wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353 
|
Post by wishing on Oct 10, 2017 22:47:07 GMT
I dunno. As the quotes I posted above show, there is clearly information that would result in some kind of public shaming if it came out involved in this case, otherwise the WTC would not state that they are being intentionally vague in order to protect the players involved. So the issue seems to revolve around countercharge as the only rules issue, sure, I believe that. But that doesn't mean that the technicalities surrounding the rules were the only circumstances in the case. If it was, there would have been no reason to call the head judge and the ruling would never have been reversed. Clearly during the debate about the countercharge, something happened, and this something is what a third party was unhappy about and took to the head judge, who then ruled on it after Norway left.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 10, 2017 22:49:20 GMT
It's entirely possible that the best thing the WTC committee can do (from the POV of their mission statement) is leave themselves on the hook rather than individuals or teams and let committee churn take its toll. The 2014 situation clearly left scars, and they have a rolling membership anyway. I agree completely. The WTC seem to be willing to accept for people to think that they are terrible judges in order to protect the privacy of their players in this matter. Which I think is commendable. |
|
|
|
Post by slaughtersun on Oct 10, 2017 23:13:34 GMT
"But if it was just the call on the counter charge, and that's it, why did it take so long for the Head Judge to arrive on such a simple call? Why couldn't the floor judge have handled that?"
The floor judge was enough...at least as far as the intervening players were concerned. Thus the results were agreed and given to the result team.
As for those of us who don't use Facebook (probably just me)...can you guys be a bit more verbose on what is being said there?
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 10, 2017 23:24:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 23:24:21 GMT
I would hav been totally cool with France getting the win if there was a sports issue. I don't believe there was in this case but t I am posing a hypothetical. As long as they are clear and say the match win was awarded to France because of poor sports, then yeah cool. That is not what happened. So what I'm being told by...someone, is that a certain someone else was unhappy with the result of the match so marched it up the food chain to the head judge. These other someones were unhappy with what they saw at the table. But if it was just the call on the counter charge, and that's it, why did it take so long for the Head Judge to arrive on such a simple call? Why couldn't the floor judge have handled that? In other words, sounds like bullying but the WTC is saying it wasn't. Maybe it was bullying, maybe it wasn't, but the WTC should defend themselves rather than admit culpability. Their opinion of a non judge third party does not nor should matter. The match is between the two teams involved, not the teams and everyone watching. |
|
|
|
WTC Stats
Oct 10, 2017 23:29:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 23:29:00 GMT
I dunno. As the quotes I posted above show, there is clearly information that would result in some kind of public shaming if it came out involved in this case, otherwise the WTC would not state that they are being intentionally vague in order to protect the players involved. So the issue seems to revolve around countercharge as the only rules issue, sure, I believe that. But that doesn't mean that the technicalities surrounding the rules were the only circumstances in the case. If it was, there would have been no reason to call the head judge and the ruling would never have been reversed. Clearly during the debate about the countercharge, something happened, and this something is what a third party was unhappy about and took to the head judge, who then ruled on it after Norway left. That is a cop out for a terrible ruling. The committee member says plainly that the only specifics to the case where those of the ruling on the table. Public shaming could be avoided by just admitting a sports issue but not going into specifics if that where the case. Hiding a sports issue ruling within a gameplay ruling is both dishonest and idiotic. It definitely does not foster trust in the abilities of the judges, or organizers. |
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 10, 2017 23:44:08 GMT
"But if it was just the call on the counter charge, and that's it, why did it take so long for the Head Judge to arrive on such a simple call? Why couldn't the floor judge have handled that?" The floor judge was enough...at least as far as the intervening players were concerned. Thus the results were agreed and given to the result team. As for those of us who don't use Facebook (probably just me)...can you guys be a bit more verbose on what is being said there? Thank you! One response from the head judge states he checked the sheets were still at the tables when he arrived and that the floor judge confirmed he had been called before the sheets were handed in. He also states there are conflicting stories but “on balance of probabilities” the Norway team was aware he had been called before leaving. Thirdly, he says the first published results, which were later overturned, came about due to the results of another game from that round having been filled out incorrectly (so not the game in question, another one). |
|
|
|
Post by oncouch1 on Oct 10, 2017 23:59:49 GMT
"But if it was just the call on the counter charge, and that's it, why did it take so long for the Head Judge to arrive on such a simple call? Why couldn't the floor judge have handled that?" The floor judge was enough...at least as far as the intervening players were concerned. Thus the results were agreed and given to the result team. As for those of us who don't use Facebook (probably just me)...can you guys be a bit more verbose on what is being said there? Thank you! One response from the head judge states he checked the sheets were still at the tables when he arrived and that the floor judge confirmed he had been called before the sheets were handed in. He also states there are conflicting stories but “on balance of probabilities” the Norway team was aware he had been called before leaving. Thirdly, he says the first published results, which were later overturned, came about due to the results of another game from that round having been filled out incorrectly (so not the game in question, another one). If that is the timeline they where working with then, yeah he wtc was in the right. That is the kind of response I was hoping for from the original release. If they would have just said that from the beginning there would have been less hubbub. |
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Oct 11, 2017 0:16:19 GMT
One response from the head judge states he checked the sheets were still at the tables when he arrived and that the floor judge confirmed he had been called before the sheets were handed in. He also states there are conflicting stories but “on balance of probabilities” the Norway team was aware he had been called before leaving. Thirdly, he says the first published results, which were later overturned, came about due to the results of another game from that round having been filled out incorrectly (so not the game in question, another one). If that is the timeline they where working with then, yeah he wtc was in the right. That is the kind of response I was hoping for from the original release. If they would have just said that from the beginning there would have been less hubbub. I don’t want to throw oil on the fire, since I’m pretty sure we’re still in the dark about half of what happened, but the only result that was changed in the database was that of the game in question (Skorne vs Convergence). So that third statement seems to be contradicted by that. |
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Oct 11, 2017 1:00:51 GMT
I dunno. As the quotes I posted above show, there is clearly information that would result in some kind of public shaming if it came out involved in this case, otherwise the WTC would not state that they are being intentionally vague in order to protect the players involved. So the issue seems to revolve around countercharge as the only rules issue, sure, I believe that. But that doesn't mean that the technicalities surrounding the rules were the only circumstances in the case. If it was, there would have been no reason to call the head judge and the ruling would never have been reversed. Clearly during the debate about the countercharge, something happened, and this something is what a third party was unhappy about and took to the head judge, who then ruled on it after Norway left. That is a cop out for a terrible ruling. The committee member says plainly that the only specifics to the case where those of the ruling on the table. Public shaming could be avoided by just admitting a sports issue but not going into specifics if that where the case. Hiding a sports issue ruling within a gameplay ruling is both dishonest and idiotic. It definitely does not foster trust in the abilities of the judges, or organizers. This. While I have also read some comments on facebook from people that were present that the whole discussion wasn't well handled (I heard people say that Jarle was very pushy into trying to get that game ruled in Norway favor and convince the France player to forfeit), so the hypotesys about unsportman behaviours being the cause of the change isn't to be excluded, they remain just voices until someone clearly states what happened, so accusing Norway of unsportive behaviours seems unfair. That said, even if it was true, the judges should just have mentioned that the cause of the change was that (without going into the details) and that the Norway player was disqualified for that. Saying that the cause was that Norway forfeited, or focussing on if Norway was or not aware of the head judge call is misleading and wrong. This gets discredit tho the whole WTC, so it's a lot worse than just saying things as they are. Again, if they wanted to protect the player, they could just say that the cause was some unsportive behaviour without going into the details. Answering with non-sensical excuses not only brings shame on the Judge team, but also doesn't help the player at all, since (like it is happening right now), the only result is getting people speculate on the case and actually hypotize things maybe even worse than what really happened (people already used the word "cheating" in this topic). |
|
faelin
Junior Strategist
Posts: 121
|
WTC Stats
Oct 11, 2017 3:23:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by faelin on Oct 11, 2017 3:23:28 GMT
Without naming names, what happened in the 2014 wtc that everyone ia referring to?
|
|
|
|
Post by Korianneder on Oct 11, 2017 4:16:26 GMT
Without naming names, what happened in the 2014 wtc that everyone ia referring to? That would be the 'finger of god' incident. A player, while on film, was caught doing some questionable things. Things like nudging a model with his finger during his opponent's turn. Not measuring a model's charge range when it was a questionable distance. Reading the dice wrong in a way that favors him. Some people claimed it was sloppy play and some people claimed he was actively cheating. He got raked over the coals pretty well. |
|
Deller
Junior Strategist
I’m on a Boat
Posts: 605
|
Post by Deller on Oct 11, 2017 4:48:27 GMT
Without naming names, what happened in the 2014 wtc that everyone ia referring to? That would be the 'finger of god' incident. A player, while on film, was caught doing some questionable things. Things like nudging a model with his finger during his opponent's turn. Not measuring a model's charge range when it was a questionable distance. Reading the dice wrong in a way that favors him. Some people claimed it was sloppy play and some people claimed he was actively cheating. He got raked over the coals pretty well. It wasn't just getting raked over the coals. All of his victories were turned into defeats after the fact, it just had 0 effect on the final standings due to the rest of the team's performance. |
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 6:10:52 GMT
That is a cop out for a terrible ruling. The committee member says plainly that the only specifics to the case where those of the ruling on the table. Public shaming could be avoided by just admitting a sports issue but not going into specifics if that where the case. Hiding a sports issue ruling within a gameplay ruling is both dishonest and idiotic. It definitely does not foster trust in the abilities of the judges, or organizers. So if you would be satisfied with the ruling if the WTC admitted that it was based on unacceptable player behaviour, then surely the ruling itself isn't terrible. Then the only terrible thing, or at least dishonest and idiotic thing, is that the WTC won't admit what the ruling is based on. Right? |
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Oct 11, 2017 6:17:59 GMT
It seems like the head judge posted on facebook overnight and insists that the sheets were not handed in and the game result was definitely not agreed upon, contrary to all that has otherwise been said. Okay then. The whole text is:
I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, the situation is resolved and has been done so with respect to the judge document and the best traditions of WM/H tournaments. As soon as I arrived at this one I knew nobody would be entirely happy.
To clarify a few issues:
I checked on the timeline as best we could reconstruct it, at each stage of the timeline, decisions taken affect the final result.
The decision to award a game-loss was for abandoning the game. To be certain this was correct I made sure
1: On the balance of probabilities (Bearing in mind I had 2 different sides story to work with, not just the one that was made public) that the Norway Team were aware I had been called and left anyway.
2: The game was not considered over (The results sheets were at the tables when I arrived and the floor judge confirmed I was called before they were handed in).
3: The call was not entirely without merit. This is the ONLY metric to use on a call as the effect on the game proceeding simply cannot be known. I see a few people speculating on the effect of the original call and whether that should be taken into account, it cannot. We can never know what would have happened. However, given that the issue is not frivolous it is reasonable to expect both players to wait for a judge.
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.
Hugin were listed as the winners because, after all this, the results of a game were filled in wrong (IIRC Not the final contentious game even) and had to be corrected.
I'm not saying no mistakes were made here and I expect next year we'll have some guidelines from the committee for captains about some of these issues. What I am saying is:
The game was not "Over"
The head judge was called to rule on a non-trivial matter
Both teams were aware a ruling was coming
When I arrived, one team had left.
With these facts established, the game loss is sadly the only choice to be made though even then I called another PP Qualified judge out of the finals rooms to discuss it before making that call.
I won't be giving out much more in the way of details, but I will answer questions if you have them.
|
|
faelin
Junior Strategist
Posts: 121
|
WTC Stats
Oct 11, 2017 6:27:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by faelin on Oct 11, 2017 6:27:08 GMT
Without naming names, what happened in the 2014 wtc that everyone ia referring to? That would be the 'finger of god' incident. A player, while on film, was caught doing some questionable things. Things like nudging a model with his finger during his opponent's turn. Not measuring a model's charge range when it was a questionable distance. Reading the dice wrong in a way that favors him. Some people claimed it was sloppy play and some people claimed he was actively cheating. He got raked over the coals pretty well. Please tell me he was playing PoM. So much material potential there. |
|
