Mobile phone penalties.

[Scott Freeman]

"I wonder if it's a red card offence if a footballer's phone rings when he's on the pitch. "

I believe there was an incident in a test match (cricket) a good few years back when either Allan Lamb or Ian Botham (I think the latter) was fielding at square leg next to Umpire Dickie Bird. Then the other (I think Lamb) who was not in the team but was in the pavillion phoned Botham who had secured his mobile phone with him somewhere (I dreadto think where!) and asked to speak to Dickie Bird, who apparently went into a very indignant mood that anyone would behave so badly during a test match. I gather he did take the call though - probably because he didn't know what was going on and that the 2 players had set him up for a prank.

Botham was not sent off.

[David Williams]

Two thoughts.

Firstly, in league chess I've heard mobile phones go off a few times, but I've never seen anyone lose a game because of it. Perhaps as a result, it seems to be happening more frequently. Why bother switching off if nothing's going to happen to you? So the draconian penalty has a counter-productive effect.

Secondly, when I've been the "victim", it's not the phone that's the distraction - that's over and done in a second. The problem is that you have to think whether to claim or not. Does he know the rule? Is it unsporting to claim? For the good of the team? Will I regret it if I go on and lose? If there were no penalty specified - no problem. The game just goes on.

[Anthony Taglione]

Yet another objection I have to the current rule is that the only person to benefit is the telephone-miscreant's opponent. In a full room, the opponent is only one of many who have been affected by the distraction of the ringtone.

Furthermore, while defaulting the owner of the phone clearly punishes him, it also gratuitously gifts a point to his opponent, who has done nothing to earn it, presumably along with a bundle of grading points.

[Richard Bates]

Yet another objection I have to the current rule is that the only person to benefit is the telephone-miscreant's opponent. In a full room, the opponent is only one of many who have been affected by the distraction of the ringtone.

Furthermore, while defaulting the owner of the phone clearly punishes him, it also gratuitously gifts a point to his opponent, who has done nothing to earn it, presumably along with a bundle of grading points.

On the contrary, my view is that the person who loses the most from the rule is the opponent. Through no fault of their own, they have their enjoyment for the evening spoiled. The rest of the room have a momentary distraction, (the exaggerated claims of which are amusing if nothing else - I've seen people claim that the consequences of no default rule is that they have to move faster in the opening to avert the possibility that a phone will go off in their time trouble causing them to lose the game!) the opponent has little option but to head home.

[Peter Shaw]

I voted for time bonus then default option, but I'd be happy with any of the options except default without warning or expulsion.

Defaulting without warning make sense at international tournaments with big prize money, but applying it at evening league level is ridiculous. I play evening league chess because I like playing chess. I have no interest in 'winning' a game because my opponent has forgotten to turn his phone off. I'd rather have a 10 second disruption because a phone rings than two people have a wasted evening. Luckily all the leagues I play in adopt a sane approach, I've never seen anyone try to claim a win.

Does defaulting people actually make any difference to the number of phones going off? I rather doubt it. Surely nobody thinks 'If I'm not going to be defaulted then I'll purposely leave my phone on!'.

[Sean Hewitt]

Interesting that everyone is saying they voted for time/warning then default - yet immediate default is heading the poll!

I voted for immediate default. I remember what used to happen before this law was introduced ; phones were going off left right and centre. That does not happen now for one reason alone - the existence of this rule - and I would not wish to see such chaos return.

For example, I have seen a phone go off in the 4NCL (where the penalty is immediate loss) just once in 5 years. Yet, in the same time I've seen a number go off in events where a lesser penalty is incurred. Coincidence?!

The draconian rule itself is not counter productive - it's organisers not implementing it that is.

[Anthony Taglione]

Yet another objection I have to the current rule is that the only person to benefit is the telephone-miscreant's opponent. In a full room, the opponent is only one of many who have been affected by the distraction of the ringtone.

Furthermore, while defaulting the owner of the phone clearly punishes him, it also gratuitously gifts a point to his opponent, who has done nothing to earn it, presumably along with a bundle of grading points.

On the contrary, my view is that the person who loses the most from the rule is the opponent. Through no fault of their own, they have their enjoyment for the evening spoiled. The rest of the room have a momentary distraction, (the exaggerated claims of which are amusing if nothing else - I've seen people claim that the consequences of no default rule is that they have to move faster in the opening to avert the possibility that a phone will go off in their time trouble causing them to lose the game!) the opponent has little option but to head home.

It just gets worse, the more one thinks about it.

[Anthony Taglione]

Interesting that everyone is saying they voted for time/warning then default - yet immediate default is heading the poll!

I voted for immediate default. I remember what used to happen before this law was introduced ; phones were going off left right and centre. That does not happen now for one reason alone - the existence of this rule - and I would not wish to see such chaos return.

For example, I have seen a phone go off in the 4NCL (where the penalty is immediate loss) just once in 5 years. Yet, in the same time I've seen a number go off in events where a lesser penalty is incurred. Coincidence?!

The draconian rule itself is not counter productive - it's organisers not implementing it that is.

What would your thoughts be if that one, single warning applied not to any single player but to the whole room? The first phone to ring gets glared at by everyone and a warning to the room is issued, not that there wouldn't have been a reminder at the start of the playing. The second one to sound, assuming it's not mere seconds later, gets defaulted. Maybe give a one-minute grace period after the warning.

[Geoff Chandler]

Why the poll? It's Game over.

This issue a warning nonsense is just wringing hands and faffing about.

My opponent gets outside help and a warning.
I get an extra 5 minutes and a busted combination?

With money, titles (and your precious grading points) on the line and instant
pocket-sized software on the market the opportunity to cheat has increased 100 fold.

If you cannot see how allowing a player to take a 'free' call during a game
with only a warning can be exploited by cheats, then wake up.

And don't say it won't or does not happen.

(Sometimes I think some of the people who post on here are a few pieces short of a full set.)

[Eoin Devane]

There are plenty of ways to cheat if someone really wants to. Under the current rules in most leagues and congresses, they could just go to the toilet and check the position on Pocket Fritz. I don't see how that would change if it were just a warning etc. as a penalty. It's not as if people would sit at the board and call Kasparov! The penalties for cheating should remain as harsh as ever. With the myriad id possible ways available to cheat, I think the lack of examples of cheats being caught reflects the fact that the vast, vast majority of chess players rarea not inclined to do so. To suggest that reducing the punishment for a mobile going off (while still having it prohibited) would lead to a mass spate of cheating is frankly ludicrous.

[Geoff Chandler]

I was personally involved in catching a cheat at the Edinburgh Open last year.

It was the last round and money was on the game.

I was all for naming him on The Corner and but could not forget the
shame in his face. It was pitiful. I could not do it. I simply could not do it.

He is still playing.

Perhaps once you have witnessed it first hand then you may feel different.

It's an awful situation.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I voted for immediate default. I remember what used to happen before this law was introduced ; phones were going off left right and centre. That does not happen now for one reason alone - the existence of this rule - and I would not wish to see such chaos return.

Doesn't happen in the London league ... and there's no immediate default rule there.

[Sean Hewitt]

Interesting that everyone is saying they voted for time/warning then default - yet immediate default is heading the poll!

I voted for immediate default. I remember what used to happen before this law was introduced ; phones were going off left right and centre. That does not happen now for one reason alone - the existence of this rule - and I would not wish to see such chaos return.

For example, I have seen a phone go off in the 4NCL (where the penalty is immediate loss) just once in 5 years. Yet, in the same time I've seen a number go off in events where a lesser penalty is incurred. Coincidence?!

The draconian rule itself is not counter productive - it's organisers not implementing it that is.

What would your thoughts be if that one, single warning applied not to any single player but to the whole room? The first phone to ring gets glared at by everyone and a warning to the room is issued, not that there wouldn't have been a reminder at the start of the playing. The second one to sound, assuming it's not mere seconds later, gets defaulted. Maybe give a one-minute grace period after the warning.

Hi Anthony,

I think that would be the awful. It's bad enough that Player A in tournament X gets defaulted when Player B in tournament Z gets a warning. For two players in the same event to commit the same offence and get different penalties - no thanks.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you cannot see how allowing a player to take a 'free' call during a game
with only a warning can be exploited by cheats, then wake up.

I don't think the warning then default method needs to allow this. The rule should say that you are not allowed to make or receive calls or texts during play - which means that your phone should be off. If however your phone is left on and receives a call or text or otherwise draws attention to itself then you can only avoid a penalty by immediately silencing it without taking the call.

[Dean Madden]

I've voted immediate default. I think a player should have the right to claim the win, but in for example evening league chess, I doubt whether I would claim a win unless it was particularly distracting to me and my team mates. If my own phone went off I'd only have myself to blame and wouldn't have a problem with being immediately defaulted.