COMPLICATING SIMPLE RULES

I am told of a new amendment to the rules:

10.2(e) will read: "If your opponent has gone out, and hence neutralised the clock, you have approximately five seconds to accept or challenge the turn, otherwise your opponent is entitled to restart your clock"

I am amazed by the tendency to complicate simple rules. This problem can be solved by a simple adjustment to Rule 11.1 as follows:

Current Rule:
11.1(a) The player going out must neutralize the clock on completion of the final move.

An alternative suggested change:

11.1(a) If your opponent has gone out, you should subsequently neutralise the clock and either challenge or declare the end of the game.

The above would replace 11.1(a), 11.1(b) and 11.1(c)

11.1(d) becomes 11.1(b)

This would negate the need for the suggested addition of five seconds, which could be subject to disagreement as to whether the clock was started after exactly five seconds or after less than five seconds. Such disagreement could be crucial if the player involved is running out of time.

The new rule is simply bestowing on a player an undeserved extra 5 seconds over and above their allotted time of 25 minutes. In order to stretch the imagination of our rules officers here is a possible scenario:

Player A finishes with all his tiles and the bag is empty. Player B has only a couple of seconds on their clock. If player A is to neutralise the clock and wait for 5 seconds before starting player B’s clock, it would simply mean that player B is getting 5 extra seconds more than his allocated time of 25 minutes. But if player A is to start player B’s clock as an indication of the end of his turn, it would mean that player B is getting no more extra time on top of his allocated time of 25 minutes. All he has to do is to quickly neutralise the clock and either challenge or declare the game’s end.

I believe that any change to the rules must be discussed and accepted by the membership of all states. It should not be left totally to rules officers.

P.S.:

I think the above details might be difficult to grasp without making elaborate examination of the quasi-legalese wording of the rules. What I meant by the above unfavourable critique is: Neutralising the clock on going out is wrong, since the game is not finished because the player at the receiving end still has the option of challenging the last play of the opponent. Therefore, it would be more sensible if the player going out would operate his/her opponent's clock, as usual, after declaring the score and the notion of going out. The opponent would then neutralise the clock and either challenge or declare the end of the game. If the challege is successful, the challenged player takes his/her tiles off the board and the game continues. This last scenario emphasises the notion that GOING OUT IS NOT THE END OF THE GAME. THUS THE CLOCK SHOULD NOT BE NEUTRALISED ON GOING OUT. The player at the receiving end might be able to successfully challege, then hook a bingo and win the game! So, going out is not necessarily the end of the game as initially thought by our rules engineers. It is a virtue to admit being wrong and to correct the initial rule error, instead of correcting a mistake with another mistake. Yes, giving a player extra seconds is really a funny way to correct a rule's error. Do the right thing instead of being in denial.

I cannot make it any clearer.

AN INSULTING COMPLIMENT

From: Marj Miller

To: ozscrabble
Apr 21 at 10:35 PM

Well done to Daniel Piechnick from New South Wales for a really fine win in the 2014.

The above is more of an insult to Daniel. He is not just a passerby. It is well known far and wide within the scrabble community that Daniel Piechnick is a long-established champion from South Australia, not NSW.

This reminds me of an old quip by an anonymous writer: “Some speakers are much more appreciated with their mouth shut.”

ASPA RULES OFFICERS

We do have so called “Rules Officers”, who keep on dragging their feet towards rules reform. I suggested, in 2008 on this blog, the adoption of WESPA’s rule 3.9.2(c), commonly known as the ”open hand rule”. It was adopted by ASPA as rule 5.2 many years later in 2013. Inforcing the rule is almost totally neglected by tournament directors.

I have been asking for a further adoption of WESPA’s sensible rule no. 3.9.1, to replace ASPA’s ridiculous rule 5.1, which decides on the height of the bag when drawing tiles.  I asked on this blog, which is read by many ASPA players. I asked for the change on “Across the Board”, only to get an irrelevant response by another reader. I emailed my suggestion to about all of ASPA rules officers and had no response.

I never formally asked for any drastic reforms such as performing the calculation of scores outside play time. Such radical suggestion, regardless of its obvious merits, would raise all sorts of pedantic objections.

The role of rules officers in this organisation still baffles me. Is it just an honorary job on one of ASPA’s lists of dysfunctional officers?