Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

The removal of Bishop in the fourth round differs from the removal of Positiv in the second round only in that the reason for Bishop's removal was the clarification of the rules. These clarifications didn't really introduce anything new: they were based on the OFB-10 rules, which are already the basis of the OFB-12 rules, but before the clarifications, there simply wasn't time to address the issue of tiebreakers, and after Dave made it to the favorites' final, the need to address it became urgent. That's why I did everything exactly as I did.

Yes, usually players withdraw after losses, not after wins, but that didn't stop even Positiv, who withdrew after two wins without any tiebreaker situation in the OFB. And if we talk about Buchholz, Positiv's withdrawal had a greater impact on his opponents than Bishop's withdrawal on Bishop's opponents.

Otherwise, there's nothing to discuss: one participant lost to another and is now trying to get preferential treatment based on the fact that changes were made to the regulations that indirectly affected him. And by the way, even at the start of the tournament, it was stated in this section of the regulations that it would be clarified, so I didn't do anything wrong.

So, I'm running a tournament...

By the way, it's about time :D

If the AK (presumably an organization) seriously considers all this and takes any action, then you have an excellent chance to finish running the OFB instead of me :smile30: