[bluejak]

I do not give half a top PP for blatant cheating - but I do not assume this was blatant cheating. It was the action a cheat might take, true.

[shyams]

bluejak, on Jun 11 2010, 11:53 AM, said:

I do not give half a top PP for blatant cheating - but I do not assume this was blatant cheating. It was the action a cheat might take, true.

To bring further focus on semantics, the post by matmat does not read "blatant cheating" but instead reads "blatant attempt at cheating"

[bluejak]

Fair enough, but it is the word blatant that worries me. As a TD I give a PP for actions that do the various things in Law 90. If I am sure something is cheating [and the word 'blatant' sounds like it, and I think attempting cheating is as bad as cheating], then I refer it.

[blackshoe]

Whether you call it "blatant cheating" or "a blatant attempt at cheating", you are labeling the offender a cheat. If, OTOH, you take the Probst approach, as David does, you are saying that you are not ruling on the basis he's a cheat, but on the basis that he has done something, perhaps in all innocence, that a cheat would do. There is a difference.