ICCF 2015-018: Revision of Adjudication Procedures
Dennis Doren, Arbiter Committee Chair
Revision of Adjudication Procedures
Proposal
To do either or both of two things related to adjudication procedures:
Option 1: To develop and maintain an ongoing group of volunteers from among ICCF GMs, ICCF SIMs, and other ICCF players rated 2500+ to serve as (anonymous) adjudicators from which Tournament Organizers must select anytime a TD calls for adjudication. (This selection process would be automated to the degree possible.) The formation of this group and any rules and training related to adjudication procedures would be the responsibility of the Chair of the Arbiter Committee. This would be consistent with the existing ACO role of overseeing "all aspects of TD and arbiter work, training, [and] development" in the ICCF (quoted from the Arbiter Manual, both current and revised). The World Tournament Director would be responsible for overseeing the implementation of this new adjudicator selection process (once the ACO has developed the program), this role being consistent with the WTD's responsibility for "all matters specifically related to the direction of tournaments" (quoted from the Arbiter Manual). Some exceptions would be allowed (through a TO's request to the WTD) for using someone other than a member of this volunteer adjudicator group for exceptional circumstances (such as unique language issues, or in the case where the rating of one of the usual adjudicator's may not be high enough for the situation).
Option 2: To develop a panel of 3 very high-rated people who would serve to review all initial adjudication decisions where (a) the adjudication occurred specifically because a player in an individual (versus team) event died and was ruled by the TD as an accepted withdrawal for that reason, and (b) the initial adjudication decision was for a win for the deceased player's opponent. This review would involve each member of the panel determining if the adjudicator's decision was "reasonable", and would not conduct a completely new adjudication process. The panelists would each work independently of one another in reaching his/her conclusion. If at least 2 of the 3 panelists found the adjudicator's decision was "unreasonable", then the game outcome decision would be overturned in favor of a draw. If none, or only one of the panelists found the decision to be "unreasonable", the decision would stand. Specific procedures and details of timing requirements for implementing this option would be worked out by the ACO Chair and WTD in consultation, if this proposed option is accepted.
Rationale
There are two issues being addressed simultaneously by these two options. The main issue is that adjudicators are currently selected by Tournament Organizers with minimal guidelines (one being that the adjudicator is rated higher than the players) and no assurance that the TO's selection is an appropriate one. For example, the guidelines allow the selection of an adjudicator rated 1900 to adjudicate a game between players rated 1600 even though a 1900 player may very be seen as lacking the necessary skill to do a proper job. By organizing a group of very high-rated volunteers, we would ensure that all adjudicators are well-skilled for the task of doing adjudications. The main point is that everyone could be more assured that initial adjudication conclusions are very reasonable.
The second issue is a subset of the first. In the case of an adjudication subsequent to the death of a player in an individual event, there is no one with the right to appeal an adjudicator's ruling of a win for the deceased player's opponent (that is, a loss for the deceased player), even if that ruling seems clearly wrong. (This situation occurred recently, which is why the issue came up.) This situation is not just unfair to the deceased player, but to the other players in the same tournament by potentially affecting the outcome of the tournament. Under general circumstances, the other players in a tournament could expect a wrong decision by an adjudicator to get corrected by the player's filing his/her own appeal. Of course, with a deceased player, this cannot happen. The idea for the panel is to ensure, in this specific circumstance for adjudication (and none other), that all rulings of a win by a deceased player's opponent are reviewed for their "reasonableness".
Option 1 alone would help ensure a high degree of quality in all adjudications. With that degree of quality to every adjudication, it could be argued that no special panel is necessary to address the latter issue simply because "unreasonable" adjudication rulings become less probable.
Option 2 alone would address the specific situation that was recently discovered: that there can be an inaccurate decision that must remain in force because there is no one with the right to appeal that decision. This option alone would not address any concern about the quality of adjudications conducted under typical circumstances.
Both options together would address concerns related to both the general quality and the specific circumstance. However, together, these two procedures may seem like doing too much to solve an infrequent problem.
Other Comments/Considerations
The Arbiter Committee was divided about which of these two options was the better approach. It was; therefore, decided to bring both options to the Congress, explain the merits of each, and let the Congress decide. To be clear, the ACO was not specifically recommending that both options be supported.
Relevent Documentation
The current (and revised) Arbiter Manual offers a general guideline about the selection of adjudicators, but offers almost no detail or procedure for TOs to follow in obtaining an appropriate adjudicator. As mentioned above, no ICCF document gives any person the right to appeal an adjudication ruling when it goes against a deceased player.
Voting Summary
There will be two separate, independent votes concerning this proposal:
(1) The first vote will pertain to Option 1:
- A vote of "YES" will mean that a new pool of adjudicators will be developed and maintained from which all TO's will need to use in selecting adjudicators
- A vote of "NO" will mean that a new pool of adjudicators will NOT be developed from which all TO's will need to use in selecting adjudicators.
- A vote of ABSTAIN is not a vote but means the vote holder has no opinion and does not wish to represent the correspondence chess players of his or her federation in this matter.
(2) The second vote will pertain to Option 2:
- A vote of "YES" will mean that a new panel of 3 reviewers will be developed to review rulings of adjudicated loss by deceased players
- A vote of "NO" will mean that a new panel of 3 reviewers will NOT be developed to review rulings of adjudicated loss by deceased players
- A vote of ABSTAIN is not a vote but means the vote holder has no opinion and does not wish to represent the correspondence chess players of his or her federation in this matter.
The voting for or against Option 1 will not affect the voting for or against Option 2. The two votes will be independent of one another. In that way, delegates can vote of favor of neither option, in favor of just a specific one of the options, or in favor of both options; as desired.
Comments by Relevant Committees, Commissions, or ICCF Officers
Eric Ruch (EB)
No comments yet
Eric Ruch (Rules)
No comments yet
Frank Geider
No comments yet
Dennis Doren
Being the Chair of the Committee that developed these ideas, I am obviously fully in favor of there being something done to improve ICCF adjudication procedures. Although adjudications are generally conducted well by the Tournament Organizers (TOs) who select the adjudicators, and the adjudicators themselves, the fact is that are essentially no rules for TOs to follow in selecting adjudicators beyond finding someone rated above the event's ratings. This lack of structure seems to allow a lot of room for less-than-best selections in adjudicators. The first option addresses this system-wide issue. The second option addresses a far more specific shortcoming in current procedures relative to how Tournament Directors and adjudicators are allowed to handle situations involving a deceased player. My personal bias is to fix larger issues before smaller ones, such that I see option 1 as the more important of the two options, if someone is not in favor of supporting both.