I’ve been following the discussion, but can’t remember if my answer below has already been suggested. Sorry if it has!
(Player X’s flag fell, but his opponent, Player Y did not notice this. Player Y made an illegal move at some point after Player X’s flag had fallen. Player X noticed this and asked for two minutes to be added to his clock…
Assuming the physical flag fall is irreversible, would there be any reason a TD can’t respond to the first part of the OP thusly:
“Yes, this is an illegal move… we will restore the board to that point of the game.” (This assumes scoresheets are available. The game position is restored.) “Completed.” TD starts to walk away.
Player X, “Wait! Hey, what about my two minutes?”
TD, “You are not eligible to have two minutes added to your time.”
Then wait for Player X to either go silent (because he knows why,) or for him to protest and ask. “Why?”
Then the TD can answer, as the player him- or herself has asked for the reason why the TD will not add time. Or the TD can go cryptic, “Your clock is not in a state in which I can add time to it.” (And Player Y can decide for him- or herself to call the fallen flag.)
Thougth I still don’t see the immediate problem with explicitly putting in the rules some provision that a TD can call a fallen flag if asked to make a ruling in a game. (Other than some implying it’s just not necessary.)
I agree there could be 2 interpretations. As USCF TDs we are required to consider the flag fallen when it is called by one of the players. FIDE has a different rule which some here would like to use. The only way I see as acceptable is to announce rule variations before the start of the tournament.
I get the impression from some TDs writing here, that they would ignore certain USCF rules even though they gave no advance warning. It is to those TDs that I state that doing so would subject them to a reversal on appeal.
The appeal process can be lengthy and time consuming. It requires that the USCF gather information from all affected parties, usually in the form of detailed accounts of what occurred and the rules which were/were not applied properly. The USCF office then submits this to the rules committee which may ask some follow-up questions before discussing it among themselves and making a ruling. It just seems that if a TD doesn’t want to use a rule, that it would be much smarter to cover one’s self in advance.
rfeditor wrote:
This topic started when Polly wrote that this is exactly what happened. I don’t doubt that it’s rare. I have occasionally had players who were not totally familiar with the clock, how to claim, and other issues.
My position as a TD is that I should not be offering advice during the game. It is the player’s responsibility to learn proper use of the clock. If the player asks me during the game, I will answer only those questions asked. I may educate the player after the game ends if I feel the player is deficient in this knowledge.
But which rules you intend to ignore needs to be stated in advance. You can’t go around ignoring rules during a tournament because you don’t like them. Players expect you to follow the rules or announce variations in advance.
If you want the rule changed, go though the proper channels and if you succeed, no one who disagrees with you will have a leg to stand on.
That’s a rather large assumption! I can think of several times when adding time after the physical flag has fallen is proper. I already mentioned one in a previous post. Some are: the clock is running fast, the clock was set improperly, the clock malfunctioned, the director forgot to stop the clock while making a ruling in that game, and a player tried to cheat by advancing the time. Does anyone really want a rule that prevents a TD from correcting these? I don’t.
The other point that needs be made is, as presently worded, the flag is not considered down until it’s called down by one of the players. Most of the disagreement we’ve had here is based on the assumption quoted at the top of this post.
I don’t see where the rulebook supports the assumption that the flag is considered down before it’s called by one of the players (except FIDE rules). Perhaps you could quote the rule that proves me wrong.
No where, absolutely NO WHERE, have I advocated ignoring any rules. Yes I want to see the rules changed. But I shouldn’t have to “go though the proper channels” just to express an opinion on a discussion board.
Above are your responses. If you haven’t advocated ignoring the rules then how can you claim that you would tell a player that his flag is down when rule 13C1 clearly states: “it is considered to have fallen ONLY when either player points this out”? You are not abiding by 13C1 to do it your way.
It’s not that you “advocated ignoring any rules” by those specific words, but the actions you claim you would take ignore 13C1. The rule ties the fallen flag claim directly to the necessity of it being called by one of the players. When you do what you claim you would, it is no longer just an “opinion”.
Please explain how your second quote above doesn’t ignore 13C1.
The second quote is actually Tim quoting another person. I was under the impression that Tim included the quote as an example of something that he felt shouldn’t be done.
If you can’t figure out who is correct then you could always fall back on 21F3b and make the ruling that allows the game to continue (adding two minutes).
I don’t think you’re correct. Take look at Tim’s posting on Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:35 pm EST #174509. Look at the bottom of it and you will see the following:
Tim seems to be endorsing Hillery’s view. Are you, Tim? Who wrote the word “I’d” changed to red above? That is the person who’d be ignoring rule 13C1.
Either way, the flag is not considered down because neither player called it!
Yes, it is a rather large assumption, which is why I prefaced it that way. I take that from my conclusion that there does not seem to be agreement upon this point, as we have discussed it upthread. If the flag fall is not irreversible (in this case, at minimum), then the rest of what I wrote makes little sense IMVHO.
I’m editing to add that in all the circumstances you mentioned there was some defect or reason-in-equity to possibly go “extrajudicial,” or existing rules to cover the situations. Unless I missed something there.
And, for the record, it was me who wrote that a rules addition could probably be written to cover allowance of a TD to call a flag in situations where a claim is presented. (It was in response to posts already existing.)
Alternatively, a TD TIP could be written to reinforce that under no circumstances may a TD ever call a flag fall. Which may have the consequence, among others, of requiring a TD to break the rules. (e.g. If a game in a round is running unbearably long / the players keep playing / and the owners of the playing venue say, “GET OUT!”)
Alternatively again, absolutely nothing could be done and thus all us Club TDs remain confused and interpret the ambiguous rules as best we can. (Although I know others will reply there is no ambiguity.) And get reversed and sanctioned or appeal denied and a precedent is established.
The rulebook, in one of it’s more confusing (to me!) sections, spends quite a bit of text distinguishing between determined moves and completed moves. (Actually, I think I understand those rules well enough to apply them.)
Would it be of benefit or detriment to establish a distinction between a ‘determined fall’ and a ‘completed fall’? (I’m experiencing lack of better terminology in my phrasijng at this point.) Or simply unnecessary?
a) What’s the flaw? (are you sure everyone AGREES that it’s a flaw?)
b) What’s the fix? (all the details, please - we don’t want any nasty surprises)
You seem to have skipped the part about getting agreement that the current rules lead to situations that are “flawed” - and have jumped ahead to the implementation. At the same time, you have been fairly vague and incomplete in specifying the implementation.
A most unusual situation indeed! It’s hard to fathom how Y didn’t see that X’s flag had fallen, especially when the TD came over and X asked the TD to add 2 min because of Y’s illegal move. Oh well, that’s the situation.
I am going to assume the players were using an Analog clock (but it doesn’t matter). Adding “2 min” to X’s clock would most likely put X at some increment of time remaining between 2 minutes and 0. If it doesn’t, then I’ simply add the two minutes and allow play to continue. As a TD, I can’t mention to X, “Hey X, your flag has already fallen,” or “your 2 minutes doesn’t get you above 0.” Play has to continue because the players have to call the flag fall, not the TD. Regardless, play proceeded as indicated in the scenario, and X won because Y ran out of time “first.”
What makes this one really interesting is what would happen when the players are using a digital clock that the TD doesn’t know how to set … and the TD asks one of the players to “add 2 min to X’s clock.” And, if it just so happens that Y is the person adding the time and he then spots that X’s flag has fallen … now what do you do? I would rule that the game is over because Y saw that X’s flag had fallen even though it was during the time in which the TD was making a ruling.
I don't believe that I would allow a player who's "flag" is physically down to make a claim which would raise his flag. I might agree to his claim, but I wouldn't raise his flag.
In a worst case scenerio, I'd fall back to the "TD is God" Rule, 14J, and declair the game a draw.
Is there something in the rules that answers the question unambiguously: if a player’s flag is down (for less than two minutes if that is known) and he gets two minutes added, does it raise the flag?
BUT - if no player has pointed out the flag, then the flag is NOT down.
More than that may depend on the actual clock being used, and the TD will have to rely on RULE 1.
With an analog clock, the physical flag is the only indicator, and it may be physically impossible to set the clock to 5:59 without raising the physical flag. With a digital clock (depending on model and settings) it might be possible to set it to 31:00 remaining in the second time control.
If I were called to the board in the first case, I would act as if the flag had been raised - simply because there us no other option.
In the second case, we need to probe further. WHY are we adding time to a clock? At least one reason is that time came off that clock while the player was dealing with the opponent’s infraction. We don’t know how much time precisely - two minutes seems like more than enough but nit too much. So, if the flag fell BECAUSE if the opponent’s infraction it canNOT BE CORRECT to leave the flag down. You should raise it (and, as much as possible NOT call attention to the fact that you are doing so).
If the TD is to ignore the fact that a flag is “down” in all situations, I believe “unfair” rulings can be made. For instance in 14G2 (or 16T), if a player calls for the TD, makes a win claim that his opponent’s flag is down, but his own flag is “down” without anyone mentioning it, you’d agree with the claim and give him the win. I wouldn’t unless the rule book was changed to explicitedly indicate this; I’d go with 14J after 1A.
I take that from my conclusion that there does not seem to be agreement upon this point, as we have discussed it upthread. If the flag fall is 
)