[blml] A different infraction

[Gampas at aol.com]

>In a message dated 23/11/2007 14:03:18 GMT Standard Time,  
>guthrie at ntlworld.com writes:

>But it looks that either North - South haven't noticed or have no  
complaints 
>about the use of UI by their opponents.

>What do  you do? Can we cater to that other infraction because of 
>L81C6? Would it  be any different if you accidently saw a player making 
>a bid suggested  by UI when you were walking by?
 
Another thread on another site seemed clear that an infraction which was  not 
the subject of the original director call but was noticed by the TD, or was  
noticed by the AC although not the subject of the original TD ruling, should 
be  acted upon by the party discovering it.
 
There seemed to be unanimity in the thread in question that the pair  calling 
the director, or the pair appealing against the TD ruling, could  therefore 
get a worse result than had the TD not been called, or had the pair  not 
appealed. Getting the correct decision was felt by many to be of higher  priority 
and I, for what it is worth, concurred with this view.
 
Interestingly, in the game of cricket, if the third umpire notices, when  
watching the video replay, that the bowler committed an  infraction when 
delivering the ball he still rules that the batsman was  dismissed if, for example, 
the batsman was caught, even though the third  umpire knows that the umpire 
should have indicated a "no ball". No other  sport that I know has this 
inconsistency.
 
"It's a funny kind of month, October. For the really keen cricket fan, it's  
when you realise that your wife left you in May." - Denis  Norden