G/5;d0 tournament. White has a winning position (apparently). Black has six seconds on his clock. As White’s flag falls, a (playing) spectator yells “Flag!” What recourse does Black have? The TD?
Alex Relyea
There is no good answer to this situation. If I recall correctly, the rulebook suggests that a draw may be the most equitable outcome. In no case would I award White more than a half point.
The spectator is directed to leave the tournament without a refund of the entry fee. Depending on how peeved I’m feeling at day’s end, the spectator may also get referred to Ethics. His conduct is absolutely unacceptable.
The flag isn’t considered to have fallen until one of the players involved in the game made that claim. Therefore, as a TD, if I witnessed this, I would not say anything, and would wait for Black to claim, at which time I would then do exactly as Brennan described above.
There is this period of time where if Black doesn’t claim, White may actually be able to deliver a mate on the board, which would be ruled valid in the absence of the claim from Black. 
See also Rule 20E2 and Rule 13C1.
I hate the TD Tip for 13C1. The giver of unsolicited advice is not entitled to benefit from “extreme caution in penalizing.” He has created a problem where “There is . . . no good solution.” (Quote from 20E2)
The spectator’s tournament must end, because he has forced upon two players and the director the necessity of a decision which will, in all cases, be unfair.
One other wrinkle. Is the spectator related to Black? If so, 1-0. See 20E2i.
Frankly, six seconds is an awful long amount of time and, under a normal course of events, an experienced black player would almost certainly call a down flag before his own time expires. Black is probably glancing at the clock with every move, since he knows white is almost out of time.
Michael Aigner
It is not true that all players frequently glance at the clock when they know the opponent is short of time. Many times I have seen good players play on for several, maybe many moves after their opponent’s flag has fallen. They get so wrapped up in the position that they forget about the clock. I once TD’d a game between two Experts where black’s flag fell, but eight or ten more moves were played. At that point a spectator came over to look at the game, and stated loudly, “Black’s flag is down. The game is over.” Fortunately for me, White had a winning position, and in my estimation enough time to convert it, so ruling a win for him was an easy call.
In the situation presented by the OP, Black may have noticed that White’s flag was down before his own flag fell (he had only six seconds in a d/0 game) or White checkmated him, but he may not have. You have no way to know. Brennan’s analysis is correct; ruling a draw is the least bad decision you can make (you don’t have any good ones.)
I know if I were Black I would feel cheated, particularly if I were aware of the clock situation and knew in my heart I would have called the flag if given the chance to do so. But then, I wouldn’t have expected the TD to take my word for it that I would have seen it.
Is this a situation where 1/2-1 makes sense?
At least we all agree that the spectator/player’s day is over!
Is replaying the game an option? After expelling the spectator, of course.
-Matt Phelps
Out of curiosity, would you make allowances due to the age of the spectator??
Rob Jones
In the situation described, I could justify a ruling of 1-0, 1/2-1/2, 0-1, and 1/2-1, for all the reasons described above. Which one to choose is really a “You had to be there” decision.
None of the rulings are satisfactory.
Now, from the What Would Sevan Do department (I am still incredibly bummed), what is the answer (or possible answers) under the FLC? Does it matter if the game is played under adequate supervision or inadequate supervision?
Given ONLY the information above - its unclear to me why Black needs any recourse.
Mr. Bachler is, of course, correct. I meant to ask about White’s recourse.
Alex Relyea
Both players have been wronged here. White has been harmed by the outside assistance, and Black has been denied an untainted opportunity to claim a win.
Some situations are so bad there’s little good to be salvaged.
Given the above circumstances, I would probably leave the result as is, with a Black win. If this were a FIDE tournament, White’s flag would be called by an arbiter according to rule. Since this is a USCF tournament, only the spectator would be punished. Maybe punished. If the spectator is not playing in the event, the best you can do is ban him from the area.
One of the things TDs should do is keep the area around a time pressure game as clear as possible. That means no one hangs over players’ shoulders. Spectators kept 8+ feet away from the game, or shooed completely away. On several occasions I have moved the crowd back or pulled really fidgety ones away from the board in question. Before events, I usually warn players to never, ever call someone else’s flag, an admonition mostly aimed at young players as they are wont to blurt out, “Flag!” or “Time’s up.” One adult did this at a blitz tournament and got pummeled by both opponents before the TD stepped in to pull the players off the offender. The TD ended up ejecting all three of them for their behavior. Ah, the good old days of analog clocks!
Over the last few years there has been some discussion by the law givers regarding the loosening up of the US Chess TD intervention policy. So in a case like this the TD could call the flag.
The naysayers like to point out that is not fair. If the TD calls the flag the opportunity for having both flags dropped and the game is then drawn is taken away. Or the old standby of not having enough TDs to monitor every game. This does not seem like a problem for FIDE.
And of course if we do allow the TD to call the flag then we have all sorts of other rules that are impacted and need rewording. What kind of rules? Try looking at how a TD calling the flag impacts the complete scoresheet rule. Does the TD’s flag call trump an incomplete scoresheet? Or what?
Bear in mind that the tournament in question uses a blitz time control of G/5 d/0. Thus, Mr. Magar’s statement is incorrect. In a blitz time control without adequate supervision (defined as both one arbiter per game and either the arbiter or a designated assistant records the moves of the game), arbiters do not call flags.
Ah. It’s good to know that while there may be a litany of reasons to consider myself crazy, I can now remove this confusion from the list of those potential reasons. 
I’ve had this happen several times over the years. I try to be at the games with the most severe time pressure. In addition to ordering the spectator to go away and receiving a stern lecture later, I also watch the body language of the players. The lecture for inexperienced youth usually consists of pointing out that calling a flag helps only one player and two against one isn’t fair. I’ve never had a spectator call another’s flag more than once.
I’ve had at least a few occasions in which the player was about to call it (he had already turned to look at the clock) but the spectator was faster. I ruled that the player was not helped. I then get complaints from the flagged player but explain what I saw. That usually works at least somewhat. Unfortunately, I’ve had more cases where I couldn’t know for sure if it would have been noticed. Generally, the more time remaining on the clock the less likely I am to give weight to the interference. There is no set amount of time but some players look at the clock a lot more than others.
I’m against the TDs calling flags. It requires us to be omnipresent.
Just to be precise, the FIDE rule only allows the arbiter declare flag falls. It doesn’t require them to. FIDE arbiters are not omnipresent either.
In blitz, the arbiter can call a flag only if there is one arbiter per game (one per three games for rapid), otherwise the players must claim a flag fall just as in USCF rules. Even with “adequate supervision” (as FIDE calls it), a player can always call a flag themselves.
See fide.com/fide/handbook.html, Article 6.8, and then the Appendices for Rapidplay, and Blitz A. and B.
I’m not certain, but I believe the proposed rule change for USCF has similar provisions.
It’s a common misconception I keep trying to correct. FIDE does not require more arbiters that USCF requires TDs.
FYI.
-Matt
I agree that there is a misconception, but one should take care how one phrases this. In standard (US Chess “regular”) play, and in rapid (US Chess “quick”) and blitz play with adequate supervision, an arbiter who observes a flag fall must verify that the time control was met. That part is not optional. However, it is not true that arbiters must call every flag fall:
Also, article 6.4 states:
(To paraphrase, Article 6.3.a states the players must meet the time control.) Combined with article 6.8, as the flag is considered fallen when an arbiter observes it, article 6.4 is what compels the arbiter to check whether the players have satisfied the requirements of the time control.