it is still 'not so fine' but it is not equally 'not so fine' compared to the person who instigated it. Sure, but again: we’re not six. “I’m in the wrong, but he’s in the wrong more so really I’m not in the wrong” doesn’t fly.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 13:15:20 GMT
I agree it is still 'not so fine' but it is not equally 'not so fine' compared to the person who instigated it. Sure, but again: we’re not six. “I’m in the wrong, but he’s in the wrong more so really I’m not in the wrong” doesn’t fly. Actually it does, if someone instigated an unprovoked fist fight with you and you both ended up being arrested for affray, you can use the fact that they started it as your defence.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 13:25:35 GMT
Sure, but again: we’re not six. “I’m in the wrong, but he’s in the wrong more so really I’m not in the wrong” doesn’t fly. Actually it does, if someone instigated an unprovoked fist fight with you and you both ended up being arrested for affray, you can use the fact that they started it as your defence. Because self defense doesn’t make you in the wrong. If you see someone instigate a fist fight first, that’s not an excuse to start another one yourself however. Butting in in a team mate’s game is not self defense even if someone else butted in before you did and you want to even the odds. It’s still butting in.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 11, 2017 13:29:46 GMT
Actually it does, if someone instigated an unprovoked fist fight with you and you both ended up being arrested for affray, you can use the fact that they started it as your defence. Because self defense doesn’t make you in the wrong. If you see someone instigate a fist fight first, that’s not an excuse to start another one yourself however. Butting in in a team mate’s game is not self defense even if someone else butted in before you did and you want to even the odds. It’s still butting in. I am glad I don't have to rely on you having my back, a Captain is meant to look out for their team, and that includes jumping in to even the odds if they are being ganged up on.
|
|