[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

>Sure I agree, P3 is strange ruling in the real
>life. But which of the other three?
>
>regards
>Laci

Richard Hills:

The EBL Alert Policy contained this residual
clause:

"Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit
of the Policy as well as the letter."

And the definition of Alert in Chapter 1 of the
Laws states:

"Alert - A notification, whose form may be
specified by a sponsoring organisation, to
the effect that opponents may be in need of an
explanation."

Therefore, I think for an area which was not
specifically regulated by the letter of of the
EBL Alert Policy, but rather by its residual
spirit, then Laci's P2 option should be applied:

>>P2, A is the usual method, so alert if B.

Which was the eventual decision of the EBL
Directors and the EBL Appeals Committee.

Of course, I also believe that the EBL Alert
Policy (and the WBF Alert Policy on which it is
based) might usefully be improved by some
redrafting.  I parochially suggest that such
redrafting might adopt some ideas from the ABF
Alert Policy.

Since the adoption of the ABF Alert Policy in
more-or-less its current form more than a
decade ago, the number of Aussie appeals
predicated on questions of whether a call
should have been alertable have dramatically
declined.  Copies of the current version of
the ABF Alert Policy are available at:

http://www.abf.com.au/members/alertingregs.html


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285