A better analogy would be to imagine that there are multiple World Cup games going on at the same time, but only one ref monitoring all of them, and if the ref is in the process of making a call in one game, he can’t even be watching what is going on in the other games.
But perhaps an even better analogy would be the sport of competitive swimming. In small meets, there may only be one or two stroke judges who are simultaneously monitoring 6-8 swimmers at the same time in order to call false starts, stroke violations, illegal turns, and illegal finishes. A judge obviously can’t be watching all of the swimmers at the same time, particularly if some of them are at opposite ends of the pool. But the presumption is that (1) swimmers committing stroke violations are probably doing so continuously - not just occasionally, (2) all of the swimmers start at the same moment, so a false start by one swimmer will stand out, and (3) a stroke judge can keep track of where swimmers are and can try, at any given moment, to be monitoring the part of the pool where, e.g., a swimmer is going to be doing a turn or finishing and therefore has more chance of doing something illegal.
Of course, a stroke judge normally isn’t doing anything but watching the swimmers for rule violations. Other tasks that don’t require special training (like timing each swimmer or controlling and monitoring electronic timing systems) are handled by other people. And at major meets, like the Olympics, there is a always a separate stroke judge watching each swimmer.
So far I haven’t heard any real reason why a TD should not call a flag except “That’s the way we always have done it.” The key question of why it as TDs we should ignore an violation of the rules has not been answered.
In the 5th ed. of the Rulebook, it states very clearly in rule 13C1 on page 30:
“Only players may call a flag : Only the players in a game may call attention to the fall of a flag (5G). it is considered to have fallen only when either player points this out. A director must never initiate a time forfeit claim.”
Note the use of the words “must never” in the last sentence. If this ADM is accepted by the delegates, one of the major conditions of tournament play will be rescinded. Players, at least USCF players, have come to expect that TDs will not interfere in games. The game is to be decided by the players, not the TD or the spectators.
From a player’s perspective, I have seen more than a few TDs who were “homers”, ie. biased in the conduct of their tournaments. A couple of TDs tried not to pay out guaranteed prizes. There have been times where there were a few questionable pairings that pitted “outsiders” against each other while pairing locals, guaranteeing the latter a prize and or a title. Normal pairing protocols and the computer pairings were overridden. Some organizers deliberately design their tournaments to not attract outside players because it protects the locals. Absurd, of course, but that is how it is. What is to prevent one of these biased TDs from calling flags, or worse not calling a flag of a favored player until both flags are down? I say that we should leave Rule 13C1 alone and let only the players call a flag.
There really aren’t that many TDs that are biased.
If a TD legitimately did not notice that one particular game was in time trouble (maybe there were two such games and the TD happened to be concentrating on one when there was a flag in the other game) and thus didn’t call it, there is a very good chance that the player who wanted the call would (erroneously) feel that the TD deliberately avoided making the call and thus was biased.
Having the TDs not make the call doesn’t really do much to level the playing field of all the players but it does go much further to give players the feeling that the playing field has been leveled.
If there are some particular sections that need to have the TD call flags (maybe a beginner’s section) then the tournament could have published section-specific rules allowing it.
. .
Except for the time control of Game/#minutes…
I cannot think of any case where a the TD or any passing spectator would have enough information to call a flag fall with certainty. The TD cannot know how many moves have occurred, unless he leans over a player’s shoulder and takes on faith that the player’s score sheet is accurate (knowing that score sheets of often inaccurate).
Now in a Game/#minutes time control, the clock can freeze and flag fall to eliminate all doubt, argument, and controversy. The clock can also give a one-time beep and flash to gain the players’ attention.
Unfortunately, the USCF rules invite complication and controversy by saying that neither player has any obligation to call flag fall on himself.
Without this rule, play can continue and perhaps the player who has theoretically already lost on time can go on and achieve checkmate on the board; in cases where the opponent belatedly calls flag fall an instant before the checkmate move was made on the board - or was it an instant after (let the arguing commence).
Finally, all these problems and controversies are made far more possible by not requiring the player who achieves checkmate on the board to then press his clock before flag fall.
I have evolved to think that different people have different goals or principles that guide them in how they think the rules should be designed.
Personally I want the rules to prevent arguments, confusions, ambiguities, and controversies.
Others want the rules to mold themselves to whatever players’ current behaviors or expectations are.
** Some players erase their tentative move and write in a different move; so the USCF rules should allow that.
** Some players make and finish a Rh1-f1 move before they move their king as the second half of castling; so the USCF rules should allow that.
** Some players purchased an electronic score sheet device that unnecessarily displays a 2D chess board position, enabling the player to look at two different positions from the game instead of just the traditional one; so the USCF rules should allow that.
** Some players do not press their clock after achieving checkmate on the board; so the USCF rules should accept checkmate without the clock presses - even though such rules give life to a class of tournament time controversies.
Etc.
. .
For the purpose of overall tournament quality, or anyhow, perceived tournament quality, it is sometimes necessary for the tournament director to call flag. And in my pre-tournament speech, I so state. A good example of this is a weekly tournament, in which we are trying to get 4 rounds in. The total time spent, esp, in those tournaments which start at night, say 6:30-7pm,
has much to do with how many participants, in particular, the very young playing in novice and intermediate sections, we have.
So, calling flag on the last games in a section is sometimes required. Really, what is the option that we have?? To let two players
play all night when neither are paying attention to the clock?? This ignores the responsibility the TD has to the other players, and
from a business perspective, to their parents. Only a “not very aware” TD will ignore parent’s concerns, as it is vital for club
survival and growth for their kids to return.
There is a difference between TD calling the flag when both times have expired and when one player still has time.
Maybe the rule should reflect that. After all with both flags down isn’t it pretty much a draw no matter who calls the flag?
I remember a round I had one time with the last K-3 game in a G/30 K-3 (U400?) section where one player had a large material advantage, the initiative, and had overstepped about five minutes earlier. The other player was playing quickly and the game would probably have to go on for another hour or more for his remaining 15 minutes to be used up. Both players were trying to win. I talked to the parents and coaches and they all accepted my plan to go in and simply declare it a draw (perceived to be a fair result since both sides had good chances to lose either on the board or by the clock - and all parties realized that they couldn’t delay the next round forever).
This ADM would make the process quicker, albeit with a different result from what I did in that K-3 section.
P.S. In SD, if both flags are down it is pretty much a draw as long as it is noticed before some other decisive result (such as checkmate or resignation) occcurs. I’ve seen a number of games with both flags down in the first time control that then simply continue to the next.
I’ve declared draws in similar situations with the buy-in of interested adults before. It’s good, practical TDing, and teaches the player giving up a half point a good lesson about calling the flag or learning a basic mate.
What this doesn’t help is the situation where a player who ought to know better simply refuses to call a flag and proceeds to use the rest of his time. This forum had a story of such a case; the opponent of the player who flagged decided he didn’t want to win on time, admitted as much after the game, and held up the prize payout to other players until the owner of the venue kicked everyone out. In my view, that player engaged in sufficiently antisocial behavior that an Ethics Committe referral was warranted.
If I remember correctly, I believe that case involved a clock that was set to “halt at end.” One player’s flag had fallen and the clock had ceased to run, so the other flag would never fall. The players chose to play out the game, willfully ignoring the flag fall. This continued for almost an hour after the expected end of the round. The result of the game affected prize distribution. The TD did not intervene under rule 14G, since it was not the case that both flags had fallen, even though both players had clearly used up all the time for the game (and more). The players were finally kicked out of the building by the janitorial staff.
There are problems when tournaments are run absent of common sense. And, common sense is something we will always have
a difficult time legislating in the rule book
Thank you for a very logical analysis of the current situation. Like you, I have also thought it foolish to limit a TD’s action just because a TD can’t be everywhere. Your analogy is sound, IMHO.
Here’s to hoping that the issue will at least gain ground. I wouldn’t expect it to pass though.
Ah, but I think the general feeling is that a ref in a soccer game may miss some calls, but it will likely balance out and neither team will end up (at least on average) getting the worst of it. In chess, there aren’t such teams (at least usually), so there’s no averaging out. Some players are affected, others not. The ref’s various calls and misses are all in the same game. The TD’s various calls and misses are all in different games.
And it would would probably be a good idea if they did. If TDs are required to interfere, we would have parents after us every time there is an infraction. If one player has a knowledgeable parent or coach observing and the other doesn’t, we don’t have a level playing field. Let the kids play.
Comparing soccer to chess is silly. 99% of all chess games go smoothly without a referee. It is reasonable to give players responsibility to catch infractions and flag falls. Try that with soccer. And in chess, either player can stop the game at any time and get a ref to arbitrate disputes. I don’t think that would work in soccer.