This Week's Sports Controversies Round Up
Anyway, every sport has rules. In our major televised sports, you see that most rulings are reviewed by people somewhere off the sporting field who look at television monitors from a number of angles and make a ruling. Take the CFL, for example. Seriously, take the CFL. I am not a fan, however, the CFL, like most sports, have an extensive rule book. Things should be simple. Everyone knows the rules, everyone knows the penalties, however, rulings are still challenged and reviewed. I guess it is a part of the game, all games, but, it is a little annoying. It delays the game and it seems a little unnecessary. However, every sport is played by humans and officiated, for the most part, by humans. All humans makes mistakes. It just happens. And, also, it seems not every situation can be anticipated and a rule be made to cover every possible situation. There is also this thing called the spirit and the intent of the rule.
First, my own experience in sports. I used to be in a very competitive scrabble league. You don't think scrabble isn't a sport? Then, you aren't playing it right. Anyway, so there was a group of us that wanted to play competitive scrabble and set up a league. To our surprise, there wasn't an International Federation of Scrabble that gave us instructions as to how to set up our league and how to manage it, etc. We sat down and had a discussion and determined how our league would be run and what the rules would be. We wrote down our consensus and voted on the controversial calls. Everyone had their say. Everyone asked questions about "what ifs". For example, what if the power went on in the middle of the game? That was one of the reasons we played on Sunday afternoons and we kept a supply of candles and matches on hand in the event of a power outage. We would rotate our official score keeper every week so that we all took our turn. We ran for 20 weeks and we have an audit team who would do the cumulative point totals. We decided against having a rotating official of the afternoon because none of us wanted to give up playing for a week. I have to tell you, when it came to scrabble, we were pretty hard core, and competitive. We all wanted to win, however, in over a year, we didn't have one controversy. It was because we all had the same understanding of the rules and we all had input into this. And, don't think we weren't playing for high stakes. The weekly winner got a free piece of pie. The cumulative winner got a trophy.
Chess also made headlines this week when they ejected a Russian player out of a tournament for using his cell phone in a game. The player admitted he did this but did try to hide his use of the phone by leaving it in a toilet. All the evidence has been sent to the Ethics Committee to determine if he will be banned from further tournaments. After he had been caught, the player expressed contrition and sincere remorse which I assume he hopes will be a mitigating factor for the Ethics Committee.
And, now the controversial call at the WSOP. Stakes might be a little different as the winner will take home 10 million dollars. It is also worth noting that two players were disqualified at this year's main event and their $10,000 buy-in was forfeited. One of the disqualified players was quite intoxicated and mooned his table. I don't honestly know if there is an official rule about this, but, I think everyone can agree that this was common sense. Now, the controversial call. A player made a huge raise pre-flop and was called very quickly. A player who made the initial raise just shoved his chips in. The dealer announced the amount but made a mistake and announced a lower amount than the actual raise. The caller immediately consulted tournament director and much discussion occured. The tournament director ruled the call stood. The raiser had pocket queens and the caller had pocket 10s. The Queens held. The guy with the pocket 10s wanted to be held to the announced raise. Situations similar to this happen frequently and I know at the Casino that I frequent, the Poker Manager tends to quell arguments by asking the player who lost if he would still be making a fuss if he had won the hand. I also know that players have responsibilities at a poker table. They need to protect their hand, for example, so it doesn't accidentally get in the muck. They need to read their hole cards correctly. Last evening, for example, I misread my cards thinking they were both hearts. It ended up being a healthy pot and at the end, I triumphantly turned over my flush, when, in reality, I had 7 high. In poker, as in the law, ignorance is no defense. I couldn't ask for my chips back. Players can ask another player, "what do you have behind" and the player is only obligated to make his stack visible and not say anything. If someone goes all in, most people will ask the dealer for a count. Most dealers make and announce the count. I know one dealer who just breaks down the stacks but doesn't announce the count thinking the player can do that for themselves.
Anyway, this has become very controversial in the twitterverse. Many are supportive of the tournament director's ruling. Many are opposed. Quite frankly, some of those opposed are not being very respectful of the tournament director calling him unflattering names and insulting his personal character. That, quite frankly, doesn't help to advance the discussion forward.
But, there does need to be a discussion about rules, consequences, and code of conduct in poker. The fact of the matter is that all Inspectors and Directors are not created equally. They sometimes make contradicting calls. Consequences are often vastly different seemingly between two players. Sometimes, it seems that consequences for violating a rule is made up on the fly. Poker players are human as well. I will admit that if I know I can get away with something, I am tempted to do it. Rules are often not clear and sometimes the spirit or the intent of the rule is lost. Again, at the Casino I frequent, there is apparently a rule about not being bare-footed. As there is in most establishments that provide food service but hygienic reasons. In summer, most people wear sandals and flip-flops. Sometimes, in the course of time, a heel or toe may slip and accidentally touch the floor for a second. There was an Inspector who actually monitored 6 or 7 under the tables to make sure that no foot touched the carpet even for a split second. I really don't think that was the spirit or the intent of the rule. I also think he missed a lot of legitimate violations while policing the floor. Nobody was helped when he embarrassed people publicly by yelling at them.
Poker needs to do a better job at defining rules, expectations, and consequences. Most poker places say that profanity will not be tolerated. That doesn't actually say much. What is profanity? Almost everyone can understand someone losing a $400 hand and saying "shit". So, that is let go and it should be. However, I've been at a table with a gentlemen that every second word was the F bomb. Someone complained and it was determined that it was just the way he talked and he couldn't change and it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I have also played with the same gentleman with a different dealer. The dealer instructed him to watch his F sharps. He was a little stronger on his second warning and told him if it continued, he would be dealt out until he refrained. Miraculously, it wasn't just the way he talked, and he managed to go a whole 45 minutes without using it. Also, what is tolerated? When I tell my partner that I am not going to tolerate a certain behavior and he laughs at me. But, when I tell him I am going to hide his Cheezies if he continues a certain behavior, I have his attention.
Another rule that is often on display in poker rooms is no comments of a sexual nature are allowed. So, if I say to a young man, "you look yummy and I want to jump your bones", that would be a comment of a sexual nature. So, what would happen next? The dealer would tell me that this comment was not allowed. Well, guess what, I already said it and can't take it back. So, telling me it is not allowed is not a meaningful consequence. Also, what are comments of a sexual nature? That is subjective. I am old, obese, and unattractive. If someone told me that they would like to jump my bones, I would likely buy them a drink, because I would be so flattered. Where as a younger, attractive woman would likely find it offensive.
Rules, codes of conduct, and consequences need to be clear and universal to be effective. In poker, we have some work to do. If we truly want to grow the game of poker, we need to find a way to work together.
Comments
Post a Comment