[blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 12/09/2007, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
> Richard Hills:
>
> >>A National Authority can subtly exercise its Law 93C power.  It may
> >>decide to over-rule a flawed precedent set by an Appeals Committee, but
> >>at the same time decide to not over-rule the result set by the Appeals
> >>Committee, on the grounds that any change to the result is out of time.
>
> Wayne Burrows:
>
> >That doesn't seem subtle to me.  It seems overtly abusive of the
> >appeal process.
> >
> >If an appeal is to be heard I would have thought that as a minimum the
> >parties would be entitled to present a case.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> The EBU has just held an online survey inviting *all* EBU members to
> present a case on what the EBU alerting rules should be.
>
> The EBU Law and Ethics Committee will consider the results of that
> survey at its forthcoming meeting on Wednesday 19th September.
>
> What's the problem?
>

That I must say is a great process.

After yet another change to our national regulations without any prior
warning to players, my Centre (CDCBC - think province) recently asked
the national association (NZCBA) to include consultation in the
process for ammending or adding rules and regulations.  This is
especially relevant when those rules affect the systems that some
players play.  Under the current process you could turn up to play the
system you have played for years only to find that it was now illegal
without any forewarning.  The NZCBA have indicated that the laws and
ethics sub-committee (or whatever is the relevant subcommittee) will
take this suggestion into consideration.

Wayne