billiv15 wrote:
I think it is pretty straightforward. The only reasons to allow an incomplete game to score 3 are based on slow play (or some extenuating circumstance like a fire in the convention hall or something like that).
As for the consistency issue, well we will always have that. We already have it heavily in calling slow play at all. The judges at Gencon this year, were not at all consistent in what they viewed as slow play, and it did cause problems. This actually does help with that from teh judges pov. A judge should not be hearing complaints post game, or in the last 3 minutes about how someone's opponent slow played them to a timed win generally. For me, I'd pretty much say, "you should have called me earlier in the game" and move on. Outside of that, I see no reason for a judge to be dealing with this at all. It shouldn't be a "close enough" type of issue. Judges simply need to keep it simple here.
But if you think this introduces more inconsisntency than the current slow play enforcement, then I really disagree. This actually improves on it, because it takes away the emphasis of enforcement of slow play from the judge alone, to the players. All judges will now understand what slow play actually is (because currently, they have multiple definitions, much like the balls and strikes in baseball). Now its always, "too slow to allow the game to complete in time".
I wasn't at all talking about consistency or inconsisency in calling slow play. I was talking about con-/incon- regarding how the judges will determine who gets 3pts for an incomplete game and who gets 2pts. It's a different issue.
There's no question that slow play has been called inconsistently in the past, and that has mostly to do with the fact that--with a few exceptions--people never really made an issue about it, and therefore judges never had to look at it carefully. For example, in the past (or even currently), as long as Player A is winning handily, he didn't care whether or not his opponent went slow, because the result would be the same. But with the new floor rules, it
will matter, quite a bit in some cases. So the judges will have to find a way to clarify what constitutes slow play, and also how to recognize it.
All I was saying was simply that I think there need to be "hard line" rules regarding how 3pt victories are handed out for incomplete games. Beyond that, the discussion (as we've seen here and there more than once) gets much bigger and broader, and far more contentious.