Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Richardson/Spens results
#80
Mike Truran Wrote:Apologies if I'm labouring the point, but what's the point of a rule that requires a player to be defaulted even if his/her phone is in the arbiter's possession? Surely the intention of a rule should be to prevent a player having access to an electronic device? If handing the phone to an arbiter for safe keeping before start of play doesn't fulfil that requirement, then what is the point of the rule?

I'm not an arbiter, but I'm pretty sure it's because a ringing phone will distract everyone else in the room.

Funnily enough, John, Jacob and I were debating the appropriate punishment over dinner tonight at the 4NCL. I was the only one who agreed with the rule that a ringing phone should lead to disqualification. John said he doesn't find a ringing phone any more off-putting than, say, someone sneezing, whereas I find it intensely annoying, so that probably goes some way towards explaining our differing views.
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)