Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

Here's another question. Does this reasoning apply to the situation where Blue kills Red in a castle on turn 111 while playing under anarchy rules? (This is a real situation that occurred in the "Outlaw" tournament.) As you know, all rules are abolished in anarchy except for the rule of fair play. I invite all proponents of morality to join the discussion: is such a victory fair?

The question can be reduced to the following: can Blue take a restart during Red's turn, before Red's turn actually arrives?
The answer is: yes! He was given an impenetrable block at the exit, he saw it, and he doesn't want to waste his time or the other player's time! But here, a block appeared and broke through it itself :smile16:
The main thing is to notice it in time, although a restart can also be taken during an attack – the turn hasn't arrived yet, but Red included Blue in the game on his own turn, 111 during the battle :)
Red also gets a plus, as he took a restart from his opponent.
If Blue doesn't have any restarts left at that point, then he is to blame for spending them, using his chances on the restarts he took and encountering a de facto impenetrable block at the gate.
Many have lost in this way on the 1st turn, and nothing terrible happened.

But if Blue has restarts left, and Red doesn't agree to it? Then it's a controversial situation.
And the prerogative of common sense, i.e., the Arbitration Committee (AK), is exactly what is needed to resolve it.
That precedent that was in "Outlaw" – did Blue have any restarts left? If not, then everything is fair (as far as I remember, Vik's wording was – there is no restart for the match, if anything, it's his own fault), but if he did have them left, then Blue could quite rightly claim to continue the game