In a team match, White has about a minute left (sudden death). Black, about 15 seconds. White is up a piece. White makes a move, hits his clock, and says “Stalemate” in a shocked voice. A few seconds later, one of White’s teammates comes over and says “That’s not stalemate”. Before Black can react, his flag falls.
What should I have done?
Alex Relyea
About the interference by White’s teammate or about the game on the board, or, I’m guessing, both?
Well, first of all I would have had White’s teamate put up against a wall and shot.
But failing that. 
I’m going to give an off-the-cuff ruling here, not looking at the book. I’ll be interested to see other idea.
It sounds like Black accepted the stalemate, whether it was correct or not. So I’d consider that game done and it was a draw. Since I can’t shoot White’s teamate, I would, if he’s still playing, subtract 50% of his remaining clock time and warn him not to do that again. He if is NOT still playing I’d subtract 50% of the time from his next game, and ban him from the tournament hall, while not playing, for the rest of the tournament.
I’m just starting out as an Arbiter, so I’ll be interested to see other responses.
First, there is no evidence in the original statement that Black accepted the implicit draw offer (or that Black reacted in any fashion whatsoever). One might also argue that there is no draw “claim” of stalemate according to rule 14A. Like checkmate, the condition of stalemate either exists or does not exist on the board. However, for convenience, let’s treat the shout of “Stalemate!” as a draw claim.
From the wording of the original question, I assume the interference from White’s team mate occurred before Black’s flag fell.
Outside assistance from a team mate is an extremely serious infraction of rule 20E. Even though the advice was unsolicited, it was offered by a (very) interested party (a team mate), not just a random spectator. While it is also unclear whether Black would have noticed that the position was not a stalemate and been able to move in the time remaining on his clock had the interference not happened, I am inclined to assume Black would have done so.
I am trying to decide between two courses of action. The first would be to declare the game lost by White. The second would be to assess (at a minimum) the standard penalty of adding two minutes to Black’s clock and allowing the game to continue.
Declaring the game lost by White seems to be a drastic penalty. On the other hand, I can imagine Black losing the game even after “unflagging” and being given the two minute penalty. If that happens, then essentially White (and White’s team) has gotten off with no effective penalty for the incident.
The standard two-minute penalty seems wholly inadequate to handle this case. I think I would have added five minutes to Black’s clock, restarted the game, and banned all of White’s team mates who were not actually playing their game from spectating for the rest of the round. I admit to still being torn between this solution and declaring the game lost by White.
I suggest “not looking at the book” is a bad plan.
Justification? The original statement indicated that Black did not react in any manner before his flag fell. With Black having fifteen seconds left on his clock, and with both the shout of “Stalemate!” and the team mate’s interference happening while Black’s clock was running, I can more easily imagine Black’s concentration being broken and Black not having time to react before his clock ran out.
First we need to know if the position on the board actually was stalemate, I think…
I am assuming it was not (and I am assuming White’s last move was legal). Otherwise, since stalemate immediately ends the game (see rule 14A), the game would have ended as a draw as soon as White released the piece. Neither the flag fall nor the outside interference would have mattered in that case, and the correct ruling would have been obvious.
A loss would have been harsh to give and just giving time would have then ended the game in whites favor long term.
I would have declared the game a draw due to the outside interference. Teach the team a lesson to keep the Chatty Cathy’s mouths zipped during a game.
I’d also tell the rest of the team that after their future games are done being played, they are out of the playing room. Spectators have no rights. And their mouths are to be zipped while their games are in progress with no talking except to the TD or to their opponent (for draw offers or resignation). Put them on lock down to learn a lesson, though I doubt they’d learn it.
I would go along with Ken’s solution – that is, a time penalty. But, I will also take out of the equation the opponent losing the game unless he elects to take that chance. The solution is simple: Since a draw claim is also a draw offer, I would consider the stalemate shout a draw claim. Therefore, the opponent still can accept the offer, or he can try to win the game with the extra time – his choice!
This is probably true, although if Black had enough of a time advantage on the clock compared to White, this may not be automatically the case.
What if this is the last game of the match and awarding White a draw means White’s team wins the match? Does that change your ruling?
Agreed.
The original statement stated that white was up a piece so I would assume from there with the limited information we have, that all else being equal in playing capabilities, that white would have won even with time odds.
Nope. Some lessons in life are tough. Let them learn this way.
Huh? The hypothesis is that White’s team wins the match if you declare the game drawn. For instance, suppose this is the last game of the match, there are four boards per team, and the score is currently 2-1 (where White’s team has 2 and Black’s has 1). If you declare the game drawn, then White’s team wins the match 2.5-1.5. Doesn’t that actually reward White’s team for the interference?
So was the position an actual stalemate or not?
No. Black could have played …Kh2.
Alex Relyea
Ken:
And in tournament conditions I would absolutely completely agree with you, Ken! I wasn’t in a position to actually consult the Book when I responded this afternoon, and I wanted to get my idea out and help start off what I think was a very good and helpful discussion. 
It appears that White’s team team committed two infractions. First, calling out a stalemate when the opposite was true. Second, interference by a team member in a game. The two distractions may have startled Black into freezing and his flag fell.
Were the two infractions enough to warrant some penalty? The interference alone should be penalized. Was the calling out of stalemate a deliberate act or a misapprehension of the position? That is up to the TD to find out. It is possible that it was done to startle Black and break his attention. Players sometimes offer draws in time pressure to rattle the opponent or break his concentration, costing him time. It might be difficult to prove that White made his pronouncement with deliberate intent to startle, but he did do something wrong in calling out stalemate that was not legitimate.
If you want to put a complete end to players on a team “helping” out a team member, giving White a loss for the two infractions by his team is not harsh but fair. A time penalty alone would almost reward White for having his team member give him important game position information. He still has time to play on while Black is down a piece.
My solution to this (YMMV, etc.):
(1) Add two minutes to Black’s clock.
(2) Rule that White’s exclamation is a draw offer.
(3) Ban the offending player from the room for the rest of the tournament, unless he is playing a game.
(4) Warn the team captain of the offending player that any additional misconduct from any of the players on said team will result in the entire team being withdrawn from the tournament without further notice.
(1) and (2) are dead-on. For (3), it might be enough to give a warning and impose the time penalty mentioned earlier. But I think (4) unnecessarily penalized an entire team for an individual’s infraction. Better might be to warn the team captain that any additional misconduct from any player on his team will result in an immediate individual forfeit on the part of that player.
I disagree. If a spectator burns you once, that’s his fault. If the same spectator burns you again, that’s your fault. Interfering with a game in progress is a particularly severe violation. No second bite of the apple for this offender.
First, (4) imposes no penalty whatsoever. It imposes the threat of a penalty - and a severe one, at that. Second, the idea behind the threat is to serve as a maximum deterrent. If a team has one problematic player, the other team members will likely be all too happy to keep him in line. If a team has more than one problematic player, the captain is charged with keeping those miscreants in line. Either way, the team has their warning. How they respond to it is up to them.
I stand corrected. I think (4) threatened to unnecessarily penalize an entire team for an individual’s infraction.
Now, given the nature of the previous infraction, if the same infraction were to occur again, it might be fair to forfeit both the misbehaving player and the teammate whose game he interfered with. But the whole team? Sledgehammer. The point is to educate the team and change its behavior; the overkill approach is likely to alienate the team instead, possibly causing it to avoid your events in the future without necessarily changing its behavior over the long term. They’ll circle the wagons against you, not against their teammate.