Blitz rule 18 states “The decision of the tournament director is final.”
After Blitz rule 18 there is a TD TIP that starts out by saying “This rule’s intent stated more accurately could be: The decision of the chief tournament director is final.”
We should simply re-write the rule so there doesn’t need to be a TD TIP explaining the rules intent more accurately.
I’ve moved this topic from US Chess Issues to Running Chess Tournaments.
It could be interpreted that this rule means that decisions in blitz events can’t be appealed. So, no appeal to an onsite committee or to the USCF.
Larry S. Cohen
It is a maxim (stated by the creator of “TD Tips”) that TD Tips are not rules. From that, I argue that it should be possible to read the rulebook with all TD Tips removed from the text and come up with the same rules.
This appears to be a case where the TD Tip says “this rule doesn’t mean what it says.” The rule states that “[t]he decision of the tournament director is final.” The TD Tip says the rule really meant to say “[t]he decision of the chief tournament director is final.” (emphasis mine) If that is the intent, the rule as written assumes there is exactly one TD (who is apparently chief TD, chief cook, and bottle washer).
This TD Tip was added to clarify the meaning of the rule, but in this case I believe it was the wrong course of action. In my opinion, the rule should be changed to say exactly what it intends to say. The TD Tip significantly changes the rule and thus fails the “same rules with or without TD Tips” test.
And yes, I believe the overall intent of Blitz rule 18 is that, unlike quick and regular rated play, in blitz the chain of appeals stops with the chief TD. A key characteristic of blitz tournaments is that they run on a very fast schedule (the whole idea of blitz). It would be very disruptive to the progress of the tournament to have to form an appeals committee (or call a special referee).
Blitz rule 18 may not be necessary because the standard rule 21H4 says that an appeals committee/special referee is used for appeals “unless the orderly process of the tournament would be disturbed by such action”. An appeal beyond the chief TD would disturb the orderly process of a blitz tournament.
An appeal beyond the floor TD who made a ruling might disrupt the orderly process of the blitz tournament. Chief TDs usually back their floor TDs up as the TD is dealing with a specific problem. In difficult matters, floor TDs usually consult with the Chief TD, if there is one. Appeals take a long time as the player(s) will argue endlessly and no resolution will be satisfactory to at least one of the participants. Considering the nature of the event and the need to manage it effectively on behalf of all of the other players, the TD who makes the ruling is enough. The player is free to appeal to the USCF after the event and spend $50 on the appeal. If he is right, he will get his money back. The organizer is free to set up an appeals process if he so wishes and with as many layers as he wants.
Do you think the intent of Blitz rule 18 is to still allow players to “appeal directly to US Chess, via their appeals process, after the event is over” like the TD Tip states? Sounds like Blitz rule 18 is in need of some improvement.
I agree that Blitz rule 18 may not be necessary. Blitz rules 8a through 8c are not necessary and stating them but not the other ways a game can end in a draw has caused confusion as to whether the other ways a game can end in a draw are allowed in blitz.