[blml] Any redress or rub of the green [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Nigel Guthrie:

>Obviously, I agree with the director and committee. IMO:

Richard Hills quibbles:

Not-so-obviously, while I agree with the general thrust
of the director's ruling, I have qualms about one aspect.

Director's Ruling:

[snip]

>>An earlier board against a different pair in the same
>>match was identified during which the same unregistered
>>convention was used.  That board was also cancelled and
>>three IMPs awarded.

[snip]

Law 81C6:

"The Director's duties and powers normally include the
following:
to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes
aware in any manner, within the correction period
established in accordance with Law 79C."

Law 79C:

"An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon
score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be
corrected until the expiration of the period specified
by the sponsoring organisation. Unless the sponsoring
organisation specifies a later time, this correction
period expires 30 minutes after the official score has
been made available for inspection."

Richard Hills quibbles:

In the previous Rosenblum Cup of 1990, a different but
controversial request for a score change was ruled to be
non-compliant with Law 79C after the committee parsed an
ambiguous regulation.  Of course, my qualms would be
resolved if the 1994 Rosenblum Cup regulations had been
consequently updated, so unambiguously revealed that a
later time was specified when an illegal convention was
the infraction.

Nigel Guthrie:

[snip]

>[b] The director acted correctly in trying to compensate
>previous victims.

Richard Hills quibbles:

The same victimised contestant was compensated twice.

"Contestant - ..... in a team event, four or more players
playing as team-mates."

Nigel Guthrie quibbles:

>Two small quibbles with the ruling:
>[i] 3 Imps may be OK as redress but the director should
>also consider a disciplinary penalty.

[snip]

Richard Hills counter-quibbles:

The Director, Kojak, used Law 81C9 to refer his ruling to
the committee.  And the committee did indeed impose a
severe disciplinary penalty.  They benched the infracting
world-class pair for the final set of the semi-final, thus
forcing the incompetent sponsor, Erwin Otvosi, to play (in
partnership with his mediocre expert partner Marek
Borewicz).

What's the problem?

Furthermore, in international teams competition, it is now
a standard disciplinary penalty to bench a pair for one
session to permit them to correct a mismarked system card.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm