“Decision: case of using computer assistance in League A”

[bugsti]

Ah, you just came up with 12 Herculean tasks of AI go.
Good idea how to stop investigation, too bad it does not work.

I heard from one of top team that the final ranking is approved. They send invitation to EGC for PGETC finals to the 4 top team. I guees that case is over for EGF officials.

[Javaness2]

Ah, you just came up with 12 Herculean tasks of AI go.
Good idea how to stop investigation, too bad it does not work.

I heard from one of top team that the final ranking is approved. They send invitation to EGC for PGETC finals to the 4 top team. I guees that case is over for EGF officials.

No. This would not preclude an appeal

[bugsti]

No. This would not preclude an appeal

But I understood that a penalty or disqualification would exchange ranking between Poland and Romania. So how can the top 4 teams play under an open ruling? Am I missing something here?

[HermanHiddema]

Ah, you just came up with 12 Herculean tasks of AI go.
Good idea how to stop investigation, too bad it does not work.

I heard from one of top team that the final ranking is approved. They send invitation to EGC for PGETC finals to the 4 top team. I guees that case is over for EGF officials.

No. This would not preclude an appeal

The PGETC rules on the site have the following to say about appeals, in section 3.3:

In case of differences during or after a game, first of all the captains should try to solve the problem. If no solution is found the responsible league manager should be consulted who will decide. Against this decision it is possible for a team captain to escalate the case by involving the appeals commission. The decision of the appeals commission is final

The EGF General Tournament Rules have the following to say about appeals, in section 7.1:

The arbitration procedure used to resolve disputes has three levels of operation: the referee, the appeals committee, and the EGF rules commission. A player with a dispute refers the matter to the referee in the first instance. The dispute may then be referred to the next level up if either player is not satisfied with the judgement or its reasoning. The next level may reject to resume a case if it considers the preceding instance's judgement and reasoning obviously right and just.

It then goes on to say in section 7.5

If a player in dispute disagrees with the decision of the appeals committee, the matter must be referred to the EGF rules commission for consideration after the end of the tournament. If the dispute affects titles or prizes, the tournament director cannot declare winners or present prizes until the EGF rules commission has given a final judgement on the matter.

Also, importantly, the EGF tournament rules specify the following in section 1.1

These are the general tournament rules of the European Go Federation (EGF) and are used in the tournaments of the EGF. The following rulesets apply:

1. These General Tournament Rules.
2. The Tournament System Rules of the EGF.
3. The event's own Particular Tournament Rules specifying details or variations to the General Tournament Rules.

Point 3 seems relevant here. The event's own rules specify that the decision of the appeals committee is final. If we interpret that as a variation to the EGF general tournament rules, then there is no further avenue for appeal. If we think the EGF rules cannot be altered on this issue and keep superceding the the PGETC rules, then there is a possible appeal to the rules committee, and no winners can be declared, nor prizes awarded. (This appeal would have to come from the Israeli team, BTW. Neither rules allow outsiders to appeal AFAICS)

There seems to be no specific stipulation of how much time is allowed for an appeal (mostly, I think, because these rules are very much written for over the board tournaments, where there's a next round coming up and everything needs to happen a.s.a.p)

[Gobang]

Many thanks to those who took the time to read and reply to my post.

I hope the discussion continues in a constructive way without derailments.

[Javaness2]

Point 3 seems relevant here. The event's own rules specify that the decision of the appeals committee is final. If we interpret that as a variation to the EGF general tournament rules, then there is no further avenue for appeal. If we think the EGF rules cannot be altered on this issue and keep superceding the the PGETC rules, then there is a possible appeal to the rules committee, and no winners can be declared, nor prizes awarded. (This appeal would have to come from the Israeli team, BTW. Neither rules allow outsiders to appeal AFAICS)

There seems to be no specific stipulation of how much time is allowed for an appeal (mostly, I think, because these rules are very much written for over the board tournaments, where there's a next round coming up and everything needs to happen a.s.a.p)

This is a good review of the process, perhaps indeed the appeal from Israel is just finished in this case.
However, I would remind you of 2016-01

Considering the article 3.4.2 of the Constitution, the founding and prevailing ruleset governing the EGF, stating that "The Executive Committee shall decide on all matters not otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF. [..]", this gives the Executive Committee the authority to decide and act on the matter of the requested case, even if the specific action ‘change the results after a tournament’ is not mentioned in the regulations.

Which effectively gives a free hand to the EGF Executive to itself change tournament results if there is a complaint.

[HermanHiddema]

Point 3 seems relevant here. The event's own rules specify that the decision of the appeals committee is final. If we interpret that as a variation to the EGF general tournament rules, then there is no further avenue for appeal. If we think the EGF rules cannot be altered on this issue and keep superceding the the PGETC rules, then there is a possible appeal to the rules committee, and no winners can be declared, nor prizes awarded. (This appeal would have to come from the Israeli team, BTW. Neither rules allow outsiders to appeal AFAICS)

There seems to be no specific stipulation of how much time is allowed for an appeal (mostly, I think, because these rules are very much written for over the board tournaments, where there's a next round coming up and everything needs to happen a.s.a.p)

This is a good review of the process, perhaps indeed the appeal from Israel is just finished in this case.
However, I would remind you of 2016-01

Considering the article 3.4.2 of the Constitution, the founding and prevailing ruleset governing the EGF, stating that "The Executive Committee shall decide on all matters not otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF. [..]", this gives the Executive Committee the authority to decide and act on the matter of the requested case, even if the specific action ‘change the results after a tournament’ is not mentioned in the regulations.

(emphasis added)

Doesn't the phrase "not otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF." exclude this case? Seems to me that the tournament dispute/appeals process is reserved to the Rules Committee? Or am I interpreting that wrong?

I could understand that a separate case could be made before the executive, i.e. someone might lodge a complaint that a player's behaviour is unbecoming of an EGF member, and the executive might, if they agree, punish such a player by e.g. banning him from official events for a certain period of time (I think this is not uncommon in sports?). But to alter a tournament result after the normal appeals process has run its course? Imagine the FIFA Executive altering the result of one of the World Cup matches now by altering a referee + VAR decision. The world would be up in arms.

[HermanHiddema]

Oh, and on a separate but related matter. Simba wrote:

Bojanic: If the appeals committee refuse to restart things after their EGC excuse, please contact me directly by email and I'll open a new complaint against him.

Regardless of whether the appeal can be reconsidered, a new complaint on a different game (in a different phase of the tournament) is possible.

However, the EGF General Tournament rules state, in section 7.3

In the event of a dispute, the player has the following responsibilities:

A player should call the referee as soon as possible, and may not delay in order to gain a favourable decision.

It is of course questionable whether Simba's complaint would be "as soon as possible", since he's made his accusation public about two weeks ago.

IMO, given that players should go to the referee as soon as possible in the event of a dispute, Simba should make his case now or never, especially since the appeals process for the original case gives every indication of being over.

[Javaness2]

Doesn't the phrase "not otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF." exclude this case? Seems to me that the tournament dispute/appeals process is reserved to the Rules Committee? Or am I interpreting that wrong?

Normally I would agree entirely, but in this appeal 2016-01 one of the issues was exactly if the EGF Executive had the right to bypass/overrule the Rules Committee. The decision of the appeals committee, which was ratified by the AGM, was that it did.

[HermanHiddema]

Doesn't the phrase "not otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF." exclude this case? Seems to me that the tournament dispute/appeals process is reserved to the Rules Committee? Or am I interpreting that wrong?

Normally I would agree entirely, but in this appeal 2016-01 one of the issues was exactly if the EGF Executive had the right to bypass/overrule the Rules Committee. The decision of the appeals committee, which was ratified by the AGM, was that it did.

Can you link me to that decision? I can't seem to find it. If this is the case I think it is (the EWGC), wasn't it an issue of the rules committee not being consulted at all? I.e. no appeal was made during the tournament (so no appeals committee was involved) and after the tournament the executive was approached directly and made a decision directly (so this would be a case of bypass, rather than overrule, the rules committee).

[RobertJasiek]

These are the general tournament rules of the European Go Federation (EGF) and are used in the tournaments of the EGF. The following rulesets apply:

1. These General Tournament Rules.
2. The Tournament System Rules of the EGF.
3. The event's own Particular Tournament Rules specifying details or variations to the General Tournament Rules.

The event's own rules specify that the decision of the appeals committee is final.

There are two possibilities:

a) PETGC is an EGF tournament. Then the EGF General Tournament Rules apply with their list of decreasing priority. Since point 1 overrides point 3, the event's own rule specifying that the decision of the appeals committee was final is void.

b) PETGC is not an EGF tournament. Then the event's own rule specifying that the decision of the appeals committee was final applies. (Unless the PETGC tournament rules say something about using the EGF General Tournament Rules nevertheless, in which case details about this matter.)

I still do not know whether PETGC is an EGF tournament.

[Javaness2]

Can you link me to that decision? I can't seem to find it. If this is the case I think it is (the EWGC), wasn't it an issue of the rules committee not being consulted at all? I.e. no appeal was made during the tournament (so no appeals committee was involved) and after the tournament the executive was approached directly and made a decision directly (so this would be a case of bypass, rather than overrule, the rules committee).

Inline is the final judgement section, if you really want the whole thing I can pm it.

In this case (EWGC) the rules committee was not consulted at all, and indeed resigned when it found out about the matter. The appeal process was started during the tournament, but step 2 was never invoked since there was no appeals committee, and step 3 went to the wrong body. The exec should have just redirected it to the rules committee.

The judgement states that step 3 effectively can still stand. That judgement appeared odd to me, because is it not exactly the duty of the rules committee to decide as to whether or not an appeal is valid? That is to say, isn't this a matter reserved for the rules committee. The judgement says that is not so, but I am not clear on what grounds it is not so. I don't see how it matters if the rules committee was bypassed, rather than overruled, but I could well have overlooked something there.

(I highlighted one sentence in pink) Final Decision: Considering the article 3.4.2 of the Constitution, the founding and prevailing ruleset
governing the EGF, stating that "The Executive Committee shall decide on all matters not
otherwise reserved to another body of the EGF. [..]", this gives the Executive Committee the
authority to decide and act on the matter of the requested case, even if the specific action
‘change the results after a tournament’ is not mentioned in the regulations.
As the Executive Committee is the body specifically appointed to “define [..] sport policy”
(article 3.4.1 of the Constitution), it is the maximum authority that can decide and rule on this
matter directly or establishing a relevant Commission, and only the General Meeting can
surpass its decisions.
Given the current complicated status of the Tournament rules and Tournament system rules,
the Appeals Committee urges an intervention of the Executive Committee to restore a
shared and accepted ruleset governing tournaments and then give a proper visibility to the
changes. The Executive Committee already committed to improve the ruleset for European
Championships and set up procedures to better manage communication in case of
controversies to improve transparency and speed of the process. The Appeals Committee
invites the Executive Committee to report these decisions and actions during the next
General Meeting.

[HermanHiddema]

These are the general tournament rules of the European Go Federation (EGF) and are used in the tournaments of the EGF. The following rulesets apply:

1. These General Tournament Rules.
2. The Tournament System Rules of the EGF.
3. The event's own Particular Tournament Rules specifying details or variations to the General Tournament Rules.

The event's own rules specify that the decision of the appeals committee is final.

There are two possibilities:

a) PETGC is an EGF tournament. Then the EGF General Tournament Rules apply with their list of decreasing priority. Since point 1 overrides point 3, the event's own rule specifying that the decision of the appeals committee was final is void.

b) PETGC is not an EGF tournament. Then the event's own rule specifying that the decision of the appeals committee was final applies. (Unless the PETGC tournament rules say something about using the EGF General Tournament Rules nevertheless, in which case details about this matter.)

I still do not know whether PETGC is an EGF tournament.

Oh, I see I failed to spot section 1.5 on the priority of rules, which say that in EGF events the only thing taking precedence over the EGF General Tournament Rules are "changes to a ruleset made by the EGF (in order: EGF annual general meeting, EGF committee, EGF rules commission, the tournament's tournament supervisors)"

The EGF Championships and Top Events list includes the PGETC (refering to the Pandanet page for "full info") so it is definitely an EGF tournament.

In that case, I think an appeal to the Rules Committee is possible, but there should be a reasonable time limit on it, so that things are not help up indefinitely. Given that the EGF has decided to move forward and declare winners, maybe the Isreali team has explicitly informed them they will not appeal, or perhaps they have already decided that too much time has passed (6 weeks now) for another appeal.

[HermanHiddema]

@javaness: Thanks! Indeed a bit odd, and I agree the executive should have just referred to the Rules Committee. I can sort of see where the Appeals Committee is coming from though.

There's some question of what "reserved" implies. Does that mean it is specifically *excluded* from the responsibilities of the executive? (e.g. the Auditors do work that is specifically independent from the Executive).

Also, there is a question of what constitutes "another body of the EGF". The AGM is definitely another body, and so are the Auditors, and I guess the same would apply to any committee that can only be appointed by the AGM, rather than those that can also be appointed by the Executive.

Complicated stuff.

[Gobang]

In this case (EWGC) the rules committee was not consulted at all, and indeed resigned when it found out about the matter. The appeal process was started during the tournament, but step 2 was never invoked since there was no appeals committee, and step 3 went to the wrong body. The exec should have just redirected it to the rules committee.

Thank you for providing this information.