Mobile phone penalties.

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.

What do you think the penalty should be for a player's mobile making a sound during a game?

Nothing
1
2%
A warning
1
2%
A warning for the first offence, and being defaulted for the second
14
23%
A time bonus for the opponent (as with an illegal move)
0
No votes
A time bonus for the opponent for the first offence, and being defaulted for the second
8
13%
Being defaulted
27
45%
Exclusion from the tournament
1
2%
The punishment should be left to the discretion of the arbiter
8
13%
 
Total votes: 60

Peter Rhodes
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:53 pm

Re: Mobile phone penalties.

Post by Peter Rhodes » Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:00 am

Martyn Harris wrote:Peter, I would hope that to become a qualified arbiter one would have to demonstrate a sensible set of value-judgements.
I'm not sure I've chosen the right word to convey my message. Yes, of course arbiters are generally going to be good judges, but my meaning of this term is about calling upon a value-system which we have clearly seen there is alot of disagreement over. I'm fairly sure that arbiters are just like the rest of us - in which case 40% will think an immediate default is appropriate, and 60% will not. Arbiters need direction from players over what kind of penalties we think are appropriate.

Removing arbiter discretion is likely to result in some rulings bringing the game into disrepute
Perhaps, but in this case I'm not advocating the removal of any discretion. I'm simply suggesting that it is not necessary to give it over.
Chess Amateur.

David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: Mobile phone penalties.

Post by David Pardoe » Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:59 pm

A good selection of penalties to choose from.
You might add another. ie
deduct 5 mins from offenders time, after first offence... for all events below Master level Tournaments.
Otherwise, arbitors discretion, but with the above as a minimum penalty.
The reason I say `deduct` is two fold.
One, to ensure the penalty is specifically targetted at the offender, ensuring that he actually loses on time, should this occur in the last 5 mins on clock. Note also, such noise does not simply distract an opponent, but all other players who might be present.
But also, to avoid over running time at venues where they close promptly at say 10.30pm at certain places for league matches during week nights.
I`m against the `instant death` penalty, it is simply grossly disproportionate to the crime. Even on the grounds that there can be many other more distracting noises that occur, for which no penalty applies. The rule therefore, is flawed.
Although I absolutely agree that noise levels should be minimized...and the sound of those `ring tones` can be nausiating.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: Mobile phone penalties.

Post by Scott Freeman » Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:31 pm

Susan lalic wrote:
However, Graeme Buckley's opponent was phoned at the board by an arbiter a few years ago. The arbiter was trying to locate the guy's phone which he thought he had lost. It was in the bag next to him!

The arbiter saved face by making Graeme play on.


Regular readers will know about this situation because I have discussed this on the forum a couple of times before. What actually happened was that the arbiter (me) called a more senior arbiter (David Sedgwick) for advice on what the right thing to do was because it was a slightly unusual situation in that the player was certainly concerned about his phone and would clearly have switched it off had he known he had it (albeit I accept Graeme's view that the player is responsible for his own property, etc). Because I had (obviously) made he call away from the playing area, I had not been in the room when the phone rang and was actually unaware that his phone had rung in the playing area until someone told me a while later. I immediatey phoned David S at that point to discuss the situation.

David advised me to continue the game. For the record, had he said otherwise, I would not have had a problem in defaulting the player whose phone went off, so it wasn't exactly a case of "saving face" as Susan put it. If I had wanted to "save face" and cover up, I would not have personally raised it on the forum as I have done before. In any case, it was such an unusual scenario I felt it ought to be aired and discussed; obviously some people feel I handled it wrong and I am quite happy to take their criticism. Other people felt I used appropriate arbiter's discretion. I understand and accept both opinions. 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 obviously grateful to Graeme and thank him that he won the game and avoided any issues later!

There has been quite a good exchange involving Susan, Graeme, myself and David Sedgwick on the SCCU web site which could be read without me repeating it all here:
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/letmobiles.htm