Proposal: Handling Forfeits

Rules 206.01 and 206.02 currently read:

206.01 Late Arrival:

Should a player or team arrive more than 5 minutes late for the scheduled 
start of a game, that team forfeits that game and all games in the round.

206.02 Scratched Games:

Should a player or team fail to play any game in a round, that team forfeits 
all their games in the round, including any that may have already been played
and won by that team.

I propose that they be merged into a single rule which treats both late arrivals and scratches as forfeits:

206.01 Late Arrival/Scratches: Should a team arrive more than 5 minutes late
for the beginning of a game, it forfeits that game. If a team is unable to
complete a game, it forfeits that game. A forfeit is listed as a loss for the
forfeiting team with 0 points scored. Its round placement will be determined
including those game scores. A second ranking will then be done to determine
the finish of the other teams in that round.  The second ranking removes all
games played by teams with forfeits in that round skipping the rank positions
already assigned to those teams.


Demonstration of two-stage ranking process

Below is my original note to Robbie concerning the proposal, and some previous comments on the idea by Stork.

Robbie -

This is of course a rewording of Stork's proposal which itself is based on
Greensage's idea (which he came up with while living in my apartment). I can't 
find any problems with it that aren't far-fetched. The current Draconian rule 
was adopted because no one could figure out a way to neutralize the effect of 
a forfeit - capital punishment seemed the only route. The two-stage ranking 
is fair to everyone.

Of course getting kicked out of the tournament is a huge disincentive, and
players show up on time. Even without that axe hanging over their heads, they
still show up on time.  The two-stage ranking method has been adopted at
several large overalls on a test basis, and there haven't been any late
arrivals.

It's been argued that the complexity of the rule penalizes the TD. That's a 
specious point. Given the rarity of forfeits and the fact that the rule is 
actually quite straightforward, I'd be surprised if the rule added ten minutes 
a year to the running of tournaments.

I really believe this is something that needs to be changed.

Conrad


Below are some comments that Stork made two years ago:

Rationale

 I was part of the decision making on the current D.D.C. rule and I remember
clearly that none of us liked the result but we couldn't see any solution to
the differential impact on other teams in the round.  I have never liked the
D.D.C. rule because it isn't a good fit with our other late arrival standards
each of which have some measured penalty prior to scratch.

 John Greensage came up with this solution last year.  I wish he had been
part of our rule-making process several years ago because I think that his 2
stage analysis cleverly solves the principal problems of late arrival for
games in D.D.C.  I have not been able to think of or demonstrate any major
flaws.  Some will say however, that a top team can come late; lose a couple
of games; be picked in the second round; win; and proceed to the 10 round
smelling like a rose.  That's true, but late arrival penalties can be
completely overcome in the other field events also.  Only golfers must carry
the burden throughout cumulative events.  

 I believe that the risks would be sufficiently heavy for late D.D.C. players
and that they increase proportionately for each game missed.  I also feel
that the 2 stage ranking protects the rights of the other pool players
sufficiently.  Obviously the rule allows us to begin on time without waiting
for late players which is the main point of these rules.  The 2 stage ranking
will take some extra administrative time but it will rarely be needed and is
well worth the effort.