[mr1303]

As I understand it, DPs are not appealable.

This seems wrong to me. In the event that several impartial witnesses state that a director was wrong about a situation, there surely should be some way to appeal this.

[axman]

mr1303, on 2013-November-10, 18:04, said:

As I understand it, DPs are not appealable.

This seems wrong to me. In the event that several impartial witnesses state that a director was wrong about a situation, there surely should be some way to appeal this.

The law was constructed in this situation with the purpose of torturing the reader [is what it says believable? Or is it to be parsed differently?]

91A says that the AC cannot overturn a DP. Is arriving at a finding that a DP be changed overruling? No. is appealing a DP overruling a DP? No.

A reference suggests looking at L93B3 even though no clear reason is provided for doing so.

L93B3 tells what an AC can do with a DP but provides no standard as to the conditions for doing so.

91A. Director’s Powers

In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the Director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof. The Director’s decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee (see Law 93B3).


93B3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)

[nige1]

My understanding of current law is that you can appeal any ruling; but the appeals committee can't over-rule the director's decision on a matter of law. After deliberation, however, the committee can present arguments to the director, asking him to reconsider his initial ruling; and the director is quite likely to accede to such a request. With director-panels however, I expect that attempts to appeal disciplinary penalties would be pointless.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2013-November-10, 19:33, said:

My understanding of current law is that you can appeal any ruling; but the appeals committee can't over-rule the director's decision on a matter of law. After deliberation, however, the committee can present arguments to the director, asking him to reconsider his initial ruling; and the director is quite likely to accede to such a request. With director-panels however, I expect that attempts to appeal disciplinary penalties would be pointless.

While the first part of this answer is correct, I wonder what your reference is to "director-panels". I have never heard of them. Where do they exist? Or are you mis-representing the EBL & WBF's review system, to try to make it seem as though it was introduced by directors, or administered by them?

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2013-November-11, 01:33, said:

While the first part of this answer is correct, I wonder what your reference is to "director-panels". I have never heard of them. Where do they exist? Or are you mis-representing the EBL & WBF's review system, to try to make it seem as though it was introduced by directors, or administered by them?

Thank you Gordon. I did mean the new review-system. I didn't mean to imply that directors introduced or administered the review-system. (Although I confess that I was under the vague impression that the tournament-director administered it).

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2013-November-11, 06:26, said:

Thank you Gordon. I did mean the new review-system. I didn't mean to imply that directors introduced or administered the review-system. (Although I confess that I was under the vague impression that the tournament-director administered it).

The way the system works (as I understand it, not having worked under it) is that a reviewer (or more than one) is appointed for an event. The reviewer will not be a TD at the event. I believe that Grattan Endicott was the one for the first EBL event under this system. If a team is unhappy with a ruling, they go to the reviewer who will consider whether the TD followed the correct process in coming to the decision - eg consulting, polling, asking the right questions. If it is felt that the ruling was not based on correct procedure, the TD will be asked to make the ruling again.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2013-November-11, 07:28, said:

The way the system works (as I understand it, not having worked under it) is that a reviewer (or more than one) is appointed for an event. The reviewer will not be a TD at the event. I believe that Grattan Endicott was the one for the first EBL event under this system. If a team is unhappy with a ruling, they go to the reviewer who will consider whether the TD followed the correct process in coming to the decision - eg consulting, polling, asking the right questions. If it is felt that the ruling was not based on correct procedure, the TD will be asked to make the ruling again.

Thanks Gordon. Just to be clear: as you understand the review-protocol: if players are unhappy about a ruling, they should report their misgivings to the reviewer? or should they inform the director first? and before committing themselves, can they consult an official appeal-advisor (if such a role still exists)?

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2013-November-11, 08:07, said:

Thanks Gordon. Just to be clear: as you understand the review-protocol: if players are unhappy about a ruling, they should report their misgivings to the reviewer? or should they inform the director first? and before committing themselves, can they consult an official appeal-advisor (if such a role still exists)?

I have the impression that they would go straight to the reviewer, but as I say I haven't experienced the system first hand. As to appeals advisors, I'm not even sure that they ever had them at EBL & WBF events. Maybe there will be an EBL director here (jhenrikj?) who can answer more fully.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2013-November-11, 07:28, said:

The way the system works (as I understand it, not having worked under it) is that a reviewer (or more than one) is appointed for an event. The reviewer will not be a TD at the event. I believe that Grattan Endicott was the one for the first EBL event under this system. If a team is unhappy with a ruling, they go to the reviewer who will consider whether the TD followed the correct process in coming to the decision - eg consulting, polling, asking the right questions. If it is felt that the ruling was not based on correct procedure, the TD will be asked to make the ruling again.

So there is no basis to appeal based on the decision, only on the TD's procecudure? Is this really considered by some geniuses to be consistent with a player's right to appeal?

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2013-November-11, 08:55, said:

So there is no basis to appeal based on the decision, only on the TD's procecudure? Is this really considered by some geniuses to be consistent with a player's right to appeal?

As I understand it, the argument is that since proper procedure involves consultation with and/or polling of appropriate people, and will often have involved the judgement of more peers of the player than would an appeals committee, as long as this has been done then there is no need to consider overturning the ruling.

[RMB1]

mr1303, on 2013-November-10, 18:04, said:

As I understand it, DPs are not appealable.

Rulings are appealable, that is rulings may be reviewed by Chief TD and/or appeals committee.
What is limited is the power of an appeals committee to substitute another ruling, if they disagree with the original.

Some disciplinary penalties (notably suspension) are impractical to overturn, so these penalties can not be removed. Other disciplinary penalties require the acquiesence of the TD to be overturned.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2013-November-11, 10:25, said:

As I understand it, the argument is that since proper procedure involves consultation with and/or polling of appropriate people, and will often have involved the judgement of more peers of the player than would an appeals committee, as long as this has been done then there is no need to consider overturning the ruling.

Obviously it's a poor argument but the real problem is that it is still the director making or re-making the decision -- there is no review by a body that has the power to overturn the ruling. Can this be considered legal?

I am also wondering about practicalities -- such as whether the people polled will be given a detailed description of the methods being used, and a copy of the appeals form with the arguments of the players. And will they have access to the players in case they need to ask questions? Does this become a walking-around appeal committee with no authority? Would anyone want to be involved in it?

A poll is a tool, not a substitute for a deliberate, reasoned approach to the problem at hand. Sorry to be replying to you here Gordon -- I don't mean to suggest that you don't know what's, well, right, and I know that you do.

[jhenrikj]

It's not the same TD who made the ruling that remakes the ruling. If a ruling is overturned by the reviewer the Head TD will do the ruling. The review system is only functioning on large championships with lot of directors.

In the EBL there is some of the very best TD's in the World. If 5 of them together, after asking several players and made careful investigations of the facts, how can anyone think that a AC can be more right that this group of TD's?

Event today I saw an AC overturning of a TD ruling but the ruling given by the AC broke the law...so I can't understand how anyone can for a minute think that an AC will do a better ruling then the best directors in the world ruling together if those directors use the proper procedure.

[aguahombre]

jhenrikj, on 2013-November-24, 14:14, said:

Event today I saw an AC overturning of a TD ruling but the ruling given by the AC broke the law...so I can't understand how anyone can for a minute think that an AC will do a better ruling then the best directors in the world ruling together if those directors use the proper procedure.

Tell me slowly how this happened, since I seem to be missing something. An AC doesn't rule on a matter of law, only on the facts. If their descision is to recommend to the TD that he use a different law or is that the TD broke the applicable law, it goes back to the TD anyway.

Or was this not one of your "best directors using proper procedure", and he didn't know any better?

[blackshoe]

One function of the TD is to advise an AC as to what the law actually allows them to do. So if an AC makes a ruling that is not legal it's the TD's fault.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-24, 15:59, said:

One function of the TD is to advise an AC as to what the law actually allows them to do. So if an AC makes a ruling that is not legal it's the TD's fault.

Not necessarily.

Many years ago I had one of my rulings appealed, and as the appeal partly involved a question of Law I notified the AC of the relevant rules on this matter.

In spite of this they changed my ruling on the law question (without first coming back to me). I saw no reason to bother any further.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2013-November-24, 17:40, said:

Not necessarily.

Many years ago I had one of my rulings appealed, and as the appeal partly involved a question of Law I notified the AC of the relevant rules on this matter.

In spite of this they changed my ruling on the law question (without first coming back to me). I saw no reason to bother any further.

And you don't think that was your fault?

[blackshoe]

Sven, if they had suggested to you that your ruling on the question of law was flawed, and explained why, would you have changed it? If not, I do not think you handled the case well.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-November-24, 18:11, said:

Sven, if they had suggested to you that your ruling on the question of law was flawed, and explained why, would you have changed it? If not, I do not think you handled the case well.

If I accepted your explanation as correct then yes of course I would have changed my ruling.

Maybe you should be aware that once I as TD have handed the completed appeal form over to the AC I take no part in their discussion unless specifically called. I don't really see how I should have handled this case differently? (Arguing the AC ruling afterwards was not an option.)

[aguahombre]

So, we have a flawed practice regarding AC's in Sven's realm being used as an argument against having AC's?