Valid points, indeed!
You’re gettin good, Terry 
We are basing our discussion on what the coach, who did not witness incident is saying. (The playing hall is closed off to coaches and parents so I know he could not have possibly observed what occurred.) I’m not saying that Shaun is making this up, but he is going on what his player told him. Often what the player tells his coach or parent isn’t quite what happened. I’m not saying the player is deliberately lying to his coach, but what the player thought was mumbling to himself, may have been louder then he thought, and came across as a clear statement that the oppenent took to be a draw offer.
Time and time again I’ve seen situations that occur in the tournament room get twisted around because of how the youngster tells his parent/coach what happened. It’s not necessarily that the child is lying, but it’s just how he perceived what happened, and how he recalls it once the parent/coach asks, “So what happened in your game?”. If the parent/coach overeacts then the child gets drawn into those emotions, and story gets more twisted in each telling.
But that is my very point! When we discuss a situation like this, we should be basing our discussion on the information WE HAVE, not creating hypothetical information that things MIGHT have been different than described.
If some TD encounters a situation JUST LIKE the description we have here, then he could look to this thread for guidance. If the suggestions we make are for some other hypothetical situation, then that should be clearly stated.
It seems to me, for the exact situation described, that the TD made a mistake. If the REAL situation is different that the one described here, then the mistake is being made by the original poster. If WE make comments ASSUMING there’s an error in that original description, I don’t see that we have any justification for the conclusions.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but that is not a correct statement of my position. The player is not being “punished,” nor is the TD “ruling the game a draw.” An offer of a draw cannot be retracted. Saying “You want a draw?” while sitting across the board from the opponent is an offer of a draw. As Steve Immitt already pointed out, you cannot base your ruling on the “intent” of the speaker, only on what he did or said.
If you tried what you are suggesting in a “real” tournament game (between two adults), I guarantee that the players wouldn’t stand for it. (I know I wouldn’t.) If your point is that small children should be treated differently, you are going to have to define at exactly what point players cease to be legally responsible.
I respectfully request that you read the second post in this thread to understand my reference to penalizing as punishment. The above was not meant to reflect your position. I did not reference you in quotes, I quoted Terry Winchester and continued my point.
As to your last paragraph, I completely disagree with the premise of your argument. I am not suggesting anything of the above. An offer of a draw cannot be retracted. Agreed. However, a snide comment repeating what an opponent said is MOCKERY and unsportsmanlike behavior, not a draw offer. Depending upon the number of warnings, it may be completely just to adjudicate, forfeit the game and throw the player out of the tournament!
A problem with this thread is that we seem to be conflating two quite different questions.
a) In the general case, with two “generic players”: Player A mutters “You want a draw?” Player B says “Yes.” Player A says, “Oh, sorry, I was just talking to myself and didn’t mean it.” Q: Should the rule that A was merely “distracting his opponent,” and assess a minor penalty? A: Absolutely not. Any TD who ruled this way really ought to be decertified, and probably would be.
b) In the specific case given, with a couple of thrid-graders, should the ruling be different? In my opinion, no, but I concede that the point can be argued. If you want to argue it, though, you are going to have to explain at exactly what point your “special rule” kicks in.
It seems to me that a draw offer is a draw offer is a draw offer.
Even if a player is too immature (regardless of age) to realize that a draw offer can take many forms, including sarcastic ones, the TD’s job is still to rule appropriately. The player will have to chalk this up as a learning experience.
However, this was clearly NOT a draw offer but instead was a comment on the draw offer from the opponent! That’s how the question was structured:
- Player 1 makes draw offer.
- Player 2 declines and wins the queen from player 1.
- Player 1 (talking to HIMSELF) sarcastically mutters “you want a draw?”
The clear intent of the player is to make a sarcastic reference to the draw offer that had already been made by player 1, NOT to introduce a new draw offer! He wasn’t ASKING if the opponent wanted a draw, he already KNEW that. He was commenting on the FACT that his opponent had previously asked for a draw in such a position.
The meaning of the words we speak often depends on the CONTEXT. In this case there are MANY factors in the context that make it clear this is NOT a draw offer.
- the player is talking to himself,
- the player just won a queen,
- the comment comes shortly after he declined a draw offer from the other player (and it seems clear that he was talking about that OTHER draw offer),
- the tone of voice that was reported,
- the fact that the second player wasn’t even looking at the opponent,
- the immediate denial that he had OFFERED a draw,
- … isn’t this enough?
Again, you can argue all you want that these items would sometimes be difficult for a TD to determine, but here the only evidence we are given supports these facts with no contradictory evidence at all.
Draw. Full Stop.
Unfortunately, most of those points are completely irrelevant. The TD cannot make a ruling based on “intent” – if this were allowed, no draw offer (or resignation?) would ever be final. Only the words count.
I disagree. I believe it is not only proper but NECESSARY to take the context of the words and their intent into account. Let me give you a slightly different hypothetical example:
Player 1 executes a move on the board (“determining” the move) offers a draw to player 2, and then hits the clock. Player 2 looks puzzled, cups his hand to his ear, and says to player 1: “you want a draw?”. Player 1 says “Yes! I accept!”. Player 2 says “No! I wasn’t OFFERING a draw, I was asking if that was what you wanted.” Would you, as a TD, rule that Player 2 had agreed to a draw?
I admit that this is a different example than the one at the start of the thread – I am merely pointing out that context and intent ARE things that must be taken into account. Once that is admitted, however, all that’s left is deciding how clear the intent is from the context. In the post that started this thread, we got a one-sided report on this – there was no contradictory evidence at all. It seemed (to me) to clearly establish that the intent was NOT to offer a draw (he is described as not even talking to his opponent when he uttered those words – doesn’t a draw offer have to be made TO the opponent?).
Yes. I don’t understand why you would even think this one was controversial. If Player 2 didn’t want a draw, he shouldn’t have said those words. Stupidity is not a defense.
Now, if you want to change the example so that Player 2 says, “Excuse me? Did you offer a draw?”, and Player 1 said “Yes, I accept!”, the ruling would be different. But “You want a draw?”, “Are you playing for a win?”, “Draw?” – in any of these cases the player has offered a draw. whether he intended to or not and he cannot retract it.
It is Draw!
Tim
Are you ruling the debate a draw or the situation that started the thread?
The situation.
Tim
Can you give us a quote from the rulebook that includes intent as a factor with the draw offer. As far as I can see the language is intent-neutral talking about a player offering or proposing a draw. If a reasonable person would interpret some act as a offering or proposing a draw, then that is what it is - whether he intended it or not. And that determination would be completely independent of intent, situation on the board or clock, age of the players, etc.
The only complications that I ever see are when actions can be interpreted as either offering a draw or resigning. And those are normally easily handled with the game continuing.
The whole subject in the rulebook is called draw by AGREEMENT. That seems to imply an INTENT to reach an agreement.
If you don’t understand what a player said and you ask him a question about it, that’s not an agreement! (from my example)
If you think your opponent has made a stupid request and you’re mocking it, then that’s ALSO not an agreement (though it IS poor sportsmanship).
If you’re way behind in the game and you’re shocked to get such an offer, the words “you want a draw?!” are ALSO not an agreement (though you’d probably follow them up with a quick acceptance).
The specific language “you want a draw” is ambiguous and you have to consider the context to know what is actually meant. Is it a statement of fact? Is it an offer? Is it a question about what the player SAID? Also, WHO IS IT ADDRESSED TO? If you are not talking to your opponent (or even looking in his direction) when you say those words, then how can this be an OFFER and be interpreted as establishing an AGREEMENT with a person you weren’t even talking to?
I agree that the kid that just captured the queen didn’t intend to offer a draw. Having said that, I would have still awarded the draw, since he never should have vocalized a draw offer, even (and possibly the right word should be ESPECIALLY) as a mocking insult.
To those who say that intention counts, what do you say about a player with rooks on A2 and A1, picks up the A2 rook, plays it to E2, and then after removing his hand, tells his opponent that he intended to play the A1 rook to E1? Would you allow him to take it back since he didn’t intend to make that move? Of course not. Your actions and words are binding.
Rob, there is a specific rule dealing with your analogy:10B. Touch-move rule. The TD Tip goes into some detail on upholding the claim. The problem here is that the draw offer must be subjectively determined by a TD as this is not 14B. Agreement. Perhaps a TD Tip on what constitutes a verbal draw offer is in order.?!