What experience do other TDs have in a tournament situation where one of players wants to use a time-delay clock because it’s preferred under the USCF Rules and the other player cannot use a delay clock due to religious reasons? The players are in grades K-3.
I get someone else to press the clock button for the religious player.
That was actually my suggestion to the father as well! The complicating factor is that this is a primary section, and I’m wondering what problems that might add. Parents are not allowed in the primary tournament area, and the clock presser should probably not be a parent or coach of the player anyway.
Getting the neutral third party clock pusher is the answer but they really have to be completely neutral and both sides gets to use the same conditions.
I am reminded of the Seventh Day Adventist player who came up to me at one National Chess Congress a decade ago and commented “Time delay clocks are against the law of God because he doesn’t allow time to be delayed…” 
Mike
I don’t know about Seventh Day Adventists, but for Jews it’s probable that if the kid can’t press the clock, neither can his father. Furthermore, the Jew cannot ask that someone do the task for him. On the other hand, the non-Jewish TD can ask anyone to do it as a favor for the TD. Also, for Jews, the issue is not the delay, but the electricity.
And the Jewish child, or his parent, can ask anyone to do it for them as long as the arrangements are made in advance so that he does not have to discuss what needs to be done on Shabbat. (Look up “shabbos goy” for more information.)
I have a mechanical analog clock for this purpose, just in case. I’ve never had to use it, but I started bringing it when I had a Jewish child in my event that did not want to press the clock. It doesn’t have delay, of course, but for a K-3 section, is that really all that important?
I also think that they would have a problem taking notation, since writing is also one of the proscribed activities.
ETA: And I should add that for most Jews, this issue doesn’t come up. Most of us are not so strictly observant that we are unwilling to complete an electrical circuit (akin to starting a fire) on the sabbath. Most people who are that observant won’t attend Chess tournaments on the sabbath, because they would have to work around some other restrictions as well, and it’s just not worth it. However, it did come up once for me, and apparently for some others as well.
I recall running across this issue with GM Leonid Yudasin. As I remember, I had to find someone to press the clock and take notation.
You may be thinking of the World Open where Ernie Schlich pressed the clock (and took notation?) for GM Yudasin in Yudasin’s game against GM Michael Rohde. It’s difficult to be fair in a situation like that. The person pressing the clock can be accused of pressing it too quickly or too slowly.
On the contrary, it’s easy to be fair, since the opponent has the right under such circumstances to use an assistant as well.
This wasn’t the game you mention. I can’t remember the person who I got to help in Yudasin’s game. I wouldn’t have forgotten Ernie. 
Why were you negotiating with the father? I don’t see anything in the USCF rules about fathers of players having any role whatsoever in USCF chess tournaments. Indeed there is no role of any kind in the USCF rules for “player advocates” of any description – team captains, parents, coaches, or attorneys. A chess game is between two players. The players must advocate for themselves. The only people who have any role to play in a chess game other than the players are the TD’s, and by the rules and widespread convention of USCF TD’s, the occasions for TD intervention in a chess game are very limited.
When players, coaches, etc assume an advocacy role, they are doing something for which there is no sanction in the rules. When parents and coaches come to me with various complaints on behalf of their child, I tell them that unless their child raises the complaint, under the rules, I cannot interfere. If I am feeling particularly aggravated, I might remind the parent or coach that he is not supposed to have been in the playing room, or to communicate with his child concerning a game while it is in progress, so how does he happen to know about the situation he is complaining about?
So with all that as background, is it the player who has the religious objection to pressing the buttons on a digital clock, or the father? If the latter, this requires no deference at all from the TD. Only the religious objections of the player are important. The player is pressing the clock, not the father. Did you ask the player what his “religious objections” to the delay clock, or to your proposed accommodations, were?
This point is somewhat tongue in cheek, I guess; but there is a serious point here. We take for granted that children are the same “religion” as their parents. We speak of “Catholic”, “Protestant”, “Muslim”, or “Jewish” children, but if this makes any sense, it is only by taking these labels as tribal labels rather than religious ones. Young children have little idea what the religious content of these labels is. Indeed, infants have no religion at all, though this doesn’t stop us from saying that a baby is “Christian”, “Jewish”, etc.
I am even less inclined to make concessions to tribalism than I am to religion. It seems very unclear at what age one can reasonably say that a child has sufficiently strong religious views as to require accommodation (assuming you are inclined to offer any accommodation at all). The lower end of the K-3 age range is certainly too young, and a kid in third grade would have to be rather precocious (or brainwashed) to have well-developed and firm religious views, though kids this age are often involved in Sunday School or other form of religious education. My understanding is that Jewish boys and girls are not confirmed in their religion until around the age of 13, which is roughly seventh grade, quite a bit older.
I am quite partial to the “law and order” approach when running tournaments. That said, USCF rules do not exist in a vacuum. The situation under discussion here illustrates why that is.
In this case, Steve was dealing with a sensitive subject (religious restrictions) that does have some history in US chess. He was also dealing with a very young player - the post specified it was a “primary” tournament, so it would be safe to assume that the players ranged in age from 4 to 8.
The player might not know all of the restrictions his (or, if you wish, his father’s) faith places on his playing conditions. The player may also not be able to properly verbalize his objections - a common occurrence among kids, especially in primary/elementary tournaments. Finally, the younger the player, the more involved a parent is likely to be.
In this situation, the TD would do well to have a guardian or chaperone of the player well within earshot to discuss the objection, whatever it is. At a very large tournament (say, the National Elementary), that might not be possible - but if it is not, the TD should have some corroborating adult witness nearby, just so he is covered in the event of a dispute after the round. (Also, if it is a Nationals, note the discussion on the back of the player’s result slip!)
If a parent comes up with a specific religious objection to a clock, a TD invites nothing but trouble if he simply tells the parent, “Sorry, but you have no standing here.” Such a response is at best misguided, and at worst turns a potential helper into a surefire antagonist. For example, if Steve tells the dad what’s happening, he may well be able to find a volunteer to assist the player in question easier than Steve can - especially if they’re traveling as part of a group.
There are times in a TD’s career where at least some environmental sensitivity - not to mention good old common sense - is a good idea. Steve’s approach goes a long way toward completely defusing the situation, while still upholding USCF rules.
I tell parents this all the time (without necessarily even saying “Sorry”), especially if they are making demands, rather than simply inquiring politely about the rules and my interpretation of them. Fortunately, polite interaction with the parents is far more the norm than conflict. In fact, even the parents where conflicts develop occasionally are pretty helpful and cooperative most of the time, and I don’t hold their “lapses” against them. Most parents of chess players are rather intelligent and self-aware, and quickly check themselves given no more than a gentle reminder that they are falling into “overbearing parent” mode.
But I stick with the view that parents and coaches have no official standing at all in a chess tournament. They are there to provide transportation for the kids, to pay the entry fees, to take care of the children in between rounds, and to provide moral support to the kids. But our tournaments are sporting events between the players, not between parent-child teams.
Not one of the parents involved in occasions where it was necessary to take this line firmly has stopped bringing his or her children to our tournaments. However, I have not been involved as a TD at the Nationals. This might be just as well, since I am not sure I would fit in. Those tournaments have a bad reputation for letting overbearing parents and coaches throw their weight around. That is not to the credit of the TD’s at those tournaments, or to the USCF in how it supports the TD’s at those tournaments.
What would you do if the opponent said that it would be distracting and disturbing to him to have someone else pressing the clocks (or two other people pressing the clocks) and that, besides,it could create a situation where the outcome of the game turned on the performance of the clock-pressing assistants rather than on the play of the players? Instead of a game of chess between two players, suddenly it is a contest between player+clock-presser teams, where the player might not even have the choice of clock-pressing partners.
As I have said before when this issue has come up, when players pay their fees and enter a chess tournament, they have a right to expect that the games will be played according to the rules. Nobody is compelled to enter chess tournaments against their will. If somebody has some kind of objection to the rules of chess tournaments, religious or otherwise, he has a simple alternative: not entering the tournament. A player should not have the right to require accommodation in the form of special rules from the opponents and the organizers of the event, due to religious objections to the rules. Players with disabilities may have the right to readily achievable accommodations, but religion is not a disability. Rohde was being polite to Yudasin in going along with the clock-pressing assistant plan, but in my opinion, he would have been well within his rights to refuse, leaving Yudasin with a choice of forfeiting or playing with the digital delay clock.
There are many ways to convey a message - and uphold rules - without needlessly antagonizing people. The larger the event, the more such communications skills are found useful. And, given what these parents pay to come to a national event, basic customer service philosophy says that it can’t hurt to be polite and engaging, even when denying a request or demand.
Having worked several large national scholastic events, I don’t think I’ve seen any parent or coach throw their weight around successfully. The directors there do fine in dealing with parents - and the tournament/section chiefs have plenty of experience in dealing with the more overbearing of those, which is why such parents are often funneled to said chiefs. It isn’t that difficult to say “no” politely, with a quick explanation of the rules.
Many parents who come to nationals come from local events, where they are sometimes encouraged to help out (and, in some cases, are directors themselves). Also, certain local customs sometimes get stepped on at a national event, which causes confusion. A big part of a director’s job at such an event is stopping confusion from blooming into anger.
It helps greatly to try and understand where someone is coming from when they approach you - and that is much more difficult to accomplish when you immediately take a hard line against them. So, yes, if that is the only approach you find useful, it is probably best that you don’t work a national scholastic event.
Who said I wasn’t polite or that I didn’t explain the rules?
However, one of the most important rules which needs to be politely explained is that parents don’t have standing to serve as advocates for their children on matters of rule interpretation, that issues related to a tournament chess game may be raised only by the players, and not by spectators, players, coaches, team-members, or any other bystander. An issue raised by a parent has not been officially raised, and a TD cannot intervene in a game based on something said by a parent. I explain this to parents, and I am surprised you find this impolite.
In MACA chess tournaments, parents are not permitted in the playing room, and in all USCF chess tournaments, players are not permitted to communicate with anybody regarding a chess game in progress, other than a TD. This is another rule which occasionally needs to be explained with the more aggressive parents.
So, I think you are dead wrong here. The rules do not permit you as a TD to let anybody else involve himself in a tournament chess game. You do not have to be surly or uncivil to them, but you shouldn’t be listening to parents or coaches, or anybody other than the players (or a more senior TD), regarding an in-progress chess game.
I’d quote Rule 15A1b, which allows the director discretion to apply the rules on handicapped players (Rule 35F) to players with religious restrictions.
Games where a player uses an assistant for religious reasons are played within the rules. Again, see 15A1b.
If Rohde had followed your advice, his only option would have been to forfeit the game, and then (presumably) file an appeal with USCF…which he would lose.
I didn’t say either of those things. So, this is a good question you ask.
Again, I didn’t say it was impolite. However, the younger the player, the more involved parents usually are. And telling the parent who has the question posed in the original post that they can’t inquire about this is, again, impractical at best.
Again, the rules don’t exist in a vacuum. Also, not all tournament sites are the same. Sometimes, parents are allowed in restricted areas inside the tournament hall. Sometimes, parents are allowed to watch games more closely, from directly behind the player they’re watching. The site may not have sufficient seating areas outside the playing hall for parents, and some scholastic tournaments don’t have a history of parental issues, so the rules for spectators are different everywhere. Moreover, parents are typically allowed in any scholastic tournament hall until just before (or after) the round starts, regardless of what the in-progress spectator rules are.
You should re-read the original post. If the dispute was about what clock to use, the game was most likely not yet in progress.
See the second “TD TIP” under 16Bb on page 62.
First, 15A1b does not solely apply to scorekeeping. It specifically references Rule 35F as providing a guideline for directors to follow when accommodating observant players. Rule 35F10, in particular, allows a director to provide an assistant to do more than take notation. Tom Martinak’s reference is also quite relevant.
Second, Jewish observation of the Sabbath is a very specific situation that has come up in US chess for years. The standard practice is to accommodate the observant player whenever possible. It’s true that a director is not forced to do it. However, the “can of worms” you would open by not accommodating the player, to my thinking, is not worth the hassle.
In any event, the rules clearly allow a director to provide an observant player with accommodation, including an assistant to press the clock if needed. If you want to debate the correctness of Rule 15A1b, that is a conversation for the Rules Committee. Its applicability in this situation, however, is not a serious debate topic.
Here is the full text of 15A1b.
The plain reading of this rule is that it applies to scorekeeping. It is part of Rule 15, which is captioned the “Recording of Games”. It is a subrule of 15A1, which is captioned “Players unable to keep score”. This rule does no more than give directors discretion in dealing with players seeking to be excused from scorekeeping, or to be assisted with it, by reason of religious scruples. You can elevate this into some kind of general religious accommodation principle but that is not actually in the rulebook.
Tellingly, Rule 35 itself says nothing about the accommodations given to visually impaired or disabled players being also available to players with religious objections to certain rules. Nor is there any rule elsewhere which directly sanctions accommodating religious players generally. The best one can come up with is a “TD Tip” in 16B. I do not know what the status of “TD Tips” is; are they rules? If they are, why the word “tip”? The term “tip” suggests that these are chattiness from the authors of the rulebook, who just can’t suppress the urge to pass along little bits of helpful advice. (What a stupid thing to have in an official rule book!) Most of the TD Tips are advice on how to apply discretion granted under the rules, but In the case of this particular “tip”, it seems to lack any actual rule to support it. So here we have a situation where discretion is granted entirely by a “tip”. Great! The tip also happens to have been written before the Delegates decided that delay clocks were “preferred”. So how applicable the “tip” is now is unclear.