Got my hand slapped by the Borg for naming names because this thread is “hearsay.” At least, that’s what that particular moderator thinks.
So…here’s the crosstable. Based on what Chuck describes one can figure out who the alleged player might be.
Amazingly, he appears to have played in nearly 400 events!
It is important to realize that when only one person makes a presentation about something with which they were not directly involved, that their “facts” may well be challenged. For example, in this case, there could well be a difference of opinion on who knocked over the pieces - which could change the judgments very significantly. As a td, I’ve had cases where parents and coaches came to me saying that their child told them that he had won a game when that turns out not to be true. I’ve also had players insist that they had marked the results in one way - when I still had the result sheet which showed a different result (clearly unchanged). So even evidence from a participant can be incorrect. In the case where the td wasn’t summoned when it happened and so we don’t have independent confirmation of the “facts”, I would take everything with a grain of salt and would not make any judgments about actual people.
As a TD, I don’t make rulings on one-sided descriptions. But I do make myself and my assistant TDs aware of potential issues and ask that they watch for confirmations of the described behavior. I’ve also told players (and parents) that I’ve watched and seen nothing of what they described. The grain of salt goes both ways; I’ve never issued a warning on hearsay, but I’ve watched particular boards from afar to confirm the truth as best as I can discern.
Amazingly, if what the OP stated has any connection to reality at all, the TD has directed 41 events.
Alex Relyea
I guess we have always had a few jerks playing “the gentlemen’s game”, but do we seem to have more of this now? Perhaps constant videotaping or reducing the number of games any one TD can supervise isn’t too far off.
But club level TD with only club type events. The type of experience matters.
And he was playing in the event in question.
In my opinion a playing TD is a TD first and a player second. I don’t think I could play in an event and not have the behavior described affect my game. If this happened anywhere near where I was playing the disruption may have caused me to look for the TD myself.
If the facts were correct as described, I would have not rated the game (unless I gave the disruptive player a loss for cheating (not sure), and let the guy file an ethics complaint on me if he wanted to. I also would ban the disruptive player from my events/the club for at least a year. Still, I agree with everyone who says to take the OP with a grain of salt. Big “if” at the beginning of my post.
If the game was played in a rated tournament and the result was agreed upon I am not sure you could get away with not rating it. Not allowing the disruptive player into an event for a year is a decision that I could support.
Does any one know the rule about not rating a played game?
The NTD interpretation of a rateable game (that I have had relayed to me as I worked for them at National tournaments) is that there has to be a “meeting of the minds”.
I could see where a seasoned TD might say there was no meeting of the minds here because one player was clearly not using theirs for a few moments.
I’d like to hear Ken’s take on whether he would consider not rating the game if he had conclusive evidence that what the OP said actually did happen.
Any comments about the cheating angle? Is this cheating since it was all aboveboard, so to speak, however despicable it may have been? If, hypothetically, someone were to murder his or her opponent in a game in progress, winning by time forfeit, is the game rateable either way (assuming the murder was discovered before preparing the report)? If not, why not? Can that ‘why not’ be applied to this charge (which is nowhere near murder obviously, but still possibly analgous)?
Perhaps it would be ratable, but at least you wouldn’t have to worry about banning the winner from your future tournaments for, say, 20 to life.
Nice.
You also wouldn’t have to worry about the opponent complaining that it cost him rating points.
Sorry for my earlier wise-guy answer. It’s Friday, and I’m feeling silly. You can slap me now. 
The more serious answer might be 13I: “Refusal to obey rules. The director may declare a game lost by a player who refuses to comply with the rules.”
Again, this would be much easier to do when the opponent calls the director over to the board right after the opponent swept the pieces off the board. Or the director would have had to have seen this him/herself. Or, there were credible witnesses. Once we’re past the point of the kid trying to reconstruct the position, it becomes his word against his opponent’s, right?
If I am the director, and I want to try for a 13I ruling, maybe the next question will be “which rule did the opponent not comply with when he swept the pieces off the board?” Perhaps 20G: Annoying Behavior? Any advice here?
Good luck on the rulesmongering quest. I had no intention of going past 1A when I said it should either not be rated or the obnoxious player getting the rateable loss (again, if facts are true…). The spirit of terrorizing the opponent and destroying the game, while not explicitly in the rules, seems analogous enough to behavior that warrants forfeiture. Also, he’s hypothetically welcome to appeal my hypothetical decision to forfeit him to the Ethics Committee.
However, if you want to rulesmonger, you could try 13B. When he knocked “all” the pieces off the board he must have consequently tipped his king which is an indication that he has resigned.
I think my statement was specific enough to be understood that’s what I meant.
Or 11J, “Deliberate illegal moves: If a player intentionally makes illegal moves, the director may impose penalties.” Moving 32 pieces at once to locations off the board is clearly illegal.
We don’t have to be rulesmongers.
The game is over and the results have been reported. That part is done. What we have now is a situation of a player not following the USCF code of Ethics either by the letter or spirit in which they were written. The TD of this event has the responsibility to report this to the ethics committee.
There is no written rule for this specific situation because no one involved in the writing and editing of the rulebook could in their wildest of imaginations think of this occurring. The rule book is a set of guidelines, as the players think out of the of the box so to speak, so must the tournament directors.