Author Topic: Okay to make different rulings in similar situations?  (Read 4996 times)

EbroTim

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 19
Okay to make different rulings in similar situations?
« on: August 29, 2013, 10:04:08 AM »
Is it possible for a tournament director to make two different rulings in two similar, but different situations -- and still be acting within the spirit of the TDA?

For example, let's say that in one situation, the tournament director was called over to a table because a novice player had excessively celebrated after he had won a hand, which offended the loser of the hand.  When this tournament director arrived at the table, both parties were quiet and non-confrontational.  The tournament director gave both players a verbal warning.  After this ruling, neither player behaved badly for the duration of the tournament.

And then in a different tournament on a different day, this same tournament director was called over to a table because a spectator and a player had been involved in a verbal confrontation.  The confrontation began because the player had called the spectator "a dog."  The spectator happens to be the girlfriend of another player at the table.  When this tournament director arrived at the table, both parties were argumentative and wanted to speak over each other.  The tournament director asked the spectator to leave the tournament area, and gave the player a two-missed-hand penalty.  After this ruling, neither the spectator nor the player (nor the player who was the boyfriend of the specator) were further involved in any disagreements.

After the player who had been assessed the two-missed-hand penalty busts out of the tournament, he questions the tournament director's decision.  He supports his position by alluding to the first example, where the players given only a verbal warning, and he opines that this inconsistency is incorrect.  He then requests to meet with the director of poker operations to discuss this tournament director's "performance."

Please help by answering the following:

1.  Is it possible for a tournament director to make two different rulings in two similar, but different situations -- and still be acting within the spirit of the TDA?

2.  Please offer any further thoughts.

Thank you in advance for your much-appreciated input.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Okay to make different rulings in similar situations?
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2013, 02:50:18 PM »
Is it ok? It is definitely ok!

There are so many factors that a TD has to take into account, and all situations that we encounter are, by definition, highly situational!  There is a reason why we don't have one set penalty for all infractions -- we have to make a judgment call each and every time as to what an appropriate penalty is for any given situation.  In my opinion, you would actually be doing the players a disservice by assessing the same penalty for different infractions under different contexts.

I don't see the approach as being much different from judges who apply the law: you hope that the "punishment" assessed by a judge will fit the "crime".  Of course, poker is not so serious, but you get the idea.  Two people can commit the same act, but receive different punishments because of their prior record or lack thereof, for example; not unlike the possibility that you might assess different penalties for rules infractions at the poker table based on player history.  Furthermore, when two acts are similar but different in some way, it is completely fair that the more serious act be assessed a harsher penalty.

In your examples, I do not even see the situations as being "similar" at all.  In the second example, the action involves clearly making a targeted, derogatory comment.  This act evolved into a confrontation that did not cease even when the TD arrived, which suggests that the situation was beyond the level of a few words being exchanged back and forth.  Finally, the first situation, as you noted, involved a novice player -- which I think is relevant (unless the TD had given these players a prior warning).

I have no problem with the TDs ruling here.  It sounds like the player who has been assessed the penalty is suffering from "sour grapes" syndrome.  You can't stop him from threatening to complain to a higher up, but have solace in the fact that if he is making such a big deal over a two-hand penalty, and cannot man up and acknowledge that it's inappropriate to be calling people "dogs" in the first place, the decision was probably the right one.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 07:27:48 AM by K-Lo »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Okay to make different rulings in similar situations?
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2013, 05:08:23 PM »
EbroTim:

I had a whole post in response when my internet crashed and all is lost.  Now that I am back, I agree 100% with K-Lo.  I don't think the situations are similar either. 

I think the warnings in the first example are fine.

I think the penalty in the second example is wwwwwaaaaaaayyyyyy too light.  I would have him sit out at least 1 full round if not 2. 

As far as him going to the Director of Poker Operations, that is OK.  However, the DoPO has to take care of this in a private meeting and not on the poker room floor.  Furthermore, the DoPO MUST fully support the TD in the meeting with the player.  If the DoPO wants some other resolution that has to be taken up with the TD privately after this has settled down.  Failure to fully support the TD, in the absence of some specific error on the TD's part (and a difference of opinion as to the proper penalty is not a "specific error" IMHO) would be a travesty and if I was the TD I would be looking elsewhere for work.

You don't publicize that you are looking elsewhere and you don't give notice until you have a new job "locked up".  If your worth your salt as a TD and as an employee to the House, let them make an offer to keep you, otherwise, "get on your bike".

Chet

Stuart Murray

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 645
Re: Okay to make different rulings in similar situations?
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2013, 08:03:21 PM »
Ditto both above posts, IMHO the only thing I think the TD in question is guilty of is being unduly lenient in the second incidence, the player would certainly been away for longer from my tables.

I really don't see an issue here, if we got worried about every player getting their back up about a decision that went against them we would be less popular than what we are because people hate cardroom management that lacks any real punch or direction.

Why don't you approach the DOPO directly regarding the decision, best he hears it from you first!

Regards
Stuart

EbroTim

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 19
Re: Okay to make different rulings in similar situations?
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2013, 07:51:00 AM »
K-Lo, Chet, and Stuart,

Thank you very much for your replies.  I very much appreciate the support and advice.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3352
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Okay to make different rulings in similar situations?
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2013, 08:43:49 AM »
I also agree with Ken and Chet. These are two different situations and, as Ken mentioned, the history or reputation of a player should always be considered.

The second situation involved a confrontation between a player and a spectator! Clearly this would warrant a more severe punishment.

 It also reminds me of a concern that Barry Greenstein brought up at the 2011 TDA Summit. He thought that the spectators were much too close to the action at the tables, and the comments (from the gallery) should be discouraged.

 Knowing the players involved could have a definite affect on any ruling that the TD deems appropriate.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Okay to make different rulings in similar situations?
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2013, 11:13:18 AM »
I agree with all of the above.  In fact I think the situations could be exactly the same and have different outcomes.  Knowing your players, among other things, can influence your decisions in a big way. 
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

WSOPMcGee

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
    • The R.O.P.E.
Re: Okay to make different rulings in similar situations?
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2013, 04:41:25 PM »
I agree with most of the above. However I fail to see the two situations being remotely similar.

In example #1: A player celebrated - doesn't matter to me if they are novice, intermediate or professional - they celebrated. So what. When you take the fun out of the game then the game is no fun. One player got offended. Please... it's a game of cards. Letting the squeaky wheels in this game get all the grease is starting to put us TD's on the slippery slope of no return. Seems to me 9 players are happy in this spot and 1 player is unhappy. Us letting this 1 player define the enjoyment of the game is crazy.

In example #2: I probably would've been either more lenient or more harsh depending on the situation. But I wasn't there so I don't know. Sounds like you handled it the way you thought best and there's nothing wrong with that. That's all anybody can ask of anybody. But the 2 handed penalty... now that's a new one! :)
@wsopmcgee on Twitter