I implied nothing. You inferred an implication that was not made. My statement only referred to a player summoning a TD to register a complaint while the summoning player’s flag is in the fallen position. The complaint had better be pertinent, as the player runs the risk of having his complaint ruled to be irrelevant because his flag has fallen. At least, that’s how it should work, IMO.
So let’s walk through this. The TD gets called to the table. He sees a flag down. Does he call it, or what does he do?
Well, I guess there are lots of possibilities, one of the simplest being (new material in blue):
"11A. Illegal move during last ten moves. If, during or immediately after a game, it is found that one of either player’s last ten moves was illegal, … "
– followed by a TD Tip along the lines of:
“The phrase ‘immediately after’ refers only to the few seconds after the completion of the final move. If a player wishes to protest the apparent outcome of the game, he or she must do so before leaving the table, before dismantling the position, and before participating in any discussion with third parties.”
Similar changes would have to be made in 11D1:
“11D1. Illegal move in sudden death time pressure. … If … the illegal move is not corrected: …
c. before or immediately after either player is checkmated with a legal move, or
d. before or immediately after either player is stalemated with a legal move,
– then the illegal move stands …”
– followed either by a TD Tip similar to the above Tip, or by a reference to the above Tip.
That’s one possibility. I can think of others, including making no change at all in the rule itself, but defining (in a TD Tip) “during the game” to also include a few seconds after the final move to allow for a protest.
Bill Smythe
My opinion? He listens to the complaint first. If it’s not enough to supercede the flag being down, the TD can rule the complaint out of order since the complainant’s flag is down.
tsawmiller wrote:
The TD may not do as you suggest unless this is announced as a rule variation in advance. In order for the TD to point out the flag he must violate rules 13C1 and 13C14. Doing so is clearly assisting one of the players to the point that he wins a game he might not otherwise win. A player that does not notice a fallen flag has only himself to blame and deserves to suffer the consequences of his ignorance. The TD is required to be impartial, or he has no business being a TD.
If the TD waits until the game is completed, then it would be acceptable to mention the the flag could have been called.
If you, as TD, called the flag and the losing player appealed your decision, what would your defense be? You certainly can’t plead ignorance of the rules.
That’s your interpretation of the rule. I don’t accept it, because it leads to absurd consequences – specifically, allowing a player to make a claim after his flag is (physically) down. Since the conclusion is unacceptable, the language must construed be in a way to save the rule while avoiding the result. One way to do this in the case Tim describes is for the director to say, not “You lose on time,” but rather “I’m rejecting your claim because your flag is down” The opponent would still have to make a claim in order to win on time. He’d have to be pretty stupid not to under those circumstances, but the player should have thought of that before stopping the clocks and summoning the TD.
You have neglected to follow the whole discussion. Please see
viewtopic.php?p=174198#p174198
where I was commenting on a proposed rule change. I was not advocating the violation of any current rules.
Once he is summoned to the game and asked to make a ruling, I think the TD should quote the rule to the players and talk to the players in the third person:
“Just to let you know, the USCF Rule on Illegal Moves In Sudden Death states:
‘If, in a sudden death control, a player completes an illegal move by pressing the clock, in addition to the usual obligation to make a legal move with the touched piece if possible, two minutes shall be added to the remaining time of the opponent of the player who made the illegal move.’
Is one of the players in this game making some kind of claim? What, specifically is the claim?”
But I think a [i]much [/i]more likely scenario than the above one would be one where
White claims Black just completed an illegal move and then White's flag immediately fell;
while
Black claims White's flag fell immediately before Black completed his last move, which happened to be an illegal move.
what part of:
16E. When flag is considered down. The flag is considered to have fallen when either player points this out. See also 5G, The flag; and 13C1, Only players may call flag.
is unclear to you?
If I follow your logic here and a player makes an illegal move and his opponent doesn’t make the claim until after his own flag falls, you would deny the illegal move claim. I think you’d be creating more problems then you solve with such a ruling. I have on several occasions witnessed players stare at the board for more than a few seconds before they notice the illegal move, if at all. Absent of witnesses, including players who may not have noticed which occurred first. I think it’s arbitrary to call a flag when the player isn’t calling it.
The situation, by your words, occurred before you are summoned. Are you saying “I’m rejecting your claim because your flag is down” in earshot of the opponent? If so, you are looking for trouble from the player losing on time. And you know which occurred first, how? And you’re helping the player that played the illegal move, why?
16Y states: “No one except a player’s opponent, may call that player’s attention to the fact that a flag is down”. It also very clearly states: “These prohibitions also apply to the director”. The only exception listed is that a director may call a double flag a draw.
If you are going to let a player know that his opponent’s flag fell, whatever words you choose to use or direct them to, you are calling attention to it. You would be smart to cover yourself in case of appeal and announce before the tournament that you will not be using 13C1, 13C14 and 16Y. Also, the players deserve to know what rules you aren’t using before they start.
I don’t think the “I didn’t tell him to call the flag but I did say that it was down loud enough her him to hear” defense will be upheld on appeal.
What is so absurd about a player who does not claim a win on time not winning on time? Anything else is illogical under USCF rules. I have, on rare occasions, had a player tell me after the game that he knew his opponent was down but wanted to win the position over the board.
No part at all. This is clear, it’s straightforward for the TD to handle, and that’s part of the point I’m aiming at. Under the current rules, the TD keeps a poker face and acts as if no flag had fallen, unless a player calls it.
What is unclear to me is how this would be handled under the rule change Tim Sawmiller is contemplating.
I think Mr. Hillery summed it up nicely at
viewtopic.php?p=174405#p174405
I’d deny the claim, if appropriate for the indicent at hand. If the complainer asks why, then the answer would be…wait for it…“because your flag is down”.
Can you think of any (actually, I hope you can find them all) implications of repealing 16E?
tsawmiller wrote:
And how is doing what you are proposing consistent with 16Y which REQUIRES that the TD not bring attention to the fallen flag?
I suspect he’ll want to repeal 16Y - and any other rule that stands in the way of ruling on THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION exactly as his gut tells him to rule.
A case study illustrating the maxim: “Hard cases make bad law”.
To create a good rule-set, it is sometimes necessary to push all the bad results into a few, rare cases. The alternative is to get it right in the rare cases and completely screw up all the (more common) rest of the cases.
One of the reasons for confusion here is that we’re using “flag has fallen” in two different senses. “Flag has (physically) fallen” is an objective fact. “Flag has fallen for the purposes of awarding a win on time” is a legal definition. Clarifying which definition is meant where would resolve much of the problem.
That being said, is any of this speculation even remotely realistic? Hypothetical: A’s flag falls. B doesn’t notice or call it. A summons the TD to make an illegal-move claim. The clock is stopped while the TD hears the claim and makes a decision. How likely is it that, with plenty of time and his attention drawn to the clock, B still doesn’t notice or claim that his opponent’s flag is down?
A more likely scenario, in Sudden Death time pressure, might be one where
White claims Black just completed an illegal move and then White’s flag immediately fell;
while
Black claims White’s flag fell immediately before Black made his last move, which happened to be an illegal move.
Yeah that’s more likely, and utterly impossible to decide with any confidence that the decision is right. But I don’t think it’s relevant to this thread – and that’s the good news!?
It’s quite consistent with an opinion advocating a CHANGE to the rules.
This is hardly a good reason to avoid fixing a clear flaw in the rules.