[BLML] Weighted Score adjustment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Thu Dec 3 00:45:55 CET 2009


Ton Kooijman, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook:

>>What some people seem to think is that the offenders should get in
>>their score some weight for the illegal choice they made. That is my
>>main concern.
>>
>>I dared to hope that David used the word 'stupid' to describe that
>>approach.

Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook:

>+=+ David Burn wrote:
>"What I have intended to show is that such rulings are no longer
>illegal: that is, the provisions of L12C1(e) do not apply to cases
>dealt with under L12C1(c), nor does the wording of L12B preclude such
>rulings."

Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index):

I presume that "such rulings" refers to what the EBU has named "Reveley
Rulings", or else otherwise we are comparing apples with oranges.

Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook:

>My view of the manner in which the desired outcome may (and should)
>be achieved, consistent with the 2007 laws, is to remove the benefit
>of the unlawful use of UI from the OS by applying a procedural
>penalty.

Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index):

That view is erroneous, completely inconsistent with the instruction of
Law 12B1 to "take away any advantage gained by an offending side
through its infraction" by a Law 12 score adjustment, not by a Law 90
procedural penalty.

Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook:

>In this way the NOS do not benefit from a failure to incorporate the
>weighting of all probabilities of outcome in the 12C1(c) assessment.
>I think it is against principle that they should do so.

Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index):

That view is erroneous, completely inconsistent with the 2009 WBF Laws
Committee minute stating that creation-of-UI is not part of the use-of-
UI infraction.

That is, it was unLawful for a 2009 Bermuda Bowl Appeals Committee (or,
indeed, any other Appeals Committee) to fully or partially base its
assessment on what would have happened from before the time the non-
infraction of creation-of-UI occurred.  The 2009 Bermuda Bowl AC's only
Lawful assessment had to be from the moment before the infraction of use-
of-UI occurred.  An Appeals Committee adjusting the score by deeming that
the offending side should have acted in accordance with Law 73C is not
creating a "benefit" for the non-offending side; it is enforcing a RIGHT
of the non-offending side.

Grattan Endicott, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook:

>I am not among ton's 'some people'. As to the OS I do not argue
>against the desirable effect to be obtained. My concern is to defend
>against any wishful misinterpretation of the wording of the laws.
>
>                                             ~ Grattan ~   +=+

Richard Hills, co-author of the 2007 Lawbook (but merely the Index):

My concern is also to defend against any misinterpretation of the wording
of the Laws and/or any misinterpretation of the wording of the corporate
decisions of the WBF Laws Committee by the (Neutron) Star Secretary of
the WBF Laws Committee.

Best wishes

Beowulf Shaeffer



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the Blml mailing list