This keeps happening.
You get a TD call for a revoke, you investigate and discover that they did not win the revoke trick but it looks as if they may have gained through revoking, but at most one trick. So you annouce that there is a one trick penalty for the revoke, unless the non-offenders would have got more than one trick if there had been no revoke. The non-offenders think this might be the case: so you go through the play as it would have been without the revoke, and (surprise, surprise) the non-offending side would have made just one more trick. So you explain that the revoke penalty has restored equity and the adjustment is one trick.
Now it kicks off! The non-offender's explain that they have been on a course, or another TD ruled differently, or it is not fair because there is no penalty for the revoke. They want two tricks, one to restore equity and one for the revoke penalty. So you explain again: the restoration of equity is instead of the revoke penalty not in addition. So now they start wondering if equity without the revoke would have been two tricks and you have to go through the possible plays without the revoke. Or they explain that it is not fair and everyone they spoke to thinks the non-offenders should get two tricks. So you explain that your ruling is one trick and they can ask another TD, if it will help; but your colleagues will not thank you for that.
I am dispairing of being able to explain this clearly and firmly so these rulings do not take ten minutes. The law is clear, and I am clear on the law, but somehow it is not being communicated to the players.
Are some TD's being taught this wrong on courses? Or is it just a matter of people hearing what they want to hear, and hoping they can get more that they are entitled?
I am sure it would be easier if we returned to when there were automatic two (three?) trick penalties for a revoke — perhaps then players would learn to follow suit.
