Interesting points, thanks.
I fell for this the other week 
(I only had 20 seconds left myself.) Hopefully I learned my lesson.
I see that as kind of a weak rule. What is the point of time control on a game unless it’s impact is absolute? In other sports like football or basketball when the play clock runs down one side or the other doesn’t have to claim that the clock ran down, if it ran down the other team is punished. By forcing players to pay attention to when exactly the clock hits zero, or when exactly a three move repetition arises (if I’m understanding this rule correctly), and making them claim it instead of it just being an absolute rule, you distract away from the actual game and allow people to cleverly use loopholes to their own advantage to escape what should be draws or losses. You force players to not just focus on the chess game theyre playing, but also to make sure they follow specific rules and identify when specific situations arise.
It really doesn’t sound very fair to me. I suppose there is only so much a tournament director can do though 
, it’s not like they can stand around every game and watch what is going on. I just know that if it happened to me in a tournament I would probably be ticked off.
The rule is, even though it’s not explicitly written this way, that after an opponent has used all his time, the player has the option of claiming a forfeit. Some players may not wish to claim this, especially in a non-sudden death time control when they have incomplete scoresheets.
It’s explicit in the rules that players have the option to claim a draw based on the three move rule or the fifty move rule.
Please note that there is no option for checkmate or stalemate. Those end the game no matter what the players think about it.
Alex Relyea
In football and basketball the refs outnumber the number of games (1) taking place. In chess there may be dozens of games handled by one director. Asking a director to call flags, 3-fold repetitions in games in which there is no single vantage point to see all of the clocks and moves simultaneously, not knowing whether the requisite number of moves have been played etc. seems, to quote you, “really doesn’t sound very fair to me”.
Perhaps it would be more analogous to compare chess to golf where the players are expected to enforce the rules even though there may be a director. A golf director can’t be at every hole watching to see that everyone is playing the ball from the exact location it landed.
As for being “ticked off”, if you know it is your own responsibility to call a flag or 3-fold and you don’t, you have only yourself to blame.
If you want a TD at every game calling every violation, expect the cost of playing in tournaments to rise in proportion to the player-TD ratio and a corresponding drop in player enjoyment when the TD becomes a bigger part of the game.
That is unless it’s a game in which neither player notices the mate or stalemate and they keep playing. If you direct enough scholastics you’ll see a lot of this.
Depends on whether the standard rules are in effect or not. If so, in checkmate or stalemate there are no legal moves, and TD’s are obliged to correct illegal moves which they observe, other than in the last five minutes of sudden death. So a TD observing any move in a checkmate or stalemate position would be required to correct it. So a TD wouldn’t “see” such a game continuing.
However, if it were in the last five minutes of sudden death, or Rule Variation 11H1 (Director as Witness Only) were in effect, then TD might have the amusement of witnessing such a scenario.
Of course, apart from the games that the TD “sees”, I have no doubt that there are plenty of games in scholastic tournaments that continue from stalemate or checkmate positions, in addition to a variety of other possibilities which are entertaining to contemplate.
I have been called to boards and seen illegal mating positions and gone backwards to discover that mate may have occurred a move or two earlier. It means that I saw a legal mate and moves played after the mate, just not in the order they occurred in games with 5+ minutes left each or no clock.
Harold has already pointed out the fact that in football and basketball, there are multiple refs for each game instead of multiple games for each TD.
But there is also another reason: In sports like football and basketball, the clock running down is the only way the game can ever end and a winner be determined. But in chess, normal game end is either checkmate or the determination that no checkmate will ever occur. The purpose of the clock is just to insure that a game doesn’t last forever, and the goal is therefore to minimize rather than maximize the effect of the clock on the outcome of the game.
The normal way for a chess game to be drawn is for the players to agree that no checkmate will ever occur. The rules for draw claims (insufficient material, 3-fold repetition of position, 50 moves made with no one capturing a piece or advancing a pawn) are to deal with situations in which one player doesn’t recognize (or refuses to recognize) that the game is unwinnable for either side. So, once again, it is perfectly reasonable that the other player should have to recognize that such a situation exists and call it.
Bob
I can see your point for the draw claim. But if one has to know when a clock hits zero and call it to claim victory, that forces a player to pay extra attention to the clock so that they can use this rule, whereas if they knew it would be an automatic loss whether or not they caught it, they could focus more on the game.
What if two players were playing, time was running low, and both players were moving fast. One player ran out of time, but continued to play on and the other didn’t notice. Then slightly later the second player ran out of time and the first person called it. Is it right that the person who first ran out of time should win the game because they were paying more attention to the clock?
No it wouldn’t be fair. That must be the reason for rule 14G. Both Flags down in Sudden Death.
The game is drawn if both flags are down . . .
I thought there might be a rule like that 
. Well like I said in my original post I don’t like the rule, but you are all right that there can be only so many “referees”.
That’s not the way the rule works. If both players’ times have expired, the game is drawn as soon as either player points out the expiration of either player’s time.
(If, however, a checkmate or resignation occurs before either player points out the time expiration, then the checkmate or resignation stands.)
Bill Smythe