NickFaulks wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:53 pm
JustinHorton wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 12:42 pm
If I attend a football match, for instance, I agree to be searched, and often have been. This is not, as far as I am aware, outside the laws of the land.
But if a security guard approaches you during the match and insists on searching you again, that may be. Even if it isn't, they may eventually take some action which is. The ACC says that doesn't matter.
ACC's main argument, that they mentioned twice in the 15 minutes I was there, was that if you take part in a boxing fight you can't then report your opponent to the police for assault afterwards, on the grounds that he'd been punching you in the face. So boxing's rules beat the national laws.
By extending that analogy to chess, ACC contend that a player can't refuse to be searched or scanned during the game if the arbiter wants to do that; or at least, if they do, they should lose the game immediately and the arbiter should (presumably) report the incident to ACC. Because when they entered the tournament, they did so knowing that they were the terms on which they entered.
I wonder what the limits of that principle are. If the Laws of Chess say that the arbiter can indiscriminately wander around the playing area collecting people's drinks to drugs test them for banned substances, would that be OK?