Appeals Deposits

[mrdct]

In Australia they have the right to give a PP for a meritless appeal.  Just consider how effective that is at stopping appeals in the last segment of a knockout match, for example!

I take your point about KO matches where monetary deposits do make more sense in the last segment, but I have to say that in Australia I think the scoreboard penalty for appeals without merit is far more effective and equitable.

 

I copped a 1VP fine at our last nationals for an appeal without merit (totally unjustified of course as my appeal had substantial merit) which was a huge penalty as I was playing on a team knocking on the door of a qualifying position for the KO stage and we needed every VP we could get.

 

Not that I'm made of money, but when it's already costing me a pretty penny to play in the nationals once I take account of travel, accommodation, entry fees, time off work, etc, I couldn't care less about losing a US$40 deposit, but losing a VP that might cost me making it through to the KO stage is a major disincentive to making a frivilous appeal.

 

Under the Australian system, appeals become a little bit like poker pot odds where you need to weight-up the risk of a 1VP fine against a potential gain of, say, 5VPs.

 

Like other jurisdictions, Australia has "appeals advisors" available at the major events who can add some certainty to the process as if you appeal when advised not to you will be fined and, conversely, if you lose an appeal after an appeals advisors told you that your appeal had a reasonable chance of success you cannot be fined. So in my jurisdiction at least the wise thing to do is consult with an appeals advisor and try to convince him to tick the box on the form saying that he believes that there is a reasonable chance of success and if you can't get him to do that, accept the TD's ruling as you are destined to lose your appeal and lose a VP.

[jallerton]

Talk earlier of the quarter-green has made me think of applying a master point sanction.  Many average players in England lover the quarter-green, and enter Swiss events with no thought of winning, but just to see how many quarter-greens they can get.  Suppose a frivolous appeal meant a quarter-green was taken away?  Would that be effective?  Would it be fair? I think the answer is the same as for monetary deposits.  It would be unfair, and would be effective against some players and not others.  Consider my case.  I cannot reach the next rank because there is no higher rank.  I do not play enough or in the correct events to win an annual master point prize.  I am always the leading master point winner in my County.  So to lose a quarter-green means very little to me, far less than losing ten or twenty pounds. and less to me than to my wife, who picks up very few greens a year but needs them for the next rank.

Congratulations on accumulating so many green points each year.

 

I think the way to treat you and your wife fairly in this regard would be to make the fine a certain percentage of your lifetime tally rather than a fixed amount.

 

If David has 2,000 green points then he would receive a deduction of say 10% of 2,000 = 200 green points. If his wife has 90 green points then the deduction for her would be 10% of 90 = 9 green points.

 

For repeated frivolous appeals there could be an automatic relegation down to the previous master point rank.

 

If an AC decides an appeal is meritless, it then decides to sanction the people who brought the appeal, applying all of retaining a small deposit, issuing a PP and an AWMW, and deducting an eighth-green [or whatever is decided].

 

I quite like this idea (apart from the AWMW which seems unnecessary if you are applying the other sanctions).

[Pict]

Interesting that being part of the appeals process is so onerous and tedious as to generate these revenge phantasies in relation to the unfortunate serfs who disagree with TDs.

[Bbradley62]

Repeatedly making awm should be considered unacceptable behavior and should be treated as such. Some threshhold (involving both absolute number and percentage of awm) should be set, and anyone who crosses the threshhold should be barred from playing any sanctioned event for a specified period of time. It should be communicated clearly to anyone who is approaching the threshhold that another awm could get them barred. No player should ever be told "you do not have the right to appeal", but it is entirely reasonable to tell a player "if your next appeal is deemed to be wihout merit you will be barred from all events for the following six months".

[nige1]

No player should ever be told "you do not have the right to appeal", but it is entirely reasonable to tell a player "if your next appeal is deemed to be without merit you will be barred from all events for the following six months".

:) :) :) You cannot be serious (CR John McEnroe).

[Bbradley62]

No player should ever be told "you do not have the right to appeal", but it is entirely reasonable to tell a player "if your next appeal is deemed to be without merit you will be barred from all events for the following six months".

:) :) :) You cannot be serious (CR John McEnroe).

It's the same as unacceptable behavior. At some point, you tell the offender "if it happens again, you're suspended". You are not welcome here if you're going to be a great big pain in the butt.