[Xiaolongnu]

Am I being oversensitive or does the English wording of the law suggest some things that I think it does?

My English is decent by Singaporean standards and generally fluent but not as good as many of you.

1. 81B2: The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

It does not say the Director MUST apply the laws or anything isomorphic to that. It is specifically stated in the first page of the red book that the prefixes to the verbs are important in emphasizing the severity and extremity of the sentence. Does this mean that the Director does not ALWAYS MUST apply the laws, but (presumably when he judges so) may break the law and rule by his pure judgment and discretion? Such a ruling should ideally be done in consultation of course.

2. 90 and 91, essentially, penalties.

The list given in 90 is explicitly stated to be not exhaustive. 91 is "worse" in that a list is not even given. It occurs to me that we are on our own and it is up to our experience, tolerance level and common sense to decide what "deserves" a penalty and what does not. Any general guidelines?

My intuition is that an offence generally deserves a PP if boards are scrapped. A DP on the other hand is more extreme and should only happen to really bad behaviour or poor ethics. Having said that, what could we and should we do for those in between situations like the occasional not so nice remark or the occasional outburst of vulgarities or slamming the table after a -1100 (which we are all guilty of that once in a blue moon, but yeah, you guys get what I mean). We are only human, to what extent should we be a disciplinarian (or an ass)? Not forgetting that scolding and penalizing makes (older, weaker) club players go even further off the tangent that Directors are the policemen's incarnate on the table and that calling the Director "on them" (the obviously wrong way that they see it) is a direct insult and act of violence.

3. 12B2.

The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

In what situation would the Director even be "tempted" to adjust the score in this sense that the law so fears he will?

[barmar]

1. The "must" and "should" language is used when describing what players are supposed to do, to guide directors when applying penalties. It doesn't make sense to use them when describing the director's duties, because directors can't be penalized.

3. I think directors have been tempted to override the rectifications for revokes or penalty cards, because they sometimes allow impossible contracts to be made and this seems like an excessive penalty.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2012-February-06, 14:16, said:

I think directors have been tempted to override the rectifications for revokes or penalty cards, because they sometimes allow impossible contracts to be made and this seems like an excessive penalty.

And sometimes the requirement to lead a penalty card damages the NOS.

[bluejak]

If you read these threads there are often posts which suggest that a ruling is harsh, usually because someone who cannot be bothered to follow the Laws is going to be penalised. So Law 12B2.

The Preface to the Laws merely gives the law-makers' intent: rulings are based on the Laws not on the Preface.

TDs have an awful lot of judgement based on experience commonsense, training, reading forums and so on. Laws 90 and 91 are typical examples. Where judgement is involved then they judge - but not to the extent of ignoring the Laws.

[Vampyr]

1. I think the key phrase is "is bound by".

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-06, 15:50, said:

1. I think the key phrase is "is bound by".

Indeed.

To me "bound" is a very strong word.