Mobile Phone problems at local league level.

[David Sedgwick]

Being honest, I sit here 5 years later and I am still not absolutely convinced whether the right thing was done at the time.

I am happy to accept the criticism of anyone who thinks we made the wrong decision, as I am sure Graeme will accept the criticism I have given him for his recent original decision in the CCF 1 v Wimbledon 1 match.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

It is one thing to criticise a decision as incorrect or mistaken. It is a totally different matter to say or imply that a ruling could only have been made or justified by someone totally incompetent, lacking integrity, or both.

All arbiters and administrators have difficult and awkward decisions to make. Notwithstanding Ignatius Leong, all make mistakes and errors of judgment. Most appreciate that it's neither sensible nor fair to subject their peers to a fusillade of abuse.

......the ruling was so flawed...... in the first place, I don't see what else they could have asked to try and give it credence.

If the ruling was as flawed as you suggest, why did the captain of your team accept it? You and your boss took a different view - as subsequently did the Committee - and sought to lodge an appeal. I consulted another ECF Senior Arbiter, who said that he would have considered the decision of the captain to be final. Nevertheless the SCCA allowed your appeal to proceed.

I was an ECF Arbiter at the time but not yet a FIDE Arbiter (as I am now).

You owe your position as a FIDE Arbiter in part to my support.

It so happens that your club has recently been involved in another dispute. On this occasion Graeme Buckley has ruled in your favour and I'm about to set the appeal process in motion. I do so with a marked lack of enthusiasm, in the knowledge that whatever the outcome it's highly likely that I and at least some of my colleagues will be subjected to another torrent of invective from your direction.

[Mick Norris]

Perhaps there should be an announcement along the following lines:

"Please switch your phone off. If it makes a noise, you will be defaulted. No questions asked."

That was almost exactly the wording used in the announcement before yesterday's Warks v G Man Open match (we were not playing under "Staffs" rules, despite actually being in Staffodshire)

No phones went off during the match

Congratulations to Warks on their victory

[Scott Freeman]

David

Our captain made the decision not to appeal for reasons he explained to me. He knows that Howard and I had an opposite view - as I believe did the rest of the club (or the vast majority of). The CCF player's family were extremely angry at the ruling and wanted action. I would have felt the same if I had been the player. But as I explained at the time, had a club launched an appeal and then changed their minds, everyone would be happy not to proceed. Why the problem the other way round if the appeal is made within the time span allowed in the rules?

I think most people look at the original ruling and see that it should never have been made and that an appeal should have been launched straight away. I actually had people from other clubs (who knew about the incident) speak to me after they saw the result on the SCCA web site (or who heard about it) - including 3 former SCCA officers (!) - the gist of what they said to me was "you are going to appeal aren't you?" I think that said everything that needed to be said.

David, I don't wish to be negative to you over your part in me becoming an arbiter. Over the earlier years, you helped me a lot and I respect that. That's why I called you when Nicholas's mobile went off when he was playing Graeme. However, what I did not respect was the double standards you showed in you brokering an "agreement" and then working against it. I think David Bryant's (former SCCA Secretary) text to me after the election (words to the effect of "The SCCA has reached is lowest level of dishonesty...." etc, etc) summed it up well. My intention is not to "attack" Graham, who I personally like, but to point out the questionable behaviour of the SCCA Directors. The whole point of the "peace agreement" was to draw a line in the sand and move on. We did, even though we gave most of the ground to make it work. You all didn't. Enough said.

As I am sure you know, I prefer to speak the truth and be damned rather than be party to cover up, albeit that cover up woud probably leave us with a lot more friends. However, I am sure that the rest of the chess world doesn't want to read any more about it here. If people want to know what happened, then someone can start a thread specifically for that and we can concentrate on mobile phones here and the inadequacies or otherwise of mine and Graeme's actual rulings as arbiters.

You are correct that Graeme has recently ruled in our favour on another dispute. I firmly believe that will be upheld on appeal from the opposition. Last time, I firmly believed that we would win the appeal and we did. However, as the matter is on appeal, nothing more will be said here other than the fact that I am delighted that it does not involve a mobile phone!

[David Sedgwick]

The ruling obviously gives the result that would, in the first place, have been given by any qualified controller (I would like to think). What I cannot understand......is how the committee managed to "understand" the original ruling......the ruling was so flawed

My intention is not to "attack" Graham, who I personally like

Thank you for clarifying that. Graeme Buckley was very upset by your original remarks, quite justifiably in my view.

I am sure that the rest of the chess world doesn't want to read any more about it here.

On that point I agree with you. I don’t plan to comment any further on the way you’ve chosen to react to the outcome of a dispute which was decided in favour of your club.

Later (17.3.10) Scott Freeman has informed me that he considers that the original text of this post cast aspersions on his integrity. I do not wish to cast any such aspersions and I have edited the text.

[Scott Freeman]

As I said, I am someone who prefers to state the truth and be damned for it. I am not a chess politician. What I stated above is the truth (I refer to my intentions in making comments about the SCCA ruling) and you can choose to call me a liar if you wish but you would be wrong. So chess arbiters have to keep a sense of propriety at all times? Fair enough. But if I am in the wrong for being blunt and up front in the public arena about what I believe, then what should be the view on chess arbiters who make agreements and then go back on them.

[Susan Lalic]

Nicholas arrives late for the match complaining that he had lost his phone. I was asked to ring it. If it rand, it was at home safe and sound. If it had been switched off, it had been nicked and needed blocking. Logical! I had to go upstairs to make the call, which I did around 20 minutes later having dealt with other issues. Unbeknown to me, the phone then rings inside Nicholas's bag in the playing hall (he was playing Graeme Buckley - Susan's husband). I was only told about this some while later by another player; Graeme did not come and speak to me at all about it until much later in the round (was it afterwards? - I can't remember now) by which time I had already called David Sedgwick (as a senior arbiter) for advice well before I spoke to either player. He advised me that the game should continue. I went with that decision.

Graeme tried to find you several times but didn't realise he had to ascend a flight of stairs to achieve this. Arbiters are usually slightly more accessible.

Just out of interest, if a friend had telephoned Nicholas before you did, would you have also left the game to continue?

[Scott Freeman]

Hi Susan

It's a good question. I have asked myself this several times since the incident happened which is why I am possibly not of the opinion I would have made the same decision or handled it the same if happened again now. For a start, I would have told him to leave his bags outside the playing hall as I mentioned before!

Various views were expressed recently about the responsibility of the owner of the phone and they are very good and valid comments. The mistake I made on the day was to be trying to do too much at the same time - it was the first international of its type that I had run and I was finding my feet somewhat. I made mistakes and I learned a lot. Also, at the time it happened, the rule was only 6-7 weeks old and I don't think many of us quite knew how it was going to be received and how rigidly it would be enforced. That's why I made the phone call to David for his advice.

As I have said, I can see that different people would have different views on it and am I happy to be questioned publicly as I would be interested in other views and I feel that is healthy debate. On the other hand, you have perhaps labelled suggestions elsewhere that I sought to bottle it on the day in letting the game continue. That wasn't the case at all and if that was in my nature, I wouldn't be facing the music head on with you now on a public forum. I have defaulted players who are my friends when it has happened - on more than one occasion, including one who was trying to switch his phone off (before his opponent even arrived at the venue) when he went and pressed the wrong button! As David says, all of us make mistakes and it may be that incident could be seen by those who feel I made the wrong decision as one of mine. Obviously you view it that way and I have no problem with anyone holding that view or with them discussing it publicly.

However, I feel it important to re-establish here that the purpose of the the recent correspondence was not for purpose of criticising Graeme's original decision, although much has been made of that. Yes, I feel he made the wrong decision - that is obvious. But I wasn't going to say much about that other than tell people what actually happened on the night (as I indicated I would once the appeal result had been published) - until I read that line in the appeal findings about them "understanding" the original decision (which I know was not the view of everyone on that committee) - Graeme was not in any way responsible for that.

[Susan Lalic]

However, I feel it important to re-establish here that the purpose of the the recent correspondence was not for purpose of criticising Graeme's original decision, although much has been made of that. Yes, I feel he made the wrong decision - that is obvious. But I wasn't going to say much about that other than tell people what actually happened on the night (as I indicated I would once the appeal result had been published) - until I read that line in the appeal findings about them "understanding" the original decision (which I know was not the view of everyone on that committee) - Graeme was not in any way responsible for that.

Is it not normal for a Committee to report their findings based on a consensus of opinion?

Bearing in mind the leniency shown to his opponent on the previous occasion and the different witness accounts, it was difficult for Graeme to come to any other decision than the one he did. He was relieved to put it in the hands of a Committee who would have time to look at all the evidence and deliberate fully.

[Mike Gunn]

Scott, one of the things you discover when you sit on appeals committees is that you get conflicting accounts of events from the participants. This is not because somebody is deliberately trying to mislead, but individual perceptions of the same scene may be different. Also, there can be differing interpretations of the the same rule (as we both know from other cases), e.g. in this case what it means for a phone to be in "silent mode". Without publishing all the individual statements that the committee received (which isn't going to happen), I think you should note that the committee was unanimous in agreeing with your appeal and a majority could see why the original decision was taken and expressed sympathy with Victor. I think it's best to leave it at that.

[David Sedgwick]

However, I feel it important to re-establish here that the purpose of the the recent correspondence was not for purpose of criticising Graeme's original decision, although much has been made of that. Yes, I feel he made the wrong decision - that is obvious. But I wasn't going to say much about that other than tell people what actually happened on the night (as I indicated I would once the appeal result had been published) - until I read that line in the appeal findings about them "understanding" the original decision (which I know was not the view of everyone on that committee) - Graeme was not in any way responsible for that.

Thank you for clarifying your motivation. I've commented on this in the edited version of my previous post.

(Graeme) was relieved to put it in the hands of a Committee who would have time to look at all the evidence and deliberate fully.

Thank you for that comment.

I think it's best to leave it at that.

I concur. I'd like to see this thread revert to being a genera discussion of the subject line.

[Susan Lalic]

Nobody is arguing that mobile phones shouldn't be turned off during play. The question is whether ludicrously disproportionate penalties are required. As has been argued repeatedly the London League does not abide by the "instant default" rule. And yet there is no widespread problem in the London League with mobile phones going off. This is because the vast majority of players recognise that it is bad etiquette to have their phones going off during play. In the few instances where it occurs it is almost always instantly accompanied by an immediate apology with the phone being switched off.

Now at the international level one can reasonably argue for the rule on the grounds to discourage cheating. Personally i think the case is pretty weak - there are far easier and more effective ways to cheat if one is so inclined - but despite this there are grounds for doing so. But this is not a serious issue at local league issue - nobody disputes otherwise - it is all about the noise. But since i believe that any transgression is almost always generated by accident, rather than by design, (and is anyway very rare) it is something which is no more a candidate for extreme deterrant than any other source of noise/distraction which any individual will encounter on almost any occasion they choose to play in any tournament.

I totally agree with Richard. Also that one may want to play a game of chess rather than claim a win.

How about a players loses the point, but the game continues for grading in the event of a phone going off? Any arguments or doubts can be sorted out after the match.

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

Perhaps offer the affected party the choice of whether they would like to claim the point by default or play on?

[David Sedgwick]

How about a players loses the point, but the game continues for grading in the event of a phone going off? Any arguments or doubts can be sorted out after the match.

Would you really want such a rule in a Swiss Tournament? Your opponent's phone rings, but you have to play on for grading purposes and you lose. However, the game counts as a win in the resuls table and you receive a more difficult pairing in the next round.

It's a different matter if the winner offers to play on for grading purposes. That happened some years ago in an SCCU county match. The winner, by both means, was Richard Almond and I'm taking the liberty of quoting the letter which he sent at the time to the SCCU Forum.

From Richard Almond

27.11.05

Arising out of Surrey - Sussex (Open) 26.11.05:
Small query. I won on board 13 after half a dozen moves due to my opponent’s mobile phone ringing. Although claiming the win for the team I made the offer to play on as a graded friendly. (Having a round trip of 5 hours travelling by train the day otherwise is completely wasted.) I won the game by normal means. However had the result been different I would of course have been willing to honour my word for the game to be graded accordingly. However does a player have the discretion to make such an offer? Or can and must the game only be graded as a win by virtue of the mobile phone?
Richard Almond

rjh: No rule says the players can't make such an agreement. As a grader I'd have no hesitation in complying with their wishes and grading the friendly instead of the mobile-default result.

I remember the episode because I was confused by it. I arrived a bit late for the match (surprise, surprise) and looked at the team sheet to see where and whom I was playing. A decisive result was already recorded for the board next to mine, so I naturally assumed that the loser had blundered in the opening. When I sat down to play I found a game still in progress on the adjacent board. It wasn't until some hours later that I found out what had happened.

[Susan Lalic]

How about a players loses the point, but the game continues for grading in the event of a phone going off? Any arguments or doubts can be sorted out after the match.

Would you really want such a rule in a Swiss Tournament? Your opponent's phone rings, but you have to play on for grading purposes and you lose. However, the game counts as a win in the resuls table and you receive a more difficult pairing in the next round.

The alternative is that you claim a win, have the same pairing as you would in the scenario you describe, but have many hours to kill until the next round.

I was however mainly referring to local leagues or county games.

I think Richard Almond's solution was brilliant under the circumstances.

[David Sedgwick]

I've just looked at the latest position on the poll on the other thread. Opinion remains pretty evenly divided between those supporting immediate default and those favouring something less draconian. However, only 56 people have voted - that's 30% of the 188 active members. (I'm defining an active member as someone who's made a minimum of five posts.)

That rather bears out my experience at county and union level. A minority of people have strong views and they're pretty evenly split between the two camps. The majority have no strong view and are content to form a consensus in either direction at Committee Meetings and AGMs. Hence we end up with local rules which are also pretty evenly split between the two camps but which have usually been heavily shaped by a few people with strong views. Then an incident happens, some people are upset whatever the decision, and some of the previously quiescent become vocal and seek changes to the rules.

This phenomenon can also be observed with eligibility rules. Most people don't take much interest in the arcane details of these until there's a dispute of some kind. Then here too people on one side or the other are left feeling upset and there's a sudden clamour for a rule change.

I see from the thread about the ECF Board Meeting that Adam Raoof intends to reintroduce "ECF Rules for Events Played under its Auspices". Mobile phones will obviously be a key topic. My feeling is that the new ECF Rules will need to include a small number of options, with graded events being required or at least strongly recommended to select one of these options.