Director asks for help and then gets it wrong.
I act as chief TD for our club, which means I get to do all the appeals.
Recently a new director asked me for advice on a tricky MI/UI case. He had unfortunately got it wrong, not properly understanding the concept of logical alternative (as with many new directors).
He sent me his draft ruling, and I went back with details on where he had gone astray, what he should have done, and why.
He seemed to understand what I was saying, but has now issued his original ruling, repeating the errors. He copied me in. So far there has been no appeal.
As part of this ruling he stated that "There has been a dialogue between Jeremy and myself in which he has very kindly steered me through the decision tree." This sounds very much like I have approved his response.
I want to correct his ruling, as a) he needs to learn , and b) I do not want the players thinking this is how logical alternative works.
He is the director, I am not.
1) Should I do anything? If so what? Wade straight in? Privately suggest to the non-offending side that they should appeal?
2) Does the fact that he suggested it was approved by me make any difference?
Obviously whatever I do (if anything) needs to be done tactfully so as not to put off the new director.
Comments
Tell the TD he has misunderstood. Suggest that the TD appeal (Law 83 - final words). Then the matter is with the Tournament Organiser appeals process. There should be some further consultation so that the pairs whose score is changed can be convinced there has been due process.
I think you should contact the TD directly and explain that his decision is not actually in line with your advice, trying to explain once more what you have already told him.
Of course if there did come to be an appeal, you would not be able to do it.
Thanks all.