In my view
1. There was no roquet - 33(d)(1).
2. Whether he believes it or not, the player of red was misled into
thinking that yellow was open; he is therefore entitled to a replay. If
he does not claim a replay his turn ends; yellow should be replaced, and
red moved to where it would have ended if it had not struck the
misplaced yellow. The correct positioning of red is not in fact covered
by the laws, but I would argue from analogy with 33(a(2), in accordance
with 55(a).

Nigel

On 01/10/2010 04:01, johnriches wrote:
> Recently I was asked by a player what should be done in t he following
> situation.:
>
> With his blue clip on hoop 4, he had played black and carefully wired
> his opponent's balls at hoop 4, then rushed blue to the 2nd corner to
> set a rush for it back to hoop 4. While he was doing so, unknown to
> him, a player in the double-banked game had accidentally moved the
> yellow ball and replaced it, but had not replaced it correctly. The
> player finished his turn and left the court, sitting on a seat near
> the 2nd corner.
>
> The player of red then came onto the court and roqueted yellow! The
> player who had wired the balls said that he had left them completely
> wired, and was told that yellow had been moved and "replaced".
>
> The player of red had seen the ball moved and replaced, but thought
> that it had been replaced correctly. He claimed that he had made a
> roquet and was entitled to continue his turn, asking "If I had missed
> the roquet, would you have agreed to let me play the stroke again
> because the yellow ball was misplaced, and shoot at another ball?"
>
> It seems to me that under the current laws the stroke in which red
> roqueted yellow was valid and the turn continues, as Law 27(a)/
> "playing when a ball is misplaced"/ refers you to Law 27(i), which
> says "the stroke is lawful unless other errors or interferences have
> occurred".
>
> In this case there has been an interference, but the interference laws
> are of little help. Law 31(a)(2) or (3) say that if the player of red
> was misled, he would be "entitled to a replay" (which would have to
> mean that he would be entitled to play a different stroke), but the
> player of red did not believe that he had been misled, and in any case
> he would not be forced to replay the stroke if he did not want to.
>
> /[I have pointed out previously that all replays should be mandatory,
> not optional, but under the current laws, in this case the replay
> remains optional.]/
>
> Someone suggested that Law 33(d)(1) would apply, but it is not clear
> how it could; and if it could, what would be the limit of claims? It
> apparently applies only when the interference occurs during a stroke.
>
> It seems that the law under which the situation has to be handled is
> Law 33(d)(3) which simply refers us back to Law 27(a) , which refers
> us to Law 27(i), which refers us to the interference laws ..... and
> so on, going around in circles.
>
> The outcome, in cases such as this (and there are other similar
> possibilities) seems rather unsatisfactory. In t his case it was
> possible to establish, with the help of spectators, that the balls
> were indeed completely wired before the yellow ball was moved, but the
> player of red took the view that what had happened was in no way his
> fault - he had made a roquet which under the laws was a valid and
> lawful stroke and he was entitled to continue his turn.
>
> Am I missing something, or mis-interpreting a law in some way?
>
> The application of Law 55 in such a situation does not seem to be
> justifiable, since the laws appear to quite clearly state that the
> stroke was lawful.
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

The ORLC supports the argument that what we have here is a law 27
incident caused by a law 33 incident. There is nothing to tell us
whether 27 or 33 should take precedence, so both apply. Given that,
I like Nigel's argument here, although I worry about the word "relevant"
in 33.d.1. I can't see which interferences are relevant and which are
not.

Regards,
Samir





________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

Nigel,

Thank you for your thoughts on this difficult laws question.

Do I understand that you would not count the roquet, and also not allow the player of red a replay (since that is what Law 33(a)(21) seems to prescribe, if you apply that law)?

It raises some interesting questions, does it not?

e.g. -
(1) Can Law 31 be applied when the striker claims he was not misled?
(2) Even if he admits that he was misled, can he be made to accept a replay if he does not want one?
(This is why I said that all replays should be mandatory.)
(3) Suppose another ball in some other part of the court had been misplaced - e.g. a ball had been left in the yard-line area instead of being replaced on the yard-line, and the player of red had roqueted it while it was misplaced - would you rule the same way, cancelling the roquet?

I really cannot see any alternative to applying Law 27(i) to this situation; at least, I can see no alternative that I would be prepared to apply consistently to other similar cases. As I have pointed out, if you apply Law 33 (as you suggest), then as I see it, you have to accept that Law 33(d)(3) says Law 27(i) applies in this particular situation.

These interference laws are poorly worded and very unclear. I have pointed out how Law 33 could have been written much more simply and clearly, but my suggestions were not accepted. It seems to me that, as it is currently worded, Law 33(d)(1) can apply only to interference during the stroke, since there is no limit of claims mentioned, which otherwise would mean that if the striker had played on, none of the roquets or hoops he made for the rest of the game would count!

JR.


On 01/10/2010, at 6:02 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> In my view
> 1. There was no roquet - 33(d)(1).
> 2. Whether he believes it or not, the player of red was misled into thinking that yellow was open; he is therefore entitled to a replay. If he does not claim a replay his turn ends; yellow should be replaced, and red moved to where it would have ended if it had not struck the misplaced yellow. The correct positioning of red is not in fact covered by the laws, but I would argue from analogy with 33(a(2), in accordance with 55(a).
>
> Nigel
>
> On 01/10/2010 04:01, johnriches wrote:
>>
>> Recently I was asked by a player what should be done in t he following situation.:
>>
>> With his blue clip on hoop 4, he had played black and carefully wired his opponent's balls at hoop 4, then rushed blue to the 2nd corner to set a rush for it back to hoop 4. While he was doing so, unknown to him, a player in the double-banked game had accidentally moved the yellow ball and replaced it, but had not replaced it correctly. The player finished his turn and left the court, sitting on a seat near the 2nd corner.
>>
>> The player of red then came onto the court and roqueted yellow! The player who had wired the balls said that he had left them completely wired, and was told that yellow had been moved and "replaced".
>>
>> The player of red had seen the ball moved and replaced, but thought that it had been replaced correctly. He claimed that he had made a roquet and was entitled to continue his turn, asking "If I had missed the roquet, would you have agreed to let me play the stroke again because the yellow ball was misplaced, and shoot at another ball?"
>>
>> It seems to me that under the current laws the stroke in which red roqueted yellow was valid and the turn continues, as Law 27(a) "playing when a ball is misplaced" refers you to Law 27(i), which says "the stroke is lawful unless other errors or interferences have occurred".
>>
>> In this case there has been an interference, but the interference laws are of little help. Law 31(a)(2) or (3) say that if the player of red was misled, he would be "entitled to a replay" (which would have to mean that he would be entitled to play a different stroke), but the player of red did not believe that he had been misled, and in any case he would not be forced to replay the stroke if he did not want to.
>>
>> [I have pointed out previously that all replays should be mandatory, not optional, but under the current laws, in this case the replay remains optional.]
>>
>> Someone suggested that Law 33(d)(1) would apply, but it is not clear how it could; and if it could, what would be the limit of claims? It apparently applies only when the interference occurs during a stroke.
>>
>> It seems that the law under which the situation has to be handled is Law 33(d)(3) which simply refers us back to Law 27(a) , which refers us to Law 27(i), which refers us to the interference laws ..... and so on, going around in circles.
>>
>> The outcome, in cases such as this (and there are other similar possibilities) seems rather unsatisfactory. In t his case it was possible to establish, with the help of spectators, that the balls were indeed completely wired before the yellow ball was moved, but the player of red took the view that what had happened was in no way his fault - he had made a roquet which under the laws was a valid and lawful stroke and he was entitled to continue his turn.
>>
>> Am I missing something, or mis-interpreting a law in some way?
>>
>> The application of Law 55 in such a situation does not seem to be justifiable, since the laws appear to quite clearly state that the stroke was lawful.
>>
>> JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.

Comments interlined.

Nigel

On 01/10/2010 23:42, johnriches wrote:
> Nigel,
>
> Thank you for your thoughts on this difficult laws question.
>
> Do I understand that you would not count the roquet,
NG Yes
> and also not allow the player of red a replay (since that is what Law
> 33(a)(21) seems to prescribe, if you apply that law)?
NG No. Read what I wrote.
>
> It raises some interesting questions, does it not?
>
> e.g. -
> (1) Can Law 31 be applied when the striker claims he was not misled?
NG Yes, he clearly was misled by the interference into believing that
yellow was open, and he hardly advances his cause by denying it.
> (2) Even if he admits that he was misled, can he be made to accept a
> replay if he does not want one?
> (This is why I said that all replays should be mandatory.)
NG No, he cannot be compelled, but he cannot claim the roquet, and must
accept the repositioning of red and yellow.
> (3) Suppose another ball in some other part of the court had been
> misplaced - e.g. a ball had been left in the yard-line area instead
> of being replaced on the yard-line, and the player of red had roqueted
> it while it was misplaced - would you rule the same way, cancelling
> the roquet?
NG It would depend on who was responsible for the misplacement.
>
> I really cannot see any alternative to applying Law 27(i) to this
> situation; at least, I can see no alternative that I would be prepared
> to apply consistently to other similar cases. As I have pointed out,
> if you apply Law 33 (as you suggest), then as I see it, you have to
> accept that Law 33(d)(3) says Law 27(i) applies in this particular
> situation.
NG All that 27(i) says is that the stroke was lawful, which is not in
dispute. He cannot, however, claim the roquet.
>
> These interference laws are poorly worded and very unclear. I have
> pointed out how Law 33 could have been written much more simply and
> clearly, but my suggestions were not accepted. It seems to me that,
> as it is currently worded, Law 33(d)(1) can apply only to interference
> during the stroke, since there is no limit of claims mentioned, which
> otherwise would mean that if the striker had played on, none of the
> roquets or hoops he made for the rest of the game would count!
NG If the player of red had played on, he would have puported to take
croquet from a live ball, for which there is a limit of claims.
>
> JR.
>
>
> On 01/10/2010, at 6:02 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>
>> In my view
>> 1. There was no roquet - 33(d)(1).
>> 2. Whether he believes it or not, the player of red was misled into
>> thinking that yellow was open; he is therefore entitled to a replay.
>> If he does not claim a replay his turn ends; yellow should be
>> replaced, and red moved to where it would have ended if it had not
>> struck the misplaced yellow. The correct positioning of red is not in
>> fact covered by the laws, but I would argue from analogy with
>> 33(a(2), in accordance with 55(a).
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>> On 01/10/2010 04:01, johnriches wrote:
>>> Recently I was asked by a player what should be done in t he
>>> following situation.:
>>>
>>> With his blue clip on hoop 4, he had played black and carefully
>>> wired his opponent's balls at hoop 4, then rushed blue to the 2nd
>>> corner to set a rush for it back to hoop 4. While he was doing so,
>>> unknown to him, a player in the double-banked game had accidentally
>>> moved the yellow ball and replaced it, but had not replaced it
>>> correctly. The player finished his turn and left the court, sitting
>>> on a seat near the 2nd corner.
>>>
>>> The player of red then came onto the court and roqueted yellow! The
>>> player who had wired the balls said that he had left them completely
>>> wired, and was told that yellow had been moved and "replaced".
>>>
>>> The player of red had seen the ball moved and replaced, but thought
>>> that it had been replaced correctly. He claimed that he had made a
>>> roquet and was entitled to continue his turn, asking "If I had
>>> missed the roquet, would you have agreed to let me play the stroke
>>> again because the yellow ball was misplaced, and shoot at another ball?"
>>>
>>> It seems to me that under the current laws the stroke in which red
>>> roqueted yellow was valid and the turn continues, as Law
>>> 27(a)/ "playing when a ball is misplaced"/ refers you to Law 27(i),
>>> which says "the stroke is lawful unless other errors or
>>> interferences have occurred".
>>>
>>> In this case there has been an interference, but the interference
>>> laws are of little help. Law 31(a)(2) or (3) say that if the player
>>> of red was misled, he would be "entitled to a replay" (which would
>>> have to mean that he would be entitled to play a different stroke),
>>> but the player of red did not believe that he had been misled, and
>>> in any case he would not be forced to replay the stroke if he did
>>> not want to.
>>>
>>> /[I have pointed out previously that all replays should be
>>> mandatory, not optional, but under the current laws, in this case
>>> the replay remains optional.]/
>>>
>>> Someone suggested that Law 33(d)(1) would apply, but it is not
>>> clear how it could; and if it could, what would be the limit of
>>> claims? It apparently applies only when the interference occurs
>>> during a stroke.
>>>
>>> It seems that the law under which the situation has to be handled is
>>> Law 33(d)(3) which simply refers us back to Law 27(a) , which refers
>>> us to Law 27(i), which refers us to the interference laws .....
>>> and so on, going around in circles.
>>>
>>> The outcome, in cases such as this (and there are other similar
>>> possibilities) seems rather unsatisfactory. In t his case it was
>>> possible to establish, with the help of spectators, that the balls
>>> were indeed completely wired before the yellow ball was moved, but
>>> the player of red took the view that what had happened was in no way
>>> his fault - he had made a roquet which under the laws was a valid
>>> and lawful stroke and he was entitled to continue his turn.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something, or mis-interpreting a law in some way?
>>>
>>> The application of Law 55 in such a situation does not seem to be
>>> justifiable, since the laws appear to quite clearly state that the
>>> stroke was lawful.
>>>
>>> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

Interestingly the Draft ruling in the Blue ORLC states that 33 d 1 this
clause does not apply to strokes started after the interference.

(d) INTERACTION WITH OTHER LAWS
(1) After relevant interference, a ball may not score a point, make a roquet
nor be roqueted.
(2) In a croquet stroke, the turn ends under Law 20(c) if either ball would
have gone off the court had the
interference not occurred; it does not end merely because a ball went off as
a result of interference.
(3) If a ball is not correctly placed or replaced before the next stroke ,
it becomes misplaced and Law 27(a) applies.

so the roquet stands according to this draft ruling

Nick

--------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

33(d)(1) states unequivocally that a ball that has been subject to
interference cannot be roqueted. RaY was misled into believing that
there had been no interference, and that it could be roqueted. When his
misunderstanding came to light he was entitled to claim a replay. If for
some bizarre reason he refuses a replay his turn ends and balls have to
be replaced. The analogy with
relates to the position in which the red ball should be replaced; I was
"applying the interpretation most consistent with the intent of the laws
in analogous cases (55(a)).

As for your further anecdote, the ball apparently roqueted had been
subject to an interference, and therefore could not be roqueted; the
striker had been misled, and was therefore entitled to claim a replay.
In the alternative scenario, she could equally claim to have been
misled, although she would probably be wiser to accept the roquet she
has made rather than risk missing the one she might have attempted had
the balls been correctly placed. Of course you couldn't make her replay
the shot; despite your wish, a replay would not have been mandatory.

Nigel
On 02/10/2010 11:29, johnriches wrote:
> Nigel,
>
> The interference laws are a mess, which makes discussion of such
> situations very difficult.
>
> I have inserted further comments below in black:
>
> On 02/10/2010, at 8:58 AM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>
>> Comments interlined.
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>> On 01/10/2010 23:42, johnriches wrote:
>>> Nigel,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your thoughts on this difficult laws question.
>>>
>>> Do I understand that you would not count the roquet,
>> NG Yes
>>> and also not allow the player of red a replay (since that is what
>>> Law 33(a)(21) seems to prescribe, if you apply that law)?
>> NG No. Read what I wrote.
>
> You wrote "in analogy with Law 33(a)(2)", but that law does not
> permit a replay. The "analogy" seems to be somewhat inappropriate.
>
>>> It raises some interesting questions, does it not?
>>> e.g. -
>>> (1) Can Law 31 be applied when the striker claims he was not misled?
>> NG Yes, he clearly was misled by the interference into believing that
>> yellow was open, and he hardly advances his cause by denying it.
>
> I would say that he was not misled. He believed the yellow ball was
> open to the red ball, and it was; although it would not have been if
> it had been correctly replaced. You could argue that he was misled
> into thinking the ball was correctly placed, but that is not a reason
> why he would not be permitted to roquet it.
> We have had a case where a woman shot from near hoop 3 at a ball which
> should have been in hoop 1, but had been removed by a double-banked
> player and left about a yard away from the hoop. She roqueted the
> ball, which would have been unlikely (though not impossible) if the
> ball had been correctly placed in the hoop, when she may not have shot
> at it. Under the Laws, the stroke was lawful and the roquet had to be
> counted.
> If the correct position of the ball had been a yard from the hoop, but
> it had been moved into or behind the hoop, and she had shot at and
> roqueted another ball, the stroke would similarly have to be counted.
> We could not have made her replay the stroke and shoot at the ball
> near hoop 1 because it is what she would have done if it had been
> "open". And what applies in one situation must apply consistently to
> other similar situations.
> It is very easy to just look at one particular situation, work out
> what you think is fair in that situation, and apply the laws
> accordingly; but that is interpreting the laws to suit your
> pre-conceived judgment as to what you want the outcome to be. We must
> instead interpret the laws so that they can be applied consistently to
> all possible situations that would have to be handled under the same
> laws, and accept the outcomes in all cases, whether or not we think
> they are "fair". If we do not like it, we have to change the Laws,
> not ignore them.
>
>>> (2) Even if he admits that he was misled, can he be made to accept a
>>> replay if he does not want one?
>>> (This is why I said that all replays should be mandatory.)
>> NG No, he cannot be compelled, but he cannot claim the roquet, and
>> must accept the repositioning of red and yellow.
>
> I would argue that he could claim the roquet because it was made in a
> lawful stroke on a live ball. I cannot find any law which would
> justify the outcome you are suggesting. Law 31, which you seem to
> want to apply, does not provide for the balls to be replaced if the
> striker (who was misled) does not claim his entitlement to a replay.
> In that case, the striker just plays on.
>
>>> (3) Suppose another ball in some other part of the court had been
>>> misplaced - e.g. a ball had been left in the yard-line area
>>> instead of being replaced on the yard-line, and the player of red
>>> had roqueted it while it was misplaced - would you rule the same
>>> way, cancelling the roquet?
>> NG It would depend on who was responsible for the misplacement.
>
> Would it? Only Law 31 distinguishes on the basis of who was
> responsible for the misplacement.
> The interference laws, rather curiously, do not make any such
> distinction when the interference occurs between strokes (Law 33).
> It seems that if the striker accidentally and unknowingly moves a ball
> between strokes from a position where it was wired to a place where he
> can roquet it, then goes ahead and roquets it, the roquet stands as a
> lawful stroke according to Law 33(d)(3) and Law 27(i). It may not be
> the outcome you want, but it is clearly the one prescribed by the
> Laws. We have no right to ignore what the Laws say just because we
> do not like the outcome. If the striker had deliberately and
> knowingly moved the ball, then of course he is cheating and can be
> disqualified.
>
>>> I really cannot see any alternative to applying Law 27(i) to this
>>> situation; at least, I can see no alternative that I would be
>>> prepared to apply consistently to other similar cases. As I have
>>> pointed out, if you apply Law 33 (as you suggest), then as I see it,
>>> you have to accept that Law 33(d)(3) says Law 27(i) applies in this
>>> particular situation.
>> NG All that 27(i) says is that the stroke was lawful, which is not in
>> dispute. He cannot, however, claim the roquet.
>
> I do not see how you can maintain that when the striker has roqueted a
> live ball in a lawful stroke, he is not entitled to continue by taking
> croquet from it. There is no law that says the stroke is annulled.
>
>>> These interference laws are poorly worded and very unclear. I have
>>> pointed out how Law 33 could have been written much more simply and
>>> clearly, but my suggestions were not accepted. It seems to me that,
>>> as it is currently worded, Law 33(d)(1) can apply only to
>>> interference during the stroke, since there is no limit of claims
>>> mentioned, which otherwise would mean that if the striker had played
>>> on, none of the roquets or hoops he made for the rest of the game
>>> would count!
>> NG If the player of red had played on, he would have puported to take
>> croquet from a live ball, for which there is a limit of claims.
>
> That would be true, except that in this case he has not committed any
> error because he has actually roqueted the live ball in a lawful stroke.
>
> Regards,
> JR.
>
>
>
>>> On 01/10/2010, at 6:02 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my view
>>>> 1. There was no roquet - 33(d)(1).
>>>> 2. Whether he believes it or not, the player of red was misled into
>>>> thinking that yellow was open; he is therefore entitled to a
>>>> replay. If he does not claim a replay his turn ends; yellow should
>>>> be replaced, and red moved to where it would have ended if it had
>>>> not struck the misplaced yellow. The correct positioning of red is
>>>> not in fact covered by the laws, but I would argue from analogy
>>>> with 33(a(2), in accordance with 55(a).
>>>>
>>>> Nigel
>>>>
>>>> On 01/10/2010 04:01, johnriches wrote:
>>>>> Recently I was asked by a player what should be done in t he
>>>>> following situation.:
>>>>>
>>>>> With his blue clip on hoop 4, he had played black and carefully
>>>>> wired his opponent's balls at hoop 4, then rushed blue to the 2nd
>>>>> corner to set a rush for it back to hoop 4. While he was doing
>>>>> so, unknown to him, a player in the double-banked game had
>>>>> accidentally moved the yellow ball and replaced it, but had not
>>>>> replaced it correctly. The player finished his turn and left the
>>>>> court, sitting on a seat near the 2nd corner.
>>>>>
>>>>> The player of red then came onto the court and roqueted yellow!
>>>>> The player who had wired the balls said that he had left them
>>>>> completely wired, and was told that yellow had been moved and
>>>>> "replaced".
>>>>>
>>>>> The player of red had seen the ball moved and replaced, but
>>>>> thought that it had been replaced correctly. He claimed that he
>>>>> had made a roquet and was entitled to continue his turn, asking
>>>>> "If I had missed the roquet, would you have agreed to let me play
>>>>> the stroke again because the yellow ball was misplaced, and shoot
>>>>> at another ball?"
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that under the current laws the stroke in which red
>>>>> roqueted yellow was valid and the turn continues, as Law
>>>>> 27(a)/ "playing when a ball is misplaced"/ refers you to Law
>>>>> 27(i), which says "the stroke is lawful unless other errors or
>>>>> interferences have occurred".
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case there has been an interference, but the interference
>>>>> laws are of little help. Law 31(a)(2) or (3) say that if the
>>>>> player of red was misled, he would be "entitled to a replay"
>>>>> (which would have to mean that he would be entitled to play a
>>>>> different stroke), but the player of red did not believe that he
>>>>> had been misled, and in any case he would not be forced to replay
>>>>> the stroke if he did not want to.
>>>>>
>>>>> /[I have pointed out previously that all replays should be
>>>>> mandatory, not optional, but under the current laws, in this case
>>>>> the replay remains optional.]/
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone suggested that Law 33(d)(1) would apply, but it is not
>>>>> clear how it could; and if it could, what would be the limit of
>>>>> claims? It apparently applies only when the interference occurs
>>>>> during a stroke.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that the law under which the situation has to be handled
>>>>> is Law 33(d)(3) which simply refers us back to Law 27(a) , which
>>>>> refers us to Law 27(i), which refers us to the interference laws
>>>>> ..... and so on, going around in circles.
>>>>>
>>>>> The outcome, in cases such as this (and there are other similar
>>>>> possibilities) seems rather unsatisfactory. In t his case it was
>>>>> possible to establish, with the help of spectators, that the balls
>>>>> were indeed completely wired before the yellow ball was moved, but
>>>>> the player of red took the view that what had happened was in no
>>>>> way his fault - he had made a roquet which under the laws was a
>>>>> valid and lawful stroke and he was entitled to continue his turn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I missing something, or mis-interpreting a law in some way?
>>>>>
>>>>> The application of Law 55 in such a situation does not seem to be
>>>>> justifiable, since the laws appear to quite clearly state that the
>>>>> stroke was lawful.
>>>>>
>>>>> JR.
>>>
>>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions
>>> and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

Nigel,

What you say makes sense, but I worry about the implications. What is
to stop an unscrupulous opponent claiming a ball has been interfered
with after a 30-yard hit-in, just because it was replaced an inch from
where it should be, in a non-critical position? The law as you have
interpreted it says the roquet cannot be made, and the shot would have
to be taken again. I have always understood the interference referred
to in 27(i) has to be interpreted as an interference which took place
during the stroke, which avoids this dilemma. Or have I missed something?

Regards

Jeff Dawson
01483 770400

On 02/10/2010 19:02, Nigel Graves wrote:
> 33(d)(1) states unequivocally that a ball that has been subject to
> interference cannot be roqueted. RaY was misled into believing that
> there had been no interference, and that it could be roqueted. When his
> misunderstanding came to light he was entitled to claim a replay. If for
> some bizarre reason he refuses a replay his turn ends and balls have to
> be replaced. The analogy with
> relates to the position in which the red ball should be replaced; I was
> "applying the interpretation most consistent with the intent of the laws
> in analogous cases (55(a)).
>
> As for your further anecdote, the ball apparently roqueted had been
> subject to an interference, and therefore could not be roqueted; the
> striker had been misled, and was therefore entitled to claim a replay.
> In the alternative scenario, she could equally claim to have been
> misled, although she would probably be wiser to accept the roquet she
> has made rather than risk missing the one she might have attempted had
> the balls been correctly placed. Of course you couldn't make her replay
> the shot; despite your wish, a replay would not have been mandatory.
>
> Nigel
> On 02/10/2010 11:29, johnriches wrote:
>> Nigel,
>>
>> The interference laws are a mess, which makes discussion of such
>> situations very difficult.
>>
>> I have inserted further comments below in black:
>>
>> On 02/10/2010, at 8:58 AM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>
>>> Comments interlined.
>>>
>>> Nigel
>>>
>>> On 01/10/2010 23:42, johnriches wrote:
>>>> Nigel,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your thoughts on this difficult laws question.
>>>>
>>>> Do I understand that you would not count the roquet,
>>> NG Yes
>>>> and also not allow the player of red a replay (since that is what
>>>> Law 33(a)(21) seems to prescribe, if you apply that law)?
>>> NG No. Read what I wrote.
>>
>> You wrote "in analogy with Law 33(a)(2)", but that law does not permit
>> a replay. The "analogy" seems to be somewhat inappropriate.
>>
>>>> It raises some interesting questions, does it not?
>>>> e.g. -
>>>> (1) Can Law 31 be applied when the striker claims he was not misled?
>>> NG Yes, he clearly was misled by the interference into believing that
>>> yellow was open, and he hardly advances his cause by denying it.
>>
>> I would say that he was not misled. He believed the yellow ball was
>> open to the red ball, and it was; although it would not have been if
>> it had been correctly replaced. You could argue that he was misled
>> into thinking the ball was correctly placed, but that is not a reason
>> why he would not be permitted to roquet it.
>> We have had a case where a woman shot from near hoop 3 at a ball which
>> should have been in hoop 1, but had been removed by a double-banked
>> player and left about a yard away from the hoop. She roqueted the
>> ball, which would have been unlikely (though not impossible) if the
>> ball had been correctly placed in the hoop, when she may not have shot
>> at it. Under the Laws, the stroke was lawful and the roquet had to be
>> counted.
>> If the correct position of the ball had been a yard from the hoop, but
>> it had been moved into or behind the hoop, and she had shot at and
>> roqueted another ball, the stroke would similarly have to be counted.
>> We could not have made her replay the stroke and shoot at the ball
>> near hoop 1 because it is what she would have done if it had been
>> "open". And what applies in one situation must apply consistently to
>> other similar situations.
>> It is very easy to just look at one particular situation, work out
>> what you think is fair in that situation, and apply the laws
>> accordingly; but that is interpreting the laws to suit your
>> pre-conceived judgment as to what you want the outcome to be. We must
>> instead interpret the laws so that they can be applied consistently to
>> all possible situations that would have to be handled under the same
>> laws, and accept the outcomes in all cases, whether or not we think
>> they are "fair". If we do not like it, we have to change the Laws, not
>> ignore them.
>>
>>>> (2) Even if he admits that he was misled, can he be made to accept a
>>>> replay if he does not want one?
>>>> (This is why I said that all replays should be mandatory.)
>>> NG No, he cannot be compelled, but he cannot claim the roquet, and
>>> must accept the repositioning of red and yellow.
>>
>> I would argue that he could claim the roquet because it was made in a
>> lawful stroke on a live ball. I cannot find any law which would
>> justify the outcome you are suggesting. Law 31, which you seem to want
>> to apply, does not provide for the balls to be replaced if the striker
>> (who was misled) does not claim his entitlement to a replay. In that
>> case, the striker just plays on.
>>
>>>> (3) Suppose another ball in some other part of the court had been
>>>> misplaced - e.g. a ball had been left in the yard-line area instead
>>>> of being replaced on the yard-line, and the player of red had
>>>> roqueted it while it was misplaced - would you rule the same way,
>>>> cancelling the roquet?
>>> NG It would depend on who was responsible for the misplacement.
>>
>> Would it? Only Law 31 distinguishes on the basis of who was
>> responsible for the misplacement.
>> The interference laws, rather curiously, do not make any such
>> distinction when the interference occurs between strokes (Law 33).
>> It seems that if the striker accidentally and unknowingly moves a ball
>> between strokes from a position where it was wired to a place where he
>> can roquet it, then goes ahead and roquets it, the roquet stands as a
>> lawful stroke according to Law 33(d)(3) and Law 27(i). It may not be
>> the outcome you want, but it is clearly the one prescribed by the
>> Laws. We have no right to ignore what the Laws say just because we do
>> not like the outcome. If the striker had deliberately and knowingly
>> moved the ball, then of course he is cheating and can be disqualified.
>>
>>>> I really cannot see any alternative to applying Law 27(i) to this
>>>> situation; at least, I can see no alternative that I would be
>>>> prepared to apply consistently to other similar cases. As I have
>>>> pointed out, if you apply Law 33 (as you suggest), then as I see it,
>>>> you have to accept that Law 33(d)(3) says Law 27(i) applies in this
>>>> particular situation.
>>> NG All that 27(i) says is that the stroke was lawful, which is not in
>>> dispute. He cannot, however, claim the roquet.
>>
>> I do not see how you can maintain that when the striker has roqueted a
>> live ball in a lawful stroke, he is not entitled to continue by taking
>> croquet from it. There is no law that says the stroke is annulled.
>>
>>>> These interference laws are poorly worded and very unclear. I have
>>>> pointed out how Law 33 could have been written much more simply and
>>>> clearly, but my suggestions were not accepted. It seems to me that,
>>>> as it is currently worded, Law 33(d)(1) can apply only to
>>>> interference during the stroke, since there is no limit of claims
>>>> mentioned, which otherwise would mean that if the striker had played
>>>> on, none of the roquets or hoops he made for the rest of the game
>>>> would count!
>>> NG If the player of red had played on, he would have puported to take
>>> croquet from a live ball, for which there is a limit of claims.
>>
>> That would be true, except that in this case he has not committed any
>> error because he has actually roqueted the live ball in a lawful stroke.
>>
>> Regards,
>> JR.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On 01/10/2010, at 6:02 PM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In my view
>>>>> 1. There was no roquet - 33(d)(1).
>>>>> 2. Whether he believes it or not, the player of red was misled into
>>>>> thinking that yellow was open; he is therefore entitled to a
>>>>> replay. If he does not claim a replay his turn ends; yellow should
>>>>> be replaced, and red moved to where it would have ended if it had
>>>>> not struck the misplaced yellow. The correct positioning of red is
>>>>> not in fact covered by the laws, but I would argue from analogy
>>>>> with 33(a(2), in accordance with 55(a).
>>>>>
>>>>> Nigel
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/10/2010 04:01, johnriches wrote:
>>>>>> Recently I was asked by a player what should be done in t he
>>>>>> following situation.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With his blue clip on hoop 4, he had played black and carefully
>>>>>> wired his opponent's balls at hoop 4, then rushed blue to the 2nd
>>>>>> corner to set a rush for it back to hoop 4. While he was doing so,
>>>>>> unknown to him, a player in the double-banked game had
>>>>>> accidentally moved the yellow ball and replaced it, but had not
>>>>>> replaced it correctly. The player finished his turn and left the
>>>>>> court, sitting on a seat near the 2nd corner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The player of red then came onto the court and roqueted yellow!
>>>>>> The player who had wired the balls said that he had left them
>>>>>> completely wired, and was told that yellow had been moved and
>>>>>> "replaced".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The player of red had seen the ball moved and replaced, but
>>>>>> thought that it had been replaced correctly. He claimed that he
>>>>>> had made a roquet and was entitled to continue his turn, asking
>>>>>> "If I had missed the roquet, would you have agreed to let me play
>>>>>> the stroke again because the yellow ball was misplaced, and shoot
>>>>>> at another ball?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that under the current laws the stroke in which red
>>>>>> roqueted yellow was valid and the turn continues, as Law 27(a)/
>>>>>> "playing when a ball is misplaced"/ refers you to Law 27(i), which
>>>>>> says "the stroke is lawful unless other errors or interferences
>>>>>> have occurred".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case there has been an interference, but the interference
>>>>>> laws are of little help. Law 31(a)(2) or (3) say that if the
>>>>>> player of red was misled, he would be "entitled to a replay"
>>>>>> (which would have to mean that he would be entitled to play a
>>>>>> different stroke), but the player of red did not believe that he
>>>>>> had been misled, and in any case he would not be forced to replay
>>>>>> the stroke if he did not want to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /[I have pointed out previously that all replays should be
>>>>>> mandatory, not optional, but under the current laws, in this case
>>>>>> the replay remains optional.]/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone suggested that Law 33(d)(1) would apply, but it is not
>>>>>> clear how it could; and if it could, what would be the limit of
>>>>>> claims? It apparently applies only when the interference occurs
>>>>>> during a stroke.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that the law under which the situation has to be handled
>>>>>> is Law 33(d)(3) which simply refers us back to Law 27(a) , which
>>>>>> refers us to Law 27(i), which refers us to the interference laws
>>>>>> ..... and so on, going around in circles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The outcome, in cases such as this (and there are other similar
>>>>>> possibilities) seems rather unsatisfactory. In t his case it was
>>>>>> possible to establish, with the help of spectators, that the balls
>>>>>> were indeed completely wired before the yellow ball was moved, but
>>>>>> the player of red took the view that what had happened was in no
>>>>>> way his fault - he had made a roquet which under the laws was a
>>>>>> valid and lawful stroke and he was entitled to continue his turn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am I missing something, or mis-interpreting a law in some way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The application of Law 55 in such a situation does not seem to be
>>>>>> justifiable, since the laws appear to quite clearly state that the
>>>>>> stroke was lawful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JR.
>>>>
>>>> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
>>>> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

Jeff re your comments below This is what the draft ruling is trying to
eliminate surely?

Nick
--------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.

On 03/10/2010, at 4:32 AM, Nigel Graves wrote:

> 33(d)(1) states unequivocally that a ball that has been subject to interference cannot be roqueted.

But as I have pointed out, it must only apply when the interference occurs during a stroke, meaning that the ball that was interfered with cannot be roqueted in that stroke. There is no limit of claims, and it cannot possibly mean that the ball cannot be roqueted for the rest of the game!
If, unknown to you, a dog had moved a ball a foot or so at the far end of the lawn, and you roqueted it, would you accept that you had to replace the ball and replay the stroke? I don't think so. You are trying to make the same law apply differently to particular situations, without any justification for doing so.

> RaY was misled into believing that there had been no interference, and that it could be roqueted. When his misunderstanding came to light he was entitled to claim a replay. If for some bizarre reason he refuses a replay his turn ends and balls have to be replaced.

Where do you get that from? No law says that.
If I am misled by anything at all (e.g. a misplaced clip) and shoot at a distant ball instead of closer one, I would be entitled to replay the stroke (especially if I had missed the roquet, but even if I made the roquet). If I decline the replay, the balls are NOT replaced and my turn does NOT end. The same applies if I was misled by the misplacement of a ball rather than a clip; Law 31 makes no distinction between the two.

> The analogy relates to the position in which the red ball should be replaced; I was "applying the interpretation most consistent with the intent of the laws in analogous cases" (55(a))

As I have pointed out, the cases are not "analogous".

> As for your further anecdote, the ball apparently roqueted had been subject to an interference, and therefore could not be roqueted;

Law 33(d)(1) says "After relevant interference a ball may not score a point, make a roquet or be roqueted".
That can apply only when the interference occurred "during the striking period", as stated in Law 33 (a).
It would be ridiculous to apply it to Law 33(c) situations (where the interference occurred between strokes), as then it would mean that a misplaced ball still could not be roqueted or score a hoop point or make a roquet even after it had been replaced correctly.
The ORLC has no official status as law, but the DRAFT ruling (i.e. not yet law) for the addition to Law 33(d)(1) says "This clause does not apply to strokes started after the interference", which means it would not apply in the case we have been discussing, where between strokes the previously wired ball had been incorrectly replaced by a double-banked player.

> the striker had been misled, and was therefore entitled to claim a replay. In the alternative scenario, she could equally claim to have been misled, although she would probably be wiser to accept the roquet she has made rather than risk missing the one she might have attempted had the balls been correctly placed. Of course you couldn't make her replay the shot; despite your wish, a replay would not have been mandatory.

That may be what you would like the laws to say, but they actually say: "If a ball is not correctly placed or replaced before the next stroke, it becomes misplaced and Law 27(i) applies". And Law 27(i) says "the stroke is lawful unless OTHER (i.e. not the one that necessitated the replacement) errors or interferences have occurred."

JR.

NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.

33(c) BETWEEN STROKES If a ball ... is unlawfully moved between strokes
it must be replaced.

Yellow has been unlawfully moved and not replaced correctly; this
constitutes an interference.

33(d)(1) After relevant interference a ball may not ... be roqueted.

As things stand at present this law has not been qualified, but JR
asserts that " it must only apply when the interference occurs during a
stroke, meaning that the ball that was interfered with cannot be
roqueted in that stroke." Is he perhaps reading into the laws something
that he wishes were there, but is not? I maintain that the unlawful
movement of a ball from a wired position so that it becomes open is
supremely relevant. An interference that has been rectified would no
longer be relevant, and lapse of time or the fact that the position was
not critical could well render the interference irrelevant - to deal
with JR's dog and Jeff Dawson's unscrupulous player.

By shooting at yellow, which because of the interference could not be
roqueted, Ray could claim to have been misled into a line of play he
would not otherwise have adopted by the misplacement of a ball that has
suffered interference, other than by him; law 31 therefore comes into
operation. If he declines a replay his turn ends: I feel that red and
yellow should be replaced, but cannot find support in the laws for this,
so am prepared to let them lie.

No one has dissented from the proposition that the laws about
interference are not entirely clear, and it may be that this is a
situation which does not appear to be adequately covered by the laws, in
which case the refeee is enjoined by law 55(c) to act as best meets the
justice of the case. I believe that my ruling would do just that.

Nigel


On 02/10/2010 23:47, johnriches wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2010, at 4:32 AM, Nigel Graves wrote:
>
>> 33(d)(1) states unequivocally that a ball that has been subject to
>> interference cannot be roqueted.
>
> But as I have pointed out, it must only apply when the interference
> occurs during a stroke, meaning that the ball that was interfered with
> cannot be roqueted in that stroke. There is no limit of claims, and
> it cannot possibly mean that the ball cannot be roqueted for the rest
> of the game!
> If, unknown to you, a dog had moved a ball a foot or so at the far end
> of the lawn, and you roqueted it, would you accept that you had to
> replace the ball and replay the stroke? I don't think so. You are
> trying to make the same law apply differently to particular
> situations, without any justification for doing so.
>
>> RaY was misled into believing that there had been no interference,
>> and that it could be roqueted. When his misunderstanding came to
>> light he was entitled to claim a replay. If for some bizarre reason
>> he refuses a replay his turn ends and balls have to be replaced.
>
> Where do you get that from? No law says that.
> If I am misled by anything at all (e.g. a misplaced clip) and shoot at
> a distant ball instead of closer one, I would be entitled to replay
> the stroke (especially if I had missed the roquet, but even if I made
> the roquet). If I decline the replay, the balls are NOT replaced and
> my turn does NOT end. The same applies if I was misled by the
> misplacement of a ball rather than a clip; Law 31 makes no distinction
> between the two.
>
>> The analogy relates to the position in which the red ball should be
>> replaced; I was "applying the interpretation most consistent with the
>> intent of the laws in analogous cases" (55(a))
>
> As I have pointed out, the cases are not "analogous".
>
>> As for your further anecdote, the ball apparently roqueted had been
>> subject to an interference, and therefore could not be roqueted;
>
> Law 33(d)(1) says "After relevant interference a ball may not score a
> point, make a roquet or be roqueted".
> That can apply only when the interference occurred "during the
> striking period", as stated in Law 33 (a).
> It would be ridiculous to apply it to Law 33(c) situations (where
> the interference occurred between strokes), as then it would mean that
> a misplaced ball still could not be roqueted or score a hoop point or
> make a roquet even after it had been replaced correctly.
> The ORLC has no official status as law, but the DRAFT ruling (i.e. not
> yet law) for the addition to Law 33(d)(1) says "This clause does not
> apply to strokes started after the interference", which means it would
> not apply in the case we have been discussing, where between strokes
> the previously wired ball had been incorrectly replaced by a
> double-banked player.
>
>> the striker had been misled, and was therefore entitled to claim a
>> replay. In the alternative scenario, she could equally claim to have
>> been misled, although she would probably be wiser to accept the
>> roquet she has made rather than risk missing the one she might have
>> attempted had the balls been correctly placed. Of course you couldn't
>> make her replay the shot; despite your wish, a replay would not have
>> been mandatory.
>
> That may be what you would like the laws to say, but they actually
> say: "If a ball is not correctly placed or replaced before the next
> stroke, it becomes misplaced and Law 27(i) applies". And Law 27(i)
> says "the stroke is lawful unless OTHER (i.e. not the one that
> necessitated the replacement) errors or interferences have occurred."
>
> JR.
>
> NOTE: Views expressed in this email are my own personal opinions and
> do not necessarily represent those of the ACA.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Posted on the Croquet-laws mailing list. Go to http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws to subscribe.