Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:54 am
Roger L>some FIDE-recognised events where one can have just a couple of arbiters managing 100 or so games <
You are describing an event which is not being organised properly. Even if it is not FIDE Rated, there should be a minimum of one arbiter for 50 players. Remember also, the arbiter has the right to appoint temporary assistants if he deems it necessary.
On reflection, I rather think I really meant - apologies - 100 people rather than 100 games. Now, picking up Stewart's point, it's perfectly true that there should be a minimum of one arbiter for 50 players and I don't doubt that, in well-funded events, the theory actually translates into reality.
But I think there's widespread agreement that there should be more FIDE-rated games in England and, where there isn't an outside source of funding such as a sponsor, the organisers have to balance costs. No-one wants to be left well out-of-pocket as a result of organising a chess tournament. Arbiters tend - and I'm happy to acknowledge there are exceptions who offer their services gratis or for expenses only - to cost money with the result that many organisers are faced with the financial near-necessity of keeping the number of arbiters to a minimum or near-minimum.
So a tournament organiser, expecting an entry of 300, is quite likely to have just 6 arbiters. At any point of time, one or perhaps two will be behind a computer processing results while another will probably be taking a well-earned break. As a result, there are likely to be just 3 or 4 arbiters actually working the floor. That's arguably fine if all 300 players are in one large area (although even here, in practice, situations are likely to arise where half-a-dozen games simultaneously require arbiters' attention) but, in practice, one often has the situation where the main playing area holds (for example) just 260 players and the 20 lower boards are siphoned off into two much smaller rooms, 10 boards in each.
Where are the arbiters likely to be? Obviously, in the main hall where statistically speaking they are most likely to be needed. From time to time, they will dutifully check the other two areas but not necessarily at a time when they are actually needed there - nor, crucially, can they easily be summoned. In practical terms, most of the time for most of these 20 games, the arbiters are non-existent.
As to the separate point about appointing assistance, I'll briefly recount one experience but without wishing to identify the event I have in mind. I was spectating at a FIDE-recognised event when approached by an arbiter. Due to an urgent call of nature, the arbiter would be absent for a short while, perhaps 5-10 minutes. Would I keep things in good order in the meantime? I should clarify here that I hold no formal arbiting qualification whatever. My interpretation was that I was being asked to act as an assistant only, without decision-making powers but under the obligation to report any relevant matters (as it happened, there were none) to the arbiter when the arbiter reappeared. The event was, in my opinion, generally well-organised but - if an arbiter has to turn to a spectator in order to take an unexpected break - one has to wonder whether there were sufficient arbiters in the first place.