[blml] ...have we really come to this???

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
****************************
"If you're not sure what to do with 
the ball, just pop it in the net and 
we will discuss your options afterwards."
                          ~ Bill Shankly.
 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] ...have we really come to this???

> In other words, the (presumably intended) effect of L12C3 is to  
> totally invalidate L12C2, at least for infractions that reach an AC,  
> which is free to give any assigned score it chooses (including scores  
> that could not actually have been obtained in play) any time it  
> chooses on any basis it chooses (that is what "open-ended in the  
> discretion of" means, isn't it?), subject only to whatever  
> regulations may be imposed by local jurisdictions; TFLB has no  
> guidance whatsoever to offer on the subject beyond "do equity".
> 
+=+ The history of the matter is that when Kaplan wished 
to introduce 12C2 into the Law Book the European Zonal 
Organization opposed it and was not prepared to accept it. 
Of this a compromise was born whereby Kaplan had his 
12C2 and, via the forerunner to 12C3, the Europeans 
retained the right to continue to do what they believed in - 
award an adjustment, as was their practice, that sought to 
be more equitable and less extreme. (This was before the 
calculation  was refined with the introduction of weighting.) 
If there had been no such compromise there would have 
been no 12C2.  I know; I was the hit man despatched by 
the EBL to ensure it would not be saddled with a Law it
considered pernicious. The Europeans viewed 12C2 as 
departing from the avowed canon of the law book that  
the 
          " Laws are primarily designed not as punishment 
           for irregularities but rather as redress for damage".

What you say, Eric, is therefore broadly right, except that 
the basis must be an effort to do equity.
      It is neither the function nor the aim of the Law Book 
to define 'equity'.  That is a question of bridge judgement,
a question for those appointed to make bridge judgements,
and I would doubt that it would even be possible to safely
and conclusively define for all situations in specific terms 
what constitutes 'equity'. Herman invites me to "Come off 
the fence, Grattan, and tell us what you really think." He 
adds  "it is all very fine to keep saying that a particular 
body has the power to make a particular decision. That 
does not mean that they are correct in doing so".
     Well, what I think is that having fought to retain for
appeals committees the power to exercise judgement, 
I should not be surprised if, on occasion, they do so in 
a manner that I find strange. So, to adapt a common 
misquotation, I may disapprove of what they do but
I will defend to the death their right to do it.  As for 
the particular AC decision, I was not in the committee 
room, I know only as little as I have read of the scant 
amount that has been reported here at third hand and, 
I could opine, tendentiously. That is no basis on which 
I would express an opinion or condemn the judgement 
of those who dealt with the case in the committee room.  
                               ~ Grattan ~   +=+