[blackshoe]

pran, on Nov 10 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

2: Law 64C (when it applies) instructs the Director to adjust a result as if the revoke did not occur.

I'm not well enough to address your whole message, Sven, but this jumped out at me. Law 64C says

Quote

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

I don't see where in there it says "as if the revoke did not occur". No doubt there's some (long?) chain of inferences I'm not seeing. Blame the flu, if you like, but please explain it to me.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Nov 10 2009, 11:46 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 10 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

2: Law 64C (when it applies) instructs the Director to adjust a result as if the revoke did not occur.

I'm not well enough to address your whole message, Sven, but this jumped out at me. Law 64C says

Quote

When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score.

I don't see where in there it says "as if the revoke did not occur". No doubt there's some (long?) chain of inferences I'm not seeing. Blame the flu, if you like, but please explain it to me.

I think it is clear enough if you do not overlook the primary condition in Law 64C: When, ..... , the director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated
This can only be the case when they are worse off than if the revoke had not occurred.

[bluejak]

What non-offending side?

[blackshoe]

Both of them?

[duschek]

bluejak, on Nov 10 2009, 07:09 PM, said:

What non-offending side?

I believe that there are several uses of "non-offending" where that term should be read in the context of a specific infraction. So in this case, it means that no side should be able to gain from a revoke, and the score is adjusted otherwise. I certainly do not believe that it means that by committing an infraction, you lose protection against subsequent infractions from the opponents.

[pran]

After having recocered from my flu and done some more thinking I wonder if I may accidentally have hit the explanation to end this discussion:

Each revoke is inspected separately with the revoking side being the offending side for that particular revoke. There shall not be any L64A rectification, but if the non-offending side was damaged by the revoke then the final result shall be adjusted as if this particular revoke had not occurred.

The effect of this is that if each offending side gained on their own revoke then the final result will be assigned as if no revoke at all had taken place.

However, if an offending side actually damaged its own side by its own revoke then no adjustment is made (for either side) because of this revoke.

My mistake so far has been that I failed to consider the possibility of a revoking side actually damaging itself with the revoke.