A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 5:48 PM, Nick Harris wrote:

> John et al
>
> I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
> to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a) (interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).
>
> Perhaps your Ref missed this
>
> Nick

It would be a bit much to expect him to remove a worm before playing the stroke if he had not seen it.
And whether it is removed or not, it remains an "outside agency" as far as the application of Law 33 is concerned.

There is nothing in the Laws to say that a worm that is not removed ceases to be an outside agency.

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 5:48 PM, Nick Harris wrote:

> John et al
>
> I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
> to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a) (interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).
>
> Perhaps your Ref missed this
>
> Nick

It would be a bit much to expect him to remove a worm before playing the stroke if he had not seen it.
And whether it is removed or not, it remains an "outside agency" as far as the application of Law 33 is concerned.

There is nothing in the Laws to say that a worm that is not removed ceases to be an outside agency.

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
From: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)

" I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an
outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect
the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game. "


I expect that there are some of us who could name the player who takes so long between taking up his stance and actually playing his
stroke that a worm could slither onto his line of aim!


:-)


Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 5:48 PM, Nick Harris wrote:

> John et al
>
> I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
> to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a) (interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).
>
> Perhaps your Ref missed this
>
> Nick

It would be a bit much to expect him to remove a worm before playing the stroke if he had not seen it.
And whether it is removed or not, it remains an "outside agency" as far as the application of Law 33 is concerned.

There is nothing in the Laws to say that a worm that is not removed ceases to be an outside agency.

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
From: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)

" I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an
outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect
the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game. "


I expect that there are some of us who could name the player who takes so long between taking up his stance and actually playing his
stroke that a worm could slither onto his line of aim!


:-)


Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Boutel
>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>
>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>
> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>

Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.

>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>
> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>
> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>
>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>
>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>> stray dog.
>
> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.

Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.

--brian

>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 5:48 PM, Nick Harris wrote:

> John et al
>
> I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
> to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a) (interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).
>
> Perhaps your Ref missed this
>
> Nick

It would be a bit much to expect him to remove a worm before playing the stroke if he had not seen it.
And whether it is removed or not, it remains an "outside agency" as far as the application of Law 33 is concerned.

There is nothing in the Laws to say that a worm that is not removed ceases to be an outside agency.

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
From: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)

" I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an
outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect
the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game. "


I expect that there are some of us who could name the player who takes so long between taking up his stance and actually playing his
stroke that a worm could slither onto his line of aim!


:-)


Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Boutel
>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>
>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>
> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>

Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.

>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>
> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>
> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>
>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>
>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>> stray dog.
>
> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.

Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.

--brian

>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Brian,

Loose impediments, whatever they are, are required to be removed only if they are "likely to benefit the striker in the shot about to be played".
I would say that it is possible a worm could benefit the striker, but hardly likely, so he is not required to move it.

JR.

On 08/06/2012, at 8:43 PM, Brian Boutel wrote:

>
> On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian Boutel
>>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>>
>>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>>
>> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
>> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>>
>
> Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.
>
>>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>>
>> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>>
>> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>>
>>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>>
>> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>>
>>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>>> stray dog.
>>
>> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.
>
> No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.
>
> Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.
>
> --brian
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>> distribute its contents to any other person.
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
> --
> Brian Boutel
>
> Wellington
> New Zealand
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 5:48 PM, Nick Harris wrote:

> John et al
>
> I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
> to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a) (interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).
>
> Perhaps your Ref missed this
>
> Nick

It would be a bit much to expect him to remove a worm before playing the stroke if he had not seen it.
And whether it is removed or not, it remains an "outside agency" as far as the application of Law 33 is concerned.

There is nothing in the Laws to say that a worm that is not removed ceases to be an outside agency.

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
From: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)

" I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an
outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect
the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game. "


I expect that there are some of us who could name the player who takes so long between taking up his stance and actually playing his
stroke that a worm could slither onto his line of aim!


:-)


Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Boutel
>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>
>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>
> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>

Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.

>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>
> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>
> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>
>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>
>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>> stray dog.
>
> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.

Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.

--brian

>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Brian,

Loose impediments, whatever they are, are required to be removed only if they are "likely to benefit the striker in the shot about to be played".
I would say that it is possible a worm could benefit the striker, but hardly likely, so he is not required to move it.

JR.

On 08/06/2012, at 8:43 PM, Brian Boutel wrote:

>
> On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian Boutel
>>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>>
>>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>>
>> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
>> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>>
>
> Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.
>
>>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>>
>> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>>
>> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>>
>>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>>
>> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>>
>>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>>> stray dog.
>>
>> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.
>
> No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.
>
> Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.
>
> --brian
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>> distribute its contents to any other person.
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
> --
> Brian Boutel
>
> Wellington
> New Zealand
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

It seems I've not been clear.

My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.

I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.

The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Regards
Samir

-----
Sent from Blackberry Wireless
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 5:48 PM, Nick Harris wrote:

> John et al
>
> I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
> to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a) (interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).
>
> Perhaps your Ref missed this
>
> Nick

It would be a bit much to expect him to remove a worm before playing the stroke if he had not seen it.
And whether it is removed or not, it remains an "outside agency" as far as the application of Law 33 is concerned.

There is nothing in the Laws to say that a worm that is not removed ceases to be an outside agency.

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
From: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)

" I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an
outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect
the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game. "


I expect that there are some of us who could name the player who takes so long between taking up his stance and actually playing his
stroke that a worm could slither onto his line of aim!


:-)


Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Boutel
>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>
>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>
> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>

Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.

>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>
> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>
> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>
>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>
>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>> stray dog.
>
> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.

Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.

--brian

>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Brian,

Loose impediments, whatever they are, are required to be removed only if they are "likely to benefit the striker in the shot about to be played".
I would say that it is possible a worm could benefit the striker, but hardly likely, so he is not required to move it.

JR.

On 08/06/2012, at 8:43 PM, Brian Boutel wrote:

>
> On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian Boutel
>>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>>
>>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>>
>> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
>> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>>
>
> Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.
>
>>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>>
>> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>>
>> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>>
>>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>>
>> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>>
>>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>>> stray dog.
>>
>> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.
>
> No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.
>
> Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.
>
> --brian
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>> distribute its contents to any other person.
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
> --
> Brian Boutel
>
> Wellington
> New Zealand
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

It seems I've not been clear.

My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.

I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.

The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Regards
Samir

-----
Sent from Blackberry Wireless
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 9:12 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
> It seems I've not been clear.
>
> My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.


Samir,
You and I agree that a worm is not a "loose impediment", so Law 34(d) does not apply to this situation; but from where do you get this idea of the outside agency being there before the player took up his stance?

Law 33(a)(1)(C) says that the player must replay the stroke if "the interference was caused by an outside agency that moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance".
A worm moving steadily across the lawn would be almost certain to have moved after the striker took up, his stance. Live worms do not tend to come out of their holes and remain stationary, as the sun would quickly dry them out and kill them. As far as I can see, there is no mention in the Laws of whether or not the worm was was there before he took up his stance, which it may well have been, and the same would apply to a dog. The only question to ask is whether it moved after he took up his stance. Note that the words "or came to rest" are unnecessary, since it cannot have come to rest after the striker took up his stance unless it was also moving after he took up his stance.

If the player had seen the worm before he played the stroke he would have been required to move it only if he thought it was likely to affect his stroke, which he probably would not have.

> I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

I am not willing to argue about intentions or spirits of the Laws, as I go only by what the laws say and mean.
As the referee, I would certainly have to allow - in fact, require - the striker to replay the stroke.

> If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

I agree with that, since it is required by Law 33(d)(1), provided "relevant interference" refers to the type described in part (a), which includes touching. A roquet would not be made if the ball had passed over, or touched, a worm, regardless of whether or not the worm had actually affected the path of the ball or caused the making of a roquet that would not have been made if the worm were not there.

> What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

I doubt that it was deliberate, but agree that since they are "animals", a worm or beetle cannot reasonably be described as a "loose impediment".

> Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.
>
> The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was there when the striker took up his stance.

If that is not what we want, then we need to change the laws accordingly. It is not good enough to misapply them.

JR.

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 5:48 PM, Nick Harris wrote:

> John et al
>
> I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
> to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a) (interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).
>
> Perhaps your Ref missed this
>
> Nick

It would be a bit much to expect him to remove a worm before playing the stroke if he had not seen it.
And whether it is removed or not, it remains an "outside agency" as far as the application of Law 33 is concerned.

There is nothing in the Laws to say that a worm that is not removed ceases to be an outside agency.

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
From: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)

" I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an
outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect
the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game. "


I expect that there are some of us who could name the player who takes so long between taking up his stance and actually playing his
stroke that a worm could slither onto his line of aim!


:-)


Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Boutel
>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>
>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>
> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>

Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.

>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>
> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>
> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>
>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>
>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>> stray dog.
>
> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.

Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.

--brian

>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Brian,

Loose impediments, whatever they are, are required to be removed only if they are "likely to benefit the striker in the shot about to be played".
I would say that it is possible a worm could benefit the striker, but hardly likely, so he is not required to move it.

JR.

On 08/06/2012, at 8:43 PM, Brian Boutel wrote:

>
> On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian Boutel
>>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>>
>>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>>
>> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
>> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>>
>
> Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.
>
>>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>>
>> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>>
>> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>>
>>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>>
>> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>>
>>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>>> stray dog.
>>
>> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.
>
> No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.
>
> Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.
>
> --brian
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>> distribute its contents to any other person.
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
> --
> Brian Boutel
>
> Wellington
> New Zealand
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

It seems I've not been clear.

My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.

I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.

The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Regards
Samir

-----
Sent from Blackberry Wireless
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 9:12 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
> It seems I've not been clear.
>
> My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.


Samir,
You and I agree that a worm is not a "loose impediment", so Law 34(d) does not apply to this situation; but from where do you get this idea of the outside agency being there before the player took up his stance?

Law 33(a)(1)(C) says that the player must replay the stroke if "the interference was caused by an outside agency that moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance".
A worm moving steadily across the lawn would be almost certain to have moved after the striker took up, his stance. Live worms do not tend to come out of their holes and remain stationary, as the sun would quickly dry them out and kill them. As far as I can see, there is no mention in the Laws of whether or not the worm was was there before he took up his stance, which it may well have been, and the same would apply to a dog. The only question to ask is whether it moved after he took up his stance. Note that the words "or came to rest" are unnecessary, since it cannot have come to rest after the striker took up his stance unless it was also moving after he took up his stance.

If the player had seen the worm before he played the stroke he would have been required to move it only if he thought it was likely to affect his stroke, which he probably would not have.

> I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

I am not willing to argue about intentions or spirits of the Laws, as I go only by what the laws say and mean.
As the referee, I would certainly have to allow - in fact, require - the striker to replay the stroke.

> If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

I agree with that, since it is required by Law 33(d)(1), provided "relevant interference" refers to the type described in part (a), which includes touching. A roquet would not be made if the ball had passed over, or touched, a worm, regardless of whether or not the worm had actually affected the path of the ball or caused the making of a roquet that would not have been made if the worm were not there.

> What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

I doubt that it was deliberate, but agree that since they are "animals", a worm or beetle cannot reasonably be described as a "loose impediment".

> Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.
>
> The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was there when the striker took up his stance.

If that is not what we want, then we need to change the laws accordingly. It is not good enough to misapply them.

JR.





From: johnriches
Sent: 08 June 2012 14:06


The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended
to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already
there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.



Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker
would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was
there when the striker took up his stance.





By "was already there", I mean in the way, and remained in the way (i.e. it
didn't move) rather than just generally in the area. In that situation, the
striker does not get a replay.



If the dog was in the way and runs out of the way there will be no
interference, so no issue.



If the dog wasn't in the way but runs into the way and causes interference
there is a replay.





In the case of a smaller or slower-moving animal, there's less certainty
about whether it moved or not - it may well be impossible to tell, so a
referee has to make a call about what's reasonable.



Samir

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 5:48 PM, Nick Harris wrote:

> John et al
>
> I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
> to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a) (interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).
>
> Perhaps your Ref missed this
>
> Nick

It would be a bit much to expect him to remove a worm before playing the stroke if he had not seen it.
And whether it is removed or not, it remains an "outside agency" as far as the application of Law 33 is concerned.

There is nothing in the Laws to say that a worm that is not removed ceases to be an outside agency.

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
From: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)

" I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an
outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect
the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game. "


I expect that there are some of us who could name the player who takes so long between taking up his stance and actually playing his
stroke that a worm could slither onto his line of aim!


:-)


Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Boutel
>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>
>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>
> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>

Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.

>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>
> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>
> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>
>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>
>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>> stray dog.
>
> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.

Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.

--brian

>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Brian,

Loose impediments, whatever they are, are required to be removed only if they are "likely to benefit the striker in the shot about to be played".
I would say that it is possible a worm could benefit the striker, but hardly likely, so he is not required to move it.

JR.

On 08/06/2012, at 8:43 PM, Brian Boutel wrote:

>
> On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian Boutel
>>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>>
>>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>>
>> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
>> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>>
>
> Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.
>
>>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>>
>> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>>
>> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>>
>>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>>
>> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>>
>>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>>> stray dog.
>>
>> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.
>
> No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.
>
> Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.
>
> --brian
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>> distribute its contents to any other person.
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
> --
> Brian Boutel
>
> Wellington
> New Zealand
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

It seems I've not been clear.

My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.

I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.

The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Regards
Samir

-----
Sent from Blackberry Wireless
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 9:12 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
> It seems I've not been clear.
>
> My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.


Samir,
You and I agree that a worm is not a "loose impediment", so Law 34(d) does not apply to this situation; but from where do you get this idea of the outside agency being there before the player took up his stance?

Law 33(a)(1)(C) says that the player must replay the stroke if "the interference was caused by an outside agency that moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance".
A worm moving steadily across the lawn would be almost certain to have moved after the striker took up, his stance. Live worms do not tend to come out of their holes and remain stationary, as the sun would quickly dry them out and kill them. As far as I can see, there is no mention in the Laws of whether or not the worm was was there before he took up his stance, which it may well have been, and the same would apply to a dog. The only question to ask is whether it moved after he took up his stance. Note that the words "or came to rest" are unnecessary, since it cannot have come to rest after the striker took up his stance unless it was also moving after he took up his stance.

If the player had seen the worm before he played the stroke he would have been required to move it only if he thought it was likely to affect his stroke, which he probably would not have.

> I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

I am not willing to argue about intentions or spirits of the Laws, as I go only by what the laws say and mean.
As the referee, I would certainly have to allow - in fact, require - the striker to replay the stroke.

> If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

I agree with that, since it is required by Law 33(d)(1), provided "relevant interference" refers to the type described in part (a), which includes touching. A roquet would not be made if the ball had passed over, or touched, a worm, regardless of whether or not the worm had actually affected the path of the ball or caused the making of a roquet that would not have been made if the worm were not there.

> What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

I doubt that it was deliberate, but agree that since they are "animals", a worm or beetle cannot reasonably be described as a "loose impediment".

> Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.
>
> The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was there when the striker took up his stance.

If that is not what we want, then we need to change the laws accordingly. It is not good enough to misapply them.

JR.





From: johnriches
Sent: 08 June 2012 14:06


The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended
to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already
there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.



Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker
would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was
there when the striker took up his stance.





By "was already there", I mean in the way, and remained in the way (i.e. it
didn't move) rather than just generally in the area. In that situation, the
striker does not get a replay.



If the dog was in the way and runs out of the way there will be no
interference, so no issue.



If the dog wasn't in the way but runs into the way and causes interference
there is a replay.





In the case of a smaller or slower-moving animal, there's less certainty
about whether it moved or not - it may well be impossible to tell, so a
referee has to make a call about what's reasonable.



Samir







For whatever it's worth, the crawling speed of a medium size (~4g)
earthworm has been estimated at approximately 1.5 cm per second, or about
185 feet per hour, while the largest earthworms (~8.5g) can crawl at about
2 cm per second or about 240 feet per hour (the estimator cited K
Quillin, *Kinematic
scaling of locomotion by hydrostatic animals: ontogeny of peristaltic
crawling by the earthworm *Lumbricus terrestris, J Exp Biol 202, 661�674
[1999]).

So, in ruling on whether a worm "must have moved after the striker took up
his stance," should a referee be expected or permitted to apply prior
knowledge that can only have be obtained through the use of a time-lapse
camera with an extra-slow shutter speed?

Stuart

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Samir Patel <> wrote:

> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* johnriches
> *Sent:* 08 June 2012 14:06****
>
>
> The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were
> intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which
> was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the
> striker would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the
> dog was there when the striker took up his stance.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> By �was already there�, I mean in the way, and remained in the way (i.e.
> it didn�t move) rather than just generally in the area. In that situation,
> the striker does not get a replay.****
>
> ** **
>
> If the dog was in the way and runs out of the way there will be no
> interference, so no issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> If the dog wasn�t in the way but runs into the way and causes interference
> there is a replay.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> In the case of a smaller or slower-moving animal, there�s less certainty
> about whether it moved or not � it may well be impossible to tell, so a
> referee has to make a call about what�s reasonable.****
>
> ** **
>
> Samir****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 5:48 PM, Nick Harris wrote:

> John et al
>
> I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
> to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a) (interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).
>
> Perhaps your Ref missed this
>
> Nick

It would be a bit much to expect him to remove a worm before playing the stroke if he had not seen it.
And whether it is removed or not, it remains an "outside agency" as far as the application of Law 33 is concerned.

There is nothing in the Laws to say that a worm that is not removed ceases to be an outside agency.

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
From: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)

" I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an
outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect
the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game. "


I expect that there are some of us who could name the player who takes so long between taking up his stance and actually playing his
stroke that a worm could slither onto his line of aim!


:-)


Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Boutel
>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>
>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>
> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>

Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.

>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>
> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>
> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>
>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>
>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>> stray dog.
>
> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.

Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.

--brian

>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Brian,

Loose impediments, whatever they are, are required to be removed only if they are "likely to benefit the striker in the shot about to be played".
I would say that it is possible a worm could benefit the striker, but hardly likely, so he is not required to move it.

JR.

On 08/06/2012, at 8:43 PM, Brian Boutel wrote:

>
> On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian Boutel
>>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>>
>>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>>
>> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
>> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>>
>
> Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.
>
>>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>>
>> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>>
>> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>>
>>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>>
>> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>>
>>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>>> stray dog.
>>
>> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.
>
> No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.
>
> Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.
>
> --brian
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>> distribute its contents to any other person.
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
> --
> Brian Boutel
>
> Wellington
> New Zealand
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

It seems I've not been clear.

My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.

I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.

The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Regards
Samir

-----
Sent from Blackberry Wireless
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 9:12 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
> It seems I've not been clear.
>
> My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.


Samir,
You and I agree that a worm is not a "loose impediment", so Law 34(d) does not apply to this situation; but from where do you get this idea of the outside agency being there before the player took up his stance?

Law 33(a)(1)(C) says that the player must replay the stroke if "the interference was caused by an outside agency that moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance".
A worm moving steadily across the lawn would be almost certain to have moved after the striker took up, his stance. Live worms do not tend to come out of their holes and remain stationary, as the sun would quickly dry them out and kill them. As far as I can see, there is no mention in the Laws of whether or not the worm was was there before he took up his stance, which it may well have been, and the same would apply to a dog. The only question to ask is whether it moved after he took up his stance. Note that the words "or came to rest" are unnecessary, since it cannot have come to rest after the striker took up his stance unless it was also moving after he took up his stance.

If the player had seen the worm before he played the stroke he would have been required to move it only if he thought it was likely to affect his stroke, which he probably would not have.

> I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

I am not willing to argue about intentions or spirits of the Laws, as I go only by what the laws say and mean.
As the referee, I would certainly have to allow - in fact, require - the striker to replay the stroke.

> If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

I agree with that, since it is required by Law 33(d)(1), provided "relevant interference" refers to the type described in part (a), which includes touching. A roquet would not be made if the ball had passed over, or touched, a worm, regardless of whether or not the worm had actually affected the path of the ball or caused the making of a roquet that would not have been made if the worm were not there.

> What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

I doubt that it was deliberate, but agree that since they are "animals", a worm or beetle cannot reasonably be described as a "loose impediment".

> Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.
>
> The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was there when the striker took up his stance.

If that is not what we want, then we need to change the laws accordingly. It is not good enough to misapply them.

JR.





From: johnriches
Sent: 08 June 2012 14:06


The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended
to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already
there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.



Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker
would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was
there when the striker took up his stance.





By "was already there", I mean in the way, and remained in the way (i.e. it
didn't move) rather than just generally in the area. In that situation, the
striker does not get a replay.



If the dog was in the way and runs out of the way there will be no
interference, so no issue.



If the dog wasn't in the way but runs into the way and causes interference
there is a replay.





In the case of a smaller or slower-moving animal, there's less certainty
about whether it moved or not - it may well be impossible to tell, so a
referee has to make a call about what's reasonable.



Samir







For whatever it's worth, the crawling speed of a medium size (~4g)
earthworm has been estimated at approximately 1.5 cm per second, or about
185 feet per hour, while the largest earthworms (~8.5g) can crawl at about
2 cm per second or about 240 feet per hour (the estimator cited K
Quillin, *Kinematic
scaling of locomotion by hydrostatic animals: ontogeny of peristaltic
crawling by the earthworm *Lumbricus terrestris, J Exp Biol 202, 661�674
[1999]).

So, in ruling on whether a worm "must have moved after the striker took up
his stance," should a referee be expected or permitted to apply prior
knowledge that can only have be obtained through the use of a time-lapse
camera with an extra-slow shutter speed?

Stuart

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Samir Patel <> wrote:

> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* johnriches
> *Sent:* 08 June 2012 14:06****
>
>
> The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were
> intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which
> was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the
> striker would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the
> dog was there when the striker took up his stance.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> By �was already there�, I mean in the way, and remained in the way (i.e.
> it didn�t move) rather than just generally in the area. In that situation,
> the striker does not get a replay.****
>
> ** **
>
> If the dog was in the way and runs out of the way there will be no
> interference, so no issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> If the dog wasn�t in the way but runs into the way and causes interference
> there is a replay.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> In the case of a smaller or slower-moving animal, there�s less certainty
> about whether it moved or not � it may well be impossible to tell, so a
> referee has to make a call about what�s reasonable.****
>
> ** **
>
> Samir****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>


While a referee is expected to know quite a lot of stuff, most of this should be about croquet, rather than the biology of the local fauna.

Hence, while I think that a worm is essentially a stationary outside agency, I'm content that another (perhaps better informed) referee might consider it to be a (significantly) moving one.

Samir




-----
Sent from Blackberry Wireless

From: Stuart Lawrence [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 08:01 PM
To: croquet-.uk
Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] Worms


*** WARNING ***
This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Please see this process on how to deal with suspicious emails.

For whatever it's worth, the crawling speed of a medium size (~4g) earthworm has been estimated at approximately 1.5 cm per second, or about 185 feet per hour, while the largest earthworms (~8.5g) can crawl at about 2 cm per second or about 240 feet per hour (the estimator cited K Quillin, Kinematic scaling of locomotion by hydrostatic animals: ontogeny of peristaltic crawling by the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris, J Exp Biol 202, 661–674 [1999]).

So, in ruling on whether a worm "must have moved after the striker took up his stance," should a referee be expected or permitted to apply prior knowledge that can only have be obtained through the use of a time-lapse camera with an extra-slow shutter speed?

Stuart

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Samir Patel <> wrote:


From: johnriches
Sent: 08 June 2012 14:06

The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was there when the striker took up his stance.


By “was already there”, I mean in the way, and remained in the way (i.e. it didn’t move) rather than just generally in the area. In that situation, the striker does not get a replay.

If the dog was in the way and runs out of the way there will be no interference, so no issue.

If the dog wasn’t in the way but runs into the way and causes interference there is a replay.


In the case of a smaller or slower-moving animal, there’s less certainty about whether it moved or not – it may well be impossible to tell, so a referee has to make a call about what’s reasonable.

Samir



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....

Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
(33a1c).

However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.


Regards,
Samir




-----Original Message-----
From: croquet-laws-.uk
[mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
johnriches
Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
To: Laws List
Subject: [croquet-laws] worms

A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.

The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
would be no replay permitted.

Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
to be considered an "outside agency".

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Samir,

Thank you for the reply.

The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.

I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.

I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.

Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.

JR.



On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:

> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>
> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
> (33a1c).
>
> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>
>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: croquet-laws-.uk
> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
> johnriches
> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
> To: Laws List
> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>
> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>
> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
> would be no replay permitted.
>
> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
> to be considered an "outside agency".
>
> JR.
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.


--brian


On 8/06/2012, at 12:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Samir,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The referee did consult the Laws before giving a ruling (many don't), so I thought he would be correct, and was only mildly surprised when I checked and found that a worm (or a beetle, I suppose) can be considered an "outside agency", rather than part of the playing surface.
> The words "and other stray objects" at the end of Law 7(a) seem to include even twigs and leaves, and possibly small pebbles.
>
> I thought the ruling concerning interference by a worm came under Law 34(a)(2), rather than Law 33; but it depends on the meaning of "playing" in the title of Law 34 and "outcome" in part (a). To what does the "playing " of a stroke refer? Does it include the "outcome"? I would have thought they were two quite separate things, but if so the interpretation and application of Law 34 seems to be rather vague.
>
> I cannot see any justification for using Law 55 in this case of the worm interference, but others may disagree.
>
> Some would no doubt want to appeal to the ethereal "spirit of the game", but the Laws should say clearly what they mean.
>
> JR.
>
>
>
> On 08/06/2012, at 7:18 AM, Samir Patel wrote:
>
>> Curiously, this got filed as SPAM. However....
>>
>> Law 7 clearly tells us that a work is an outside agency (at least, I'm
>> fairly sure it's an animal - I seem to recall that the options for living
>> things are plant, fungus, bacterium, virus or animal - and a worm is clearly
>> none of the others). It would seem that by getting in the way, it has
>> interfered with the outcome of the stroke. So, yes, the striker does appear
>> to be entitled to a replay because a roquet may have been prevented (33a1b).
>> The only case against a replay I can see is whether the worm (outside
>> agency) "moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance"
>> (33a1c).
>>
>> However, I think the referee is to be congratulated for their consistency.
>> If the worm is to be considered an outside agency in this case, then it (or
>> a close relative!) should be considered likewise for other (future) strokes.
>> So, yes, 33d1 should also apply - after interference, a ball may not be
>> roqueted. 33a1b does not apply, so the striker gets no replay, and the ball
>> is placed where it is most likely to have ended up.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: croquet-laws-.uk
>> [mailto:croquet-laws-.uk] On Behalf Of
>> johnriches
>> Sent: 07 June 2012 13:52
>> To: Laws List
>> Subject: [croquet-laws] worms
>>
>> A player attempted to roquet his partner ball, and when he narrowly missed
>> it, he claimed that his ball had been diverted ("bumped off course") as it
>> slowed down by hitting an earthworm! He even replaced the worm and rolled
>> his ball gently at it, to demonstrate that the ball could be bumped off
>> course by the worm - and indeed its path was noticeably affected in the
>> trial. And it did not even seem to be a large earthworm.
>>
>> The referee would not allow the roquet, but said the player had to replay
>> the shot, and told him that if one of his balls was seen to pass over a worm
>> from then on, and make a roquet, the roquet would be disallowed and there
>> would be no replay permitted.
>>
>> Was the referee correct? I doubt that the player would again ask for a worm
>> to be considered an "outside agency".
>>
>> JR.
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
>> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
John et al

I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after
a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a)
(interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).

Perhaps your Ref missed this

Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Boutel
> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>
> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
> the result of the stroke would stand.

How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.

> If the ball had been going to miss the
> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.

I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
> doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
> stray dog.

I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

Regards,
Samir


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 11:45 AM, Brian Boutel wrote:

> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d) the result of the stroke would stand. If the ball had been going to miss the roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the striker would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.

As I see it, what the striker would have done in some other situation is irrelevant. The Laws as written have to be applied to the situation that occurred.

> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The worm would definitely have moved after the striker took up his stance. It was probably moving the whole time, but too far away (several yards ?) for the striker to see it until he noticed his ball, as it slowed down, being bumped off its course, and went up to see what had caused the deviation.

> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a stray dog.

It seems strange to rule that a dog is an outside agency, but a worm is not; or to rule that a worm (or twig, for that matter) is part of the normal playing surface.

JR.


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 5:48 PM, Nick Harris wrote:

> John et al
>
> I wrote my report of the 1992/5? Selectors in the style of Chicken Licken after a player had an appeal to the ROT turned down after a leaf/acorn deflected his ball on the grounds that it was up to the player to
> to deal with it before the stroke -" An outside agency should be moved or removed if it might affect play (see also Law 33(a) (interference by an outside agency) and Law 34(b) (fixed obstacles)).
>
> Perhaps your Ref missed this
>
> Nick

It would be a bit much to expect him to remove a worm before playing the stroke if he had not seen it.
And whether it is removed or not, it remains an "outside agency" as far as the application of Law 33 is concerned.

There is nothing in the Laws to say that a worm that is not removed ceases to be an outside agency.

JR.
_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
From: Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK)

" I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an
outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect
the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game. "


I expect that there are some of us who could name the player who takes so long between taking up his stance and actually playing his
stroke that a worm could slither onto his line of aim!


:-)


Nick


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Boutel
>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>
>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>
> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>

Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.

>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>
> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>
> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>
>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>
>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>> stray dog.
>
> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.

No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.

Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.

--brian

>
> Regards,
> Samir
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)
Brian,

Loose impediments, whatever they are, are required to be removed only if they are "likely to benefit the striker in the shot about to be played".
I would say that it is possible a worm could benefit the striker, but hardly likely, so he is not required to move it.

JR.

On 08/06/2012, at 8:43 PM, Brian Boutel wrote:

>
> On 8/06/2012, at 8:42 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian Boutel
>>> Sent: 08 June 2012 03:16
>>>
>>> I would have ruled that the worm was a loose impediment, and under Law 34(d)
>>> the result of the stroke would stand.
>>
>> How do you justify describing a worm as a loose impediment rather than an outside agency?
>> Law 7a is clear. An animal is an outside agency.
>>
>
> Law 7(a) defines outside agencies so as to include anything unconnected with the came, and then gives examples, which include animals. It then excludes loose impediments. A worm could be considered an outside agency whether or not it is a member of the animal kingdom, It could also reasonably be regarded as a loose impediment, and, as such, be excluded from being an outside agency.
>
>>> If the ball had been going to miss the
>>> roquet and the worm deflected it onto the target ball, I doubt that the stroker
>>> would have claimed an interference, but would have claimed the roquet. You
>>> win some, and you lose some - swings and roundabouts.
>>
>> Quite possibly, but in the situation John describes, they have appealed, so a referee has to deal with it.
>>
>> I think the referee ruled quite well. Having checked the laws and discovered (probably with some surprise) that a worm is an outside agency (which he has accepted moved after the striker took up his stance), he has made it clear that the striker can expect the law to be applied consistently throughout the rest of the game.
>>
>>> Unless the worm was spectacularly fast-moving, the striker should have seen
>>> that it was in the path of the stroke, and moved it (Law 7(c) or 34(d)), The point
>>> of Law 33(a) C is that the interference is unexpected, because the outside
>>> agency was not in a position to cause it before the stroke was played. That
>>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>>
>> I would accept that, and indeed that's probably how I'd have ruled - "yes, the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before you took up your stance so you don't get any replay".
>>
>>> So no replay, but whether the striker's ball is moved to where it would
>>> otherwise have come to rest, or whether a roquet or hoop scored as a result of
>>> the deflection is counted depends on whether the worm is an outside agency or
>>> a loose impediment. I would say that it is more like a worm cast or a nut than a
>>> stray dog.
>>
>> I think that's the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. You're trying to argue that a worm is not an animal.
>
> No, a worm is an animal, but it is, I think, excluded from being an outside agency because it is a loose impediment.
>
> Admittedly the law is vague about the precise definition of these categories. It tries to help by giving examples, but leaves room for doubt. it seems to me that size matters. Perhaps they have very big worms in Australia, but the kind of worm I removed from the lawn yesterday would certainly fit within the category of "small items" that define loose impediments.
>
> --brian
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samir
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
>> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
>> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
>> distribute its contents to any other person.
>> ********************************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
> --
> Brian Boutel
>
> Wellington
> New Zealand
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

It seems I've not been clear.

My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.

I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.

The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Regards
Samir

-----
Sent from Blackberry Wireless
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)

On 08/06/2012, at 9:12 PM, Patel, Samir (Corda) (UK) wrote:

>
> It seems I've not been clear.
>
> My view is that the stroke was interfered with by an outside agency, but that agency was there before the player took up their stance so there is no replay.


Samir,
You and I agree that a worm is not a "loose impediment", so Law 34(d) does not apply to this situation; but from where do you get this idea of the outside agency being there before the player took up his stance?

Law 33(a)(1)(C) says that the player must replay the stroke if "the interference was caused by an outside agency that moved or came to rest after the striker finally took up his stance".
A worm moving steadily across the lawn would be almost certain to have moved after the striker took up, his stance. Live worms do not tend to come out of their holes and remain stationary, as the sun would quickly dry them out and kill them. As far as I can see, there is no mention in the Laws of whether or not the worm was was there before he took up his stance, which it may well have been, and the same would apply to a dog. The only question to ask is whether it moved after he took up his stance. Note that the words "or came to rest" are unnecessary, since it cannot have come to rest after the striker took up his stance unless it was also moving after he took up his stance.

If the player had seen the worm before he played the stroke he would have been required to move it only if he thought it was likely to affect his stroke, which he probably would not have.

> I think that fits the laws as written, the intent behind them, and the spirit of the game. So no issue there, and no need to invoke law 55.

I am not willing to argue about intentions or spirits of the Laws, as I go only by what the laws say and mean.
As the referee, I would certainly have to allow - in fact, require - the striker to replay the stroke.

> If the referee on call sees it differently and decides that the worm was moving and awards a replay, then they should apply it to every stroke - ie interference that causes a roquet doesn't count any more than interference that prevents one.

I agree with that, since it is required by Law 33(d)(1), provided "relevant interference" refers to the type described in part (a), which includes touching. A roquet would not be made if the ball had passed over, or touched, a worm, regardless of whether or not the worm had actually affected the path of the ball or caused the making of a roquet that would not have been made if the worm were not there.

> What I don't agree with is describing an animal as a loose impediment, since we have a definition. However, in this case it makes no difference; this may even have been deliberate on the part of the law makers.

I doubt that it was deliberate, but agree that since they are "animals", a worm or beetle cannot reasonably be described as a "loose impediment".

> Comparison with things being blown by the wind are mistaken, since the effects of the weather are excluded.
>
> The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was there when the striker took up his stance.

If that is not what we want, then we need to change the laws accordingly. It is not good enough to misapply them.

JR.





From: johnriches
Sent: 08 June 2012 14:06


The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended
to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already
there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.



Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker
would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was
there when the striker took up his stance.





By "was already there", I mean in the way, and remained in the way (i.e. it
didn't move) rather than just generally in the area. In that situation, the
striker does not get a replay.



If the dog was in the way and runs out of the way there will be no
interference, so no issue.



If the dog wasn't in the way but runs into the way and causes interference
there is a replay.





In the case of a smaller or slower-moving animal, there's less certainty
about whether it moved or not - it may well be impossible to tell, so a
referee has to make a call about what's reasonable.



Samir







For whatever it's worth, the crawling speed of a medium size (~4g)
earthworm has been estimated at approximately 1.5 cm per second, or about
185 feet per hour, while the largest earthworms (~8.5g) can crawl at about
2 cm per second or about 240 feet per hour (the estimator cited K
Quillin, *Kinematic
scaling of locomotion by hydrostatic animals: ontogeny of peristaltic
crawling by the earthworm *Lumbricus terrestris, J Exp Biol 202, 661�674
[1999]).

So, in ruling on whether a worm "must have moved after the striker took up
his stance," should a referee be expected or permitted to apply prior
knowledge that can only have be obtained through the use of a time-lapse
camera with an extra-slow shutter speed?

Stuart

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Samir Patel <> wrote:

> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* johnriches
> *Sent:* 08 June 2012 14:06****
>
>
> The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were
> intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which
> was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the
> striker would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the
> dog was there when the striker took up his stance.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> By �was already there�, I mean in the way, and remained in the way (i.e.
> it didn�t move) rather than just generally in the area. In that situation,
> the striker does not get a replay.****
>
> ** **
>
> If the dog was in the way and runs out of the way there will be no
> interference, so no issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> If the dog wasn�t in the way but runs into the way and causes interference
> there is a replay.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> In the case of a smaller or slower-moving animal, there�s less certainty
> about whether it moved or not � it may well be impossible to tell, so a
> referee has to make a call about what�s reasonable.****
>
> ** **
>
> Samir****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit
> http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
>
>


While a referee is expected to know quite a lot of stuff, most of this should be about croquet, rather than the biology of the local fauna.

Hence, while I think that a worm is essentially a stationary outside agency, I'm content that another (perhaps better informed) referee might consider it to be a (significantly) moving one.

Samir




-----
Sent from Blackberry Wireless

From: Stuart Lawrence [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 08:01 PM
To: croquet-.uk
Subject: Re: [croquet-laws] Worms


*** WARNING ***
This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Please see this process on how to deal with suspicious emails.

For whatever it's worth, the crawling speed of a medium size (~4g) earthworm has been estimated at approximately 1.5 cm per second, or about 185 feet per hour, while the largest earthworms (~8.5g) can crawl at about 2 cm per second or about 240 feet per hour (the estimator cited K Quillin, Kinematic scaling of locomotion by hydrostatic animals: ontogeny of peristaltic crawling by the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris, J Exp Biol 202, 661–674 [1999]).

So, in ruling on whether a worm "must have moved after the striker took up his stance," should a referee be expected or permitted to apply prior knowledge that can only have be obtained through the use of a time-lapse camera with an extra-slow shutter speed?

Stuart

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Samir Patel <> wrote:


From: johnriches
Sent: 08 June 2012 14:06

The running dog/bird was probably the situation that the laws were intended to cover, but remember that if the striker plays at a dog which was already there, they don't deserve (or get) replay either.

Why not? If the dog moved after the striker took up his stance, the striker would be required to replay the stroke regardless of whether the dog was there when the striker took up his stance.


By “was already there”, I mean in the way, and remained in the way (i.e. it didn’t move) rather than just generally in the area. In that situation, the striker does not get a replay.

If the dog was in the way and runs out of the way there will be no interference, so no issue.

If the dog wasn’t in the way but runs into the way and causes interference there is a replay.


In the case of a smaller or slower-moving animal, there’s less certainty about whether it moved or not – it may well be impossible to tell, so a referee has to make a call about what’s reasonable.

Samir



_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws



********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************




On 8/06/2012, at 11:20 PM, johnriches wrote:

> Brian,
>
> Loose impediments, whatever they are, are required to be removed only if they are "likely to benefit the striker in the shot about to be played".
> I would say that it is possible a worm could benefit the striker, but hardly likely, so he is not required to move it.
>
> JR.
>


That's true, but the striker may also remove them if they are not likely to benefit him. If he chooses not to remove a loose impediment, and it adversely affects his shot, it's his fault and there is no remedy.

In most cases it's impossible to predict whether a deflection from a nut or worm cast will be good or bad for the striker. The sort of circumstance in which it is likely that he will benefit might be if he is playing a croquet shot to get position on a yardline ball on a very fast lawn, where the risk of going out is reduced by the presence of an object that might stop the ball. Clearly that object must be removed, but in other circumstances, if he by chance benefits from contact, then that's just his good luck.


--brian

--
Brian Boutel

Wellington
New Zealand


_______________________________________________
croquet-laws mailing list. For info or to unsubscribe visit http://nottingham-lists.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/croquet-laws
)