[Vampyr]

When a match is played privately and there is no TD on-site, a ruling is given by telephone by a referee. I assume that this applies pretty much everywhere. I am wondering what the procedure is when one side wants to appeal.

[mjj29]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-16, 17:50, said:

When a match is played privately and there is no TD on-site, a ruling is given by telephone by a referee. I assume that this applies pretty much everywhere. I am wondering what the procedure is when one side wants to appeal.

For the EBU this is in the White Book, Section 162. 162.4.1 deals with 'rulings of first instance', which should be:

• Captains agree an outcome
  
• Contact a member of the principle EBU TD panel
  
• Agree on another arbiter
  
• Contact another EBU TD, an EBU Referee or a member of the L&E committee
  
• Contact the EBU in writing

Appealing such a ruling is Section 162.7.1,which says

• Phone an EBU Referee
  
• Write to the EBU

There are two lists of number in the EBU Diary and on the website. One of EBU Panel TDs to contact for rulings of first instance and one to contact EBU Referees for appeals of such, although if necessary they can double as giving rulings of first instance and a different referee can handle the appeal.

[FrancesHinden]

Yes, the short answer is that it's more normal to phone a TD for the ruling of first instance, and then appeal it to a referee. Many referees are also qualified TDs and are don't object to giving a ruling, but as the guidance says, you should always tell them it's not an appeal.

If/when you want to appeal, you either agree on a suitable referee with the opponents or write to the EBU (John Pain) who will assign a referee (which in practice is very often Burn, Dhondy or me unless we are already involved in some manner).
A TD or referee for the initial ruling will give one reasonably quickly - they might have to phone you back, but always in time to resolve the match then and there.
Appeals typically take longer (typically 2-3 days unless the appeal is frivolous) because the referee will take time to consult with a number of other players, as well as having to speak to/read comments from both sides & the TD.

[FrancesHinden]

mjj29, on 2012-February-16, 18:03, said:

For the EBU this is in the White Book, Section 162. 162.4.1 deals with 'rulings of first instance', which should be:

• Captains agree an outcome
  
• Contact a member of the principle EBU TD panel
  
• Agree on another arbiter
  
• Contact another EBU TD, an EBU Referee or a member of the L&E committee
  
• Contact the EBU in writing

Appealing such a ruling is Section 162.7.1,which says

• Phone an EBU Referee
  
• Write to the EBU

There are two lists of number in the EBU Diary and on the website. One of EBU Panel TDs to contact for rulings of first instance and one to contact EBU Referees for appeals of such, although if necessary they can double as giving rulings of first instance and a different referee can handle the appeal.

p.s. you have to be quite careful on option 1, Captains agree an outcome: if the two captains agree on something at the table, that is an initial ruling, and if they then phone someone, that is an appeal.

[VixTD]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-February-18, 07:24, said:

p.s. you have to be quite careful on option 1, Captains agree an outcome: if the two captains agree on something at the table, that is an initial ruling, and if they then phone someone, that is an appeal.

I was under the impression that there was no appeal against an outcome agreed by the captains at the table, only against a ruling given by a third party, but I've looked through the White Book and I can't find it. Was it removed from an earlier version?

It does seem odd for a captain to agree on an outcome and then appeal it, but I suppose they could change their mind within the correction period.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2012-February-20, 08:13, said:

I was under the impression that there was no appeal against an outcome agreed by the captains at the table, only against a ruling given by a third party, but I've looked through the White Book and I can't find it. Was it removed from an earlier version?

It is still there: section 162.7

Quote

Appeals procedures
A ruling made under the provisions of 162.4 (b), ©, (d) or (e) above may be appealed by either captain. ...

Excluded from this list is 162.4(a) "Captains agree upon an outcome."

I think this is anomalous and said so when last asked to review the White Book. But I understand it was discussed and woding was confirmed by the EBU.

[corrected typo]

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2012-February-21, 11:02

[bluejak]

Yes, the L&EC decided to continue to disallow appeals based on agreements between captains, despite suggestions that this was illegal.

As mentioned before, I think it better to ask for a ruling from a TD then appeal to a Referee. Referees have a different approach and different training.

Note there are also lists of TDs and Referees in the WBU Handbook as well.

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2012-February-20, 08:45, said:

It is still there: section 162.7
Excluded from this list is 162.4(a) "Captains agree upon an outcome."

I think this is anomalous and said so when last asked to review the White Book. But I understand it was discussed and wording was confirmed by the EBU.

Thanks. (It's no wonder I missed it.)

bluejak, on 2012-February-21, 08:43, said:

Yes, the L&EC decided to continue to disallow appeals based on agreements between captains, despite suggestions that this was illegal.

This seems sensible to me, and I don't understand why Robin thinks it anomalous, nor why anyone should think it illegal. Did anyone suggest which law it might contravene?

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2012-February-22, 11:00, said:

Did anyone suggest which law it might contravene?

I might suggest Law 92A. IMHO the ruling that the captains agree on is "a ruling given by the Director", with the captains acting jointly as the director.

[bluejak]

I agree with Robin. Perhaps one should make it clear that the regulation says something like [quoting from memory] "captains agree on a ruling" and is thus the only judgement rulings given under the EBU's jurisdiction that are not appealable.

[dburn]

If the captains agree on a ruling, why would there be an appeal?

[blackshoe]

Because someone convinced one of the captains to withdraw his agreement?

[bluejak]

Part way through a hand, something happens. The captains decide what the Law is - having no law book handy - and are wrong. At the end of the set, David Burn, who happens to be playing in the other room, explains the actual Law. Too late to change!

During a match, something happens, captains agree on a ruling. At the end of the match, they get copies of the hands, and now they realise that the agreed ruling is impossible. Too late to change!

You could just as well ask, David, if people do not disagree with a ruling at the time it is given, why are they allowed to appeal later? Yet they are in every single event in the EBU, club games, events, EBU events, Spring Foursomes, Camrose, Golf Club Afternoon individuals, matches played privately where they ring a TD for a ruling, everything except matches played privately where captains agree on a ruling.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-March-12, 10:53, said:

Part way through a hand, something happens. The captains decide what the Law is - having no law book handy - and are wrong. At the end of the set, David Burn, who happens to be playing in the other room, explains the actual Law. Too late to change!

I find this surprising. Surely the two captains are acting jointly as TD. If the two captains agree on a ruling which transpires to have been illegal, why should this ruling not be rectified under Law 82C?

[bluejak]

Probably because they have never heard of Law 82C.

[jallerton]

Perhaps the captains haven't heard of Law 82C, but in your example there is a knowledgeable David at the other table who at the end of the set presumably tells the captains about Law 82C as well as why their original ruling was illegal.

[Trinidad]

jallerton, on 2012-March-13, 13:34, said:

Perhaps the captains haven't heard of Law 82C, but in your example there is a knowledgeable David at the other table who at the end of the set presumably tells the captains about Law 82C as well as why their original ruling was illegal.

That's all fine and dandy and that will work when the knowledgeable David can convince both captains. But what if the knowledgeable David can only convince one of the two captains, no matter how much he reads the relevant laws from the law book? Wouldn't it be a good idea to refer the matter to a neutral party, such as a -presumably equally knowledgeable- AC?

Rik