25-08-2014, 01:18 PM
Phil, by all means ignore my point. If the motion goes forward to the first council meeting in November with the addition of the very seperate issue of 'players refusing to play against a correctly paired opponent' then I will vote for the motion to go back to the drawing board and be split into two motions. I don't like different issues being paperclipped onto the one motion. This would result in a delay until the following council meeting in March 2015. I don't think splitting it into a seperate motion is in any way an unreasonable request.
Andy & Steve's motion deals with guidelines for disabled players and is not where I would expect as an Arbiter to have to look for guidance on how to do pairings or run a tournament.
There are some wider issues regarding your motion:
A rather extreme hypothetical example:
Round 1, the current guidance allows arbiters to avoid pairings of siblings, clubmates etc using his or her discretion. Does your rule not threaten to override this? For instance, two siblings who were due to play are seperated by the arbiter in the pairings with one sibling refusing to play their new opponent on the grounds that the draw is wrong? Technically it is wrong...
Alos, as I highlighted, how do you see this working within the confines of the organiser being able to take any measures deemed necessary to ensure the smooth running of the tournament.
Another extreme hypothetical example:
Its an early round (1 or 2), the organiser knows two players have an extreme dislike for one another and in a previous encounter (at another tournament) this resulted in fisticuffs. The provisional pairing will see these two players playing against one another and will not necessary have an impact on the tournament (ie prizes). The organiser requests that the pairing is changed to ensure the smooth running of the tournament.
Andy & Steve's motion deals with guidelines for disabled players and is not where I would expect as an Arbiter to have to look for guidance on how to do pairings or run a tournament.
There are some wider issues regarding your motion:
A rather extreme hypothetical example:
Round 1, the current guidance allows arbiters to avoid pairings of siblings, clubmates etc using his or her discretion. Does your rule not threaten to override this? For instance, two siblings who were due to play are seperated by the arbiter in the pairings with one sibling refusing to play their new opponent on the grounds that the draw is wrong? Technically it is wrong...
Alos, as I highlighted, how do you see this working within the confines of the organiser being able to take any measures deemed necessary to ensure the smooth running of the tournament.
Another extreme hypothetical example:
Its an early round (1 or 2), the organiser knows two players have an extreme dislike for one another and in a previous encounter (at another tournament) this resulted in fisticuffs. The provisional pairing will see these two players playing against one another and will not necessary have an impact on the tournament (ie prizes). The organiser requests that the pairing is changed to ensure the smooth running of the tournament.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!