Interpretation of the Laws and the Conditions of Contest

We (names below) were asked to consider an incident that occurred during the Juniors match between Israel and Italy.

During an auction, a variation in tempo by the Italian players was observed by the captain of Israel, who was watching on Vugraph. The Israeli players at the table did not summon the Director, nor draw attention to the variation once action had been taken by the Italian players. But while the match was still in progress, the Israeli captain went to Antonio Riccardi, Chief Tournament Director, and indicated his wish for a ruling in respect of the possible use of unauthorised information. After the match, the Israeli captain spoke to his players, and repeated his request for a ruling.

Mr Riccardi did not wish to give a ruling. His view was that attention could not properly be drawn to the possible use of unauthorised information by a spectator, even a non-playing captain; if the players at the table did not summon the Director, no irregularity could be considered to have taken place. It is of course possible for rulings to be requested after a match in respect of other irregularities (misexplanations, revokes and so forth), since fresh information may come to light. But the question of tempo is a subjective one, and if nothing untoward is observed at the time by the players at the table, the observations of others are of no consequence.

Mr Riccardi therefore refused the Israeli captain's request for a ruling. We had to decide whether he had acted in accordance with the Laws and the Conditions of Contest in so doing.

Laws 9 and 16 are clear in terms of stipulating what should happen in the case of irregularities in general and unauthorised information in particular. The Director must be summoned when attention is drawn to any irregularity; and in the case of unauthorised information, attention should be drawn when a player has substantial reason to believe that information has been both transmitted and acted upon. We agree, in substance, with Mr Riccardi's view that unless the players perceive the transmission and possible use of unauthorised information, no irregularity can be said to have taken place.

The Conditions of Contest stipulate that a non-playing captain may act to protect the rights of his team if he believes that they have been jeopardised. But if players of experience (as the players in this case certainly were) do not believe that a violation of Laws 16 and 73 has taken place, then (in effect) it has not - the team does not have any rights to protect in respect of the incident.

We were made aware of an incident during the World Junior Championships in Brazil, where an Appeals Committee ruled on a case of unauthorised information. Attention was not drawn to the irregularity by the players at the time, but by the captain; nevertheless, a ruling was given. We could not, however, determine why it was that the Appeals Committee had decided to rule in this case, and did not consider that it established any kind of precedent.

We confirm that in our opinion, the Chief Tournament Director has acted in accordance with the Laws and the Conditions of Contest in refusing a request for a ruling in this matter.

Steen Moller (Denmark) - Chairman of Appeals
David Burn (England) _ Chairman, EBU Laws and Ethics Committee
Dimitri Ballas (Greece) - Member, Tournament Committee

13th July 2002