24-08-2014, 08:09 PM
I think Guideline 5 states the driving principal being followed by this set of rules/guidelines. If the concept behind 5 is followed the rest of the document follows on quite logically.
In which case guideline 5 is in the wrong part of the document. It should be placed after
1.These guidelines shall be used for all tournaments run by Chess Scotland.
and before
No one has the right to refuse to meet either a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired or an able bodied player against whom they have been correctly paired
Looking at the second of those 2 quotations with my arbiter's hat on.
Would a previous poster have me ask a player if he is disabled or not because his correct opponent does not wish to play him?
What if that player answers not with a yes /no (& not all questions are capable of a black and white yes/no response) but instead wants to know who he would be playing if the draw were to be changed?
Ludicrous.
Perhaps his new opponent would then object to the new pairing?
More ludicrous.
If I was given this rule to follow, I would assume for the interpretation of this rule and this rule only that all the players are disabled.
Even more ludicrous (but only a concept used inside my head - I wouldn't tell anyone)
When I do a draw it tells everyone who their opponent is, what colour they have and where they are sitting. It is not a basis for players to negotiate their next opponent.
In which case guideline 5 is in the wrong part of the document. It should be placed after
1.These guidelines shall be used for all tournaments run by Chess Scotland.
and before
No one has the right to refuse to meet either a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired or an able bodied player against whom they have been correctly paired
Looking at the second of those 2 quotations with my arbiter's hat on.
Would a previous poster have me ask a player if he is disabled or not because his correct opponent does not wish to play him?
What if that player answers not with a yes /no (& not all questions are capable of a black and white yes/no response) but instead wants to know who he would be playing if the draw were to be changed?
Ludicrous.
Perhaps his new opponent would then object to the new pairing?
More ludicrous.
If I was given this rule to follow, I would assume for the interpretation of this rule and this rule only that all the players are disabled.
Even more ludicrous (but only a concept used inside my head - I wouldn't tell anyone)
When I do a draw it tells everyone who their opponent is, what colour they have and where they are sitting. It is not a basis for players to negotiate their next opponent.