[blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
****************************
"Nothing so needs reforming
as other people's habits."
                             [Mark Twain]
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nigel" <Guthrie at NTLworld.com>
To: "BLML" <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] nashville 12 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> [Richard Hills]
>> It is true the AC did not infract Law 93B3 by
>> reversing the TD on a point of Law.  But the AC
>> infracted Law 93B1 by its creation of a new
>> interpretation of Law, a prerogative restricted to
>> the Chief Director or ACBL Laws Commission or WBF
>> Laws Committee.
>
> [nige1]
> In this instance, the committee may or may not have re-interpreted a
> law. But they do seem to have the right to do so, if they feel like
> it. There is the notorious precedent of an appeals committee inventing
> a horrendous new law at a World Championship...
>
> [WBFLC 2000]
> The Laws Committee not having so far changed Law 12C3, the Appeals
> Committee at the World Championships in Bermuda, January 2000, issued
> the following directive to the Chief Tournament Director: "As part of
> its arrangements under Law 80G the Appeals Committee requires the
> Chief Director of his own volition, as a preliminary in the appeals
> process, to consider whether an adjustment in accordance with the
> provisions of Law 12C3 would be appropriate. If so, in pursuance of
> the terms of the WBF Code of Practice he is authorized to make such an
> adjustment before the players are given the ruling in order to achieve
> equity as he judges it. Such a score adjustment may be appealed to the
> Appeals Committee on the same basis as an appeal of any other ruling,
> but the fact that a judgmental ruling by the Director is made with
> these enhanced powers, and after consultation with colleagues and
> expert opinion, means that appeals committees will require strong
> evidence that puts it beyond reasonable doubt a ruling should be
> varied." The WBF Laws Committee will return to the question of Law
> 12C3 at a future time. In the meantime it has stated that it finds it
> acceptable if other regulating authorities adopt this method of
> achieving the intention of the Code of Practice.
>
+=+ Law 80G does not specify what the arrangements for appeals
are to be.  The only requirement in law is that they be 'suitable'.
The fact that an individual does not like a particular law is not a sound
basis for denying its application as written.
                                                            ~ Grattan ~ 
+=+