Forum

Of course, deadlines must be observed, especially since the participants themselves should monitor their compliance. But if the reports have already appeared, then it would have been quite possible not to remove people from the tournament, especially in the case of FTS, who managed to complete the round on time, but simply submitted the report the next day. No one will benefit from such draconian measures.

P.S.: And it would be better to set the end date of the round on the weekend so that people have the opportunity to play to the fullest.

Publicly discussing the organizer's actions after he has made a decision in full accordance with the regulations is not appropriate. I, too, was on the side of the players, but:
- the players did not show sufficient seriousness, including towards the organizer's firm decision-making (based on past experience);
- the players could have informed the organizer in advance and constantly worried about the possible consequences of violating the deadlines stipulated in the regulations, but no one did. And this will look especially contradictory against the background of pairs who went out of their way to meet the deadline. Moreover, extending the deadlines for some players should be done with consideration for other players, whose interests may be affected (so that extending the deadline for one does not affect those who are waiting or simply interested). The principle of fair play is still the most reliable motivator. And in this regard, each organizer should be supported, not pressured.
Whether to end the round on the weekend or start it is like rearranging the terms - 14 days will still cover 4 weekends. Perhaps it would be better for some to start the round on the weekend so as not to rely on chance and the uncertainty of their own plans at the end of the deadline. After all, the deadlines are set precisely.
And regarding the free wins. Well, yes, some people got a free win. And others, on the contrary, were deprived of the opportunity to play. But everywhere, all organizers rely on the principle of informing them about any critical situation. If there is no such information, then do not expect positive decisions. You have to have something to base your decisions on. I have now come to a decision, perhaps a naive one, to promote the third-place winners from these groups instead of those who violated the rules.