An “open invitation” response on Law 12B/C to reinforce the difference between real damage to the non-offenders and any advantage gained by an offending side.
Proposed text for Law 12B1
[New text in italics. First attempt did not work: struck through.]
The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. Whereas advantage exists when, following an infraction, the offending side obtains a table result more favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. There is an adjusted score (at least for the offending side) when they have gained an advantage, even if there is no damage There may be an advantage for the offending side, whether or not there is any damage to the nonoffending side, in which case there may still be an adjustment for the offending side — see C1(b).
Proposed additional text for Law 12C1(b)
If all the damage is self-inflicted, the non-offending side keep the score obtained in play.
1 comment:
[I think I may have lost a comment - sorry to campboy.]
I have come to the conclusion there is no good way of wording Law 12B. If there is damage to NOS then there is an adjustment. But if there is advantage for OS, all we can say is that we apply Law 12C1b.
Post a Comment