[blml] Zonal Delegation of L12c3

[Harald Skjæran]

On 05/07/07, Nigel <Guthrie at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> [Tim West-Meades]
> I have seen it suggested that the EBL has delegated to its member
> countries the authority to forbid L12c3 to Appeals Committees.
>
> However, I can find no record (on the EBL website or elsewhere) of
> this  having happened.  Can anybody shed any light on the issue?
>
> [nige1]
> In the paragraph below, the author takes pains to make it clear that
> the WBF Law Committee itself has not changed L12C3. The appeals
> committee decided to do so, on its own initiative: Presented with a
> fait-accompli, the law-committee seems to have decided to go along
> with the appeals-committee's new version of the law, as an interim
> measure.
>
> Disgracefully, The EBU Orange book allows TDs and directors the option
> of applying the notorious L12C3.


IBTD. I don't find this disgraceful at all. I rather applaud this decision.

It is hard to imagine any situation in which a weighted score would
> "restore equity" so, in theory, L12C3 should rarely be invoked.
> Unfortunately, in practice, directors and committees find it hard to
> resist playing with this dangerous and intriguing toy.


You seem to equate penalize to equity, which is not at all the same. Have
you tried to read what's the scope of the laws?


Hence: law-breakers are delighted; victims of infractions are learning
> to abandon any hope of justice.


I find most of the L12C3 rulings to do justice. If the TD/AC think the score
awarded the NOS isn't tough enough for the OS, they might award them some
other score (12C3 scores awarded to the two sides don't have to balance) or
a PP/DP, depending on the actual case.

When weighting the score, one always weighs in favour of the NOS when in
doubt.

Both as a player, TD and AC-member I like L12C3.
The problem with L12C2 if applied by the letter, is that it's far too harsh
on the OS (maybe not a big problem if you want to treat all offenders as
cheats) and also far too generous for the NOS (which is a problem for the
rest of the field).

-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Skjæran

Tim's putative EBL directive (if it exists) is a tentative step in the
> right direction.
>
> Perhaps Richard Hills will again search the locked cabinet in the
> disused lavatory with the "Beware of the Leopard" sign?
>
> [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.
>
> [Orange Book 7D1A]
> L12C3 applies so a TD or appeals committee may vary an assigned
> adjusted score in order to achieve equity by assigning weighted scores.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20070705/7307d2db/attachment-0001.htm