|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 10, 2017 10:02:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by slaughtersun on Oct 10, 2017 10:02:57 GMT
What I cannot understand is the fact that the game result had been agreed by both players and on all accounts validated by the judge and both players.
It was based on this that the norwegian team left the place.
If there was such an agreement (validated by the results on thecwtc site) why was it changed afterwards?
|
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Oct 10, 2017 10:08:55 GMT
What I cannot understand is the fact that the game result had been agreed by both players and on all accounts validated by the judge and both players. It was based on this that the norwegian team left the place. If there was such an agreement (validated by the results on thecwtc site) why was it changed afterwards? I think because a third party called the head judge as they thought an incorrect ruling had been made. The head judge came over to resolve it but Norway had gone by that point, so the judge awarded France the win.
It reminds me a bit of that golf player who was penalised mid game because someone watching on TV contacted the Umpires about a misdemeanour they had seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 10, 2017 11:05:22 GMT
I wouldn’t say that “the drama continues”. A complaint was made and made public. The committee responded. It’s not like doing otherwise would have been an acceptable next step. It’s a bad situation either way, with mostly just a lot of hearsay to go on, so they tried to make the best possible call under difficult circumstances. I expect this will be an end to it, other than the Norway team having to decide whether they’ll attend next year or not. I felt the messages both the initial one on Courage of Caspia and this one were very strongly worded.
Complaints are complaints, in over 1000 games something will go wrong. I don't think hiding it will make it better. The number of stuff I've seen and read about on the WTCs is diminute and doesn't take away from the effort and the results.
Why would Norway choose not to attend because of this? It's something that happens in tournaments of all kinds, in all games with every kind of player... It happens. Not Norway in general, but Jarle specifically said not getting the win awarded back would be a reason for him not to attend next year. I don't think the committee's response was very strongly worded. They confirmed that the head judge's decision stands, as they should, and explained the reasons for that decision. They also stated this was not the proper way to handle grievances, as they really, really should. We can only hope similar situations won't occur anymore in the future, but it should be made crystal clear that as much as anyone who feels wronged can make an appeal that should be done in a respectful manner. It doesn't help anyone or anything to make statements you feel compelled to apologize for the next day, that only complicates the situation for everyone involved. |
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Oct 10, 2017 11:16:13 GMT
The comitee should stand by the head judge's decision his is the right call by definiton. They can take precautions in the future but at that time the final call should be the headjudges call. The comitee should not interfere with what is stricly a tournament issue. That barrier is reeinforced by the fact that at least 1 member of the comitee played in the WTC.
Yeah i can see that has some merit. But then they should have just made a short statement that the comitee stand by their head judge, and that the comitee has no practical possibilites to go into detail complaints. The head judge is the end of the road. The Comitee should not then have given a detailed reason for why the complaint is not taken into account.
There was no way they could win. After the discussion had been taken public, the outcry would've been just as big if they had kept quiet, so they decided to use more words to defend their judges which is admirable I think. |
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 10, 2017 11:18:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by slaughtersun on Oct 10, 2017 11:18:56 GMT
What I cannot understand is the fact that the game result had been agreed by both players and on all accounts validated by the judge and both players. It was based on this that the norwegian team left the place. If there was such an agreement (validated by the results on thecwtc site) why was it changed afterwards? I think because a third party called the head judge as they thought an incorrect ruling had been made. The head judge came over to resolve it but Norway had gone by that point, so the judge awarded France the win.
It reminds me a bit of that golf player who was penalised mid game because someone watching on TV contacted the Umpires about a misdemeanour they had seen.
If this is the case I don't think the decision should have been changed as the social contract between the 2 players was agreed. That there was a reversal when one of the parts was not there does not seem the correct way to go. But then again there is a lot of info missing so there is probably other factors to account. Live and learn, inspect and adapt so that next year this wont happen. |
|
|
|
Post by celeb on Oct 10, 2017 11:26:38 GMT
Here's the thing: According to the blog post, the taxi was to arrive at 18:30. According to the streaming schedule, the last round started at 16:45. The last round did start pretty much on time if I remember correctly, but 16:45 + 2 hours is already after 18:30.
|
|
|
|
Post by jisidro on Oct 10, 2017 11:28:29 GMT
What I cannot understand is the fact that the game result had been agreed by both players and on all accounts validated by the judge and both players. It was based on this that the norwegian team left the place. If there was such an agreement (validated by the results on thecwtc site) why was it changed afterwards?
The statement adressed this when they mention the "We cannot wait..." sentence. It implies that validation has to come from the head judge and that no such validation had taken place.
|
|
|
|
Post by frejdruk on Oct 10, 2017 11:31:12 GMT
What I cannot understand is the fact that the game result had been agreed by both players and on all accounts validated by the judge and both players. It was based on this that the norwegian team left the place. If there was such an agreement (validated by the results on thecwtc site) why was it changed afterwards? If this is indeed what has happened (and this mirrors my perception of the event), then I think the decision to overturn the result is horribly wrong. I would've reacted the same way as Jarle did (though I agree going public immediately was the wrong choice), and I would not want to return to the event next year. Unless what has been publicly presented is VERY faulty, I have no understanding at all for the choice to overturn an agreed upon, reported, documented result. ESPECIALLY after one part has already left the venue. |
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 10, 2017 11:32:22 GMT
For me, both Jarle and the Head judge are in fault.
Jarle (and Norway team) faults:
- Organizing the travel not considering that an event like that is very likely to go late
- Stepping in during the game and being pushy about having the victory awarded to them during the game (at least so was reported by some attendances)
- Making a post on the blog, attacking directly both the judges and the French team without trying to resolve the issue directly with them before, and again being pushy with threats like "if it doesn't get reverted I'll not come again", that is the kind of thing that puts the judges in the position of having to defend their work or looking like giving up to threats.
Head Judge faults:
- Not coming before to the table (You are the head judge and something big is happening at a table. What was he doing? They had time to replay the move, finish the game, repacking, delivering report sheets and go away and he still wasn't there?)
- Accepting as an "official escalation" a request from a random third party.
- Changing a result after both players and both teams agreed to the outcome.
- Not considering that the whole problem was caused by an error of the French player, and that the game was already a preivously forfeited one (that continued because the Norway player refused the forfeit). Also, another game was forfeited by Norway as a result of the mutually accepted outcome of that match. In general, all those circumstances should advise against changing something that already had so many repercussions trough many different games.
- Not considering that, even if Norway was there, rewinding the match to the previous game status was impossible (both players had already packed up), so considering Norway forfeiting isn't reasonable. Even if they were there, the game couldn't be rewinded anyway due to the time passed from the issue and when the Head Judge showed up. The Norway player didn't forfeit anything. The game was totally finished (miniatures repacked and sheets delivered)
|
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 10, 2017 11:36:59 GMT
I think because a third party called the head judge as they thought an incorrect ruling had been made. The head judge came over to resolve it but Norway had gone by that point, so the judge awarded France the win.
It reminds me a bit of that golf player who was penalised mid game because someone watching on TV contacted the Umpires about a misdemeanour they had seen.
If this is the case I don't think the decision should have been changed as the social contract between the 2 players was agreed. That there was a reversal when one of the parts was not there does not seem the correct way to go. But then again there is a lot of info missing so there is probably other factors to account. Live and learn, inspect and adapt so that next year this wont happen. Not meant for you specifically, but this "if" bit is kinda important. There's a lot about the situation we don't know about (like who this third party was and why they thought it necessary to involved the head judge). There's quite a lot about the situation the judges and certainly the committee don't know about other than through hearsay. It was certainly hard enough for the people directly involved to come to the most equitable resolution; for us, it's really not possible to say what should or should not have been decided. |
|
|
|
Post by frejdruk on Oct 10, 2017 11:45:30 GMT
If this is the case I don't think the decision should have been changed as the social contract between the 2 players was agreed. That there was a reversal when one of the parts was not there does not seem the correct way to go. But then again there is a lot of info missing so there is probably other factors to account. Live and learn, inspect and adapt so that next year this wont happen. Not meant for you specifically, but this "if" bit is kinda important. There's a lot about the situation we don't know about (like who this third party was and why they thought it necessary to involved the head judge). There's quite a lot about the situation the judges and certainly the committee don't know about other than through hearsay. It was certainly hard enough for the people directly involved to come to the most equitable resolution; for us, it's really not possible to say what should or should not have been decided. Agreed, we cannot know for certain. But unless the result was in fact NOT agreed upon and hands WEREN'T shook (shaken?) and results WEREN'T reported, I can't understand the choice. And those would be very big differences from what is the public experience of the event. A faulty ruling must stand, if the players have accepted it and played on. Changing (even faulty) rulings after the fact cannot be acceptable unless something incredibly fishy has happened, like cheating. This does not seem to be the case, neither from Jarle's post nor from the committe's post. Even the part that the team having left meaning they forfeit is alarming. How long must one stay after one's games are done before it is safe to leave? |
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 10, 2017 11:51:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by slaughtersun on Oct 10, 2017 11:51:53 GMT
If this is the case I don't think the decision should have been changed as the social contract between the 2 players was agreed. That there was a reversal when one of the parts was not there does not seem the correct way to go. But then again there is a lot of info missing so there is probably other factors to account. Live and learn, inspect and adapt so that next year this wont happen. Not meant for you specifically, but this "if" bit is kinda important. There's a lot about the situation we don't know about (like who this third party was and why they thought it necessary to involved the head judge). There's quite a lot about the situation the judges and certainly the committee don't know about other than through hearsay. It was certainly hard enough for the people directly involved to come to the most equitable resolution; for us, it's really not possible to say what should or should not have been decided. I totally agree that theres a lot of missing information. That is exactly why I dont understand the reversal issue. Even the "we cant wait..." bit... they couldnt wait for what? The head judge? The second coming of Christ? Perhaps a fellow teammate was trying to say goodbye to someone?... We can only speculate and unfortunatelly well never know for sure what happened. As i and others said...its a learning experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 10, 2017 11:55:44 GMT
Not meant for you specifically, but this "if" bit is kinda important. There's a lot about the situation we don't know about (like who this third party was and why they thought it necessary to involved the head judge). There's quite a lot about the situation the judges and certainly the committee don't know about other than through hearsay. It was certainly hard enough for the people directly involved to come to the most equitable resolution; for us, it's really not possible to say what should or should not have been decided. Agreed, we cannot know for certain. But unless the result was in fact NOT agreed upon and hands WEREN'T shook (shaken?) and results WEREN'T reported, I can't understand the choice. And those would be very big differences from what is the public experience of the event. A faulty ruling must stand, if the players have accepted it and played on. Changing (even faulty) rulings after the fact cannot be acceptable unless something incredibly fishy has happened, like cheating. This does not seem to be the case, neither from Jarle's post nor from the committe's post. Even the part that the team having left meaning they forfeit is alarming. How long must one stay after one's games are done before it is safe to leave? This is the most important part. How can one forfeit a finished game? If the hands were shaken, miniatures repacked and sheets delivered, there would be no way to rewind or replay anything. Norway being there wouldn't have changed that. Considering leaving after a game finishes forfeiting is totally illogic and unreasonable. At that point, anyone could call the Head Judge even the day after the event and have a result changed since the opponent isn't there so "forfeits"? When a game finishes, the only thing that can change the result is if one of the players gets disqualified (as an example for cheating), since in that case the whole match is considered void and automatically goes to the other party, but "forfeiting" is something that can happen only during a game. After that, not even a judge can make a player "forfeit" (aka, leaving the game). Jarle was the usal Jarle, and his conduct was censurable, but the judge call is totally unexplainable. |
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 10, 2017 12:26:06 GMT
Agreed, we cannot know for certain. But unless the result was in fact NOT agreed upon and hands WEREN'T shook (shaken?) and results WEREN'T reported, I can't understand the choice. And those would be very big differences from what is the public experience of the event. A faulty ruling must stand, if the players have accepted it and played on. Changing (even faulty) rulings after the fact cannot be acceptable unless something incredibly fishy has happened, like cheating. This does not seem to be the case, neither from Jarle's post nor from the committe's post. Even the part that the team having left meaning they forfeit is alarming. How long must one stay after one's games are done before it is safe to leave? This is the most important part. How can one forfeit a finished game? If the hands were shaken, miniatures repacked and sheets delivered, there would be no way to rewind or replay anything. Norway being there wouldn't have changed that. Considering leaving after a game finishes forfeiting is totally illogic and unreasonable. At that point, anyone could call the Head Judge even the day after the event and have a result changed since the opponent isn't there so "forfeits"? When a game finishes, the only thing that can change the result is if one of the players gets disqualified (as an example for cheating), since in that case the whole match is considered void and automatically goes to the other party, but "forfeiting" is something that can happen only during a game. After that, not even a judge can make a player "forfeit" (aka, leaving the game). Jarle was the usal Jarle, and his conduct was censurable, but the judge call is totally unexplainable. The head judge was under the impression the Norwegians were aware the game was still in progress. I don’t know how that rhymes with tables having been cleared and whatnot, but there it is. There’s stuff in just about every account I’ve seen that I find questionable, to be honest. That’s the problem with hearsay. |
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353 
|
Post by wishing on Oct 10, 2017 12:34:43 GMT
It seems like the core disagreement between the judge and Norway was "was the game finished and result agreed upon when Norway left?" Norway insists that yes, it was. The head judge chose to say that no, it wasn't, there was a dispute going on and therefore the result was not agreed upon. Since Norway chose to leave during the dispute resolution, they forfeited. Granted, Norway insist that they were promised that the result was agreed upon before they left, so they don't agree that the result was still up for discussion - but that's why we have judges.
"The judge was an idiot" is a thing in professional sports with lots of money on the line, so it's obviously always going to be a thing from time to time in a hobby pastime environment too.
|
|
