# Illegal move claim after claimant's flag already fell
**URL:** https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476
**Category:** Running Chess Tournaments
**Created:** [November 30, 2009, 7:21am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476 "2009-11-30T07:21:49Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@LaughingVulcan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/LaughingVulcan)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 1:19pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/61 "2009-12-24T13:19:22Z")
I’ve been following the discussion, but can’t remember if my answer below has already been suggested. Sorry if it has!
(Player X’s flag fell, but his opponent, Player Y did not notice this. Player Y made an illegal move at some point after Player X’s flag had fallen. Player X noticed this and asked for two minutes to be added to his clock…
Assuming the physical flag fall is irreversible, would there be any reason a TD can’t respond to the first part of the OP thusly:
“Yes, this is an illegal move… we will restore the board to that point of the game.” (This assumes scoresheets are available. The game position is restored.) “Completed.” TD starts to walk away.
Player X, “Wait! Hey, what about my two minutes?”
TD, “You are not eligible to have two minutes added to your time.”
Then wait for Player X to either go silent (because he knows why,) or for him to protest and ask. “Why?”
Then the TD can answer, as the player him- or herself has asked for the reason why the TD will not add time. Or the TD can go cryptic, “Your clock is not in a state in which I can add time to it.” (And Player Y can decide for him- or herself to call the fallen flag.)
Thougth I still don’t see the immediate problem with explicitly putting in the rules some provision that a TD can call a fallen flag if asked to make a ruling in a game. (Other than some implying it’s just not necessary.)
---
### Author:  [@Harold\_S](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Harold_S)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/62 "2009-12-24T13:23:49Z")
rfeditor wrote:
> [@](#):
>
> One of the reasons for confusion here is that we’re using “flag has fallen” in two different senses. “Flag has (physically) fallen” is an objective fact. “Flag has fallen for the purposes of awarding a win on time” is a legal definition. Clarifying which definition is meant where would resolve much of the problem.
I agree there could be 2 interpretations. As USCF TDs we are required to consider the flag fallen when it is called by one of the players. FIDE has a different rule which some here would like to use. The only way I see as acceptable is to announce rule variations before the start of the tournament.
I get the impression from some TDs writing here, that they would ignore certain USCF rules even though they gave no advance warning. It is to those TDs that I state that doing so would subject them to a reversal on appeal.
The appeal process can be lengthy and time consuming. It requires that the USCF gather information from all affected parties, usually in the form of detailed accounts of what occurred and the rules which were/were not applied properly. The USCF office then submits this to the rules committee which may ask some follow-up questions before discussing it among themselves and making a ruling. It just seems that if a TD doesn’t want to use a rule, that it would be much smarter to cover one’s self in advance.
rfeditor wrote:
> [@](#):
>
> That being said, is any of this speculation even remotely realistic? Hypothetical: A’s flag falls. B doesn’t notice or call it. A summons the TD to make an illegal-move claim. The clock is stopped while the TD hears the claim and makes a decision. How likely is it that, with plenty of time and his attention drawn to the clock, B still doesn’t notice or claim that his opponent’s flag is down?
This topic started when Polly wrote that this is exactly what happened. I don’t doubt that it’s rare. I have occasionally had players who were not totally familiar with the clock, how to claim, and other issues.
My position as a TD is that I should not be offering advice during the game. It is the player’s responsibility to learn proper use of the clock. If the player asks me during the game, I will answer only those questions asked. I may educate the player after the game ends if I feel the player is deficient in this knowledge.
---
### Author:  [@Harold\_S](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Harold_S)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 1:32pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/63 "2009-12-24T13:32:47Z")
> [@](#):
>
> tsawmiller wrote:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Harold S. wrote:
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > tsawmiller wrote:
> > > I’d deny the claim, if appropriate for the indicent [sic] at hand. If the complainer asks why, then the answer would be…wait for it…“because your flag is down”.
> >
> > And how is doing what you are proposing consistent with 16Y which REQUIRES that the TD not bring attention to the fallen flag?
>
> It’s quite consistent with an opinion advocating a CHANGE to the rules.
But which rules you intend to ignore needs to be stated in advance. You can’t go around ignoring rules during a tournament because you don’t like them. Players expect you to follow the rules or announce variations in advance.
If you want the rule changed, go though the proper channels and if you succeed, no one who disagrees with you will have a leg to stand on.
---
### Author:  [@Harold\_S](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Harold_S)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/64 "2009-12-24T14:25:07Z")
LaughingVulcan wrote:
> [@](#):
>
> Assuming the physical flag fall is irreversible
That’s a rather large assumption! I can think of several times when adding time after the physical flag has fallen is proper. I already mentioned one in a previous post. Some are: the clock is running fast, the clock was set improperly, the clock malfunctioned, the director forgot to stop the clock while making a ruling in that game, and a player tried to cheat by advancing the time. Does anyone really want a rule that prevents a TD from correcting these? I don’t.
The other point that needs be made is, as presently worded, the flag is not considered down until it’s called down by one of the players. Most of the disagreement we’ve had here is based on the assumption quoted at the top of this post.
I don’t see where the rulebook supports the assumption that the flag is considered down before it’s called by one of the players (except FIDE rules). Perhaps you could quote the rule that proves me wrong.
---
### Author:  [@tsawmiller](https://forum.uschess.org/u/tsawmiller)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/65 "2009-12-24T15:28:46Z")
> [@Harold S.](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > tsawmiller wrote:
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > Harold S. wrote:
> > >
> > > > [@](#):
> > > >
> > > > tsawmiller wrote:
> > > > I’d deny the claim, if appropriate for the indicent [sic] at hand. If the complainer asks why, then the answer would be…wait for it…“because your flag is down”.
> > >
> > > And how is doing what you are proposing consistent with 16Y which REQUIRES that the TD not bring attention to the fallen flag?
> >
> > It’s quite consistent with an opinion advocating a CHANGE to the rules.
>
> But which rules you intend to ignore needs to be stated in advance. You can’t go around ignoring rules during a tournament because you don’t like them. Players expect you to follow the rules or announce variations in advance.
>
> If you want the rule changed, go though the proper channels and if you succeed, no one who disagrees with you will have a leg to stand on.
No where, absolutely NO WHERE, have I advocated ignoring any rules. Yes I want to see the rules changed. But I shouldn’t have to “go though the proper channels” just to express an opinion on a discussion board. 😒
---
### Author:  [@Harold\_S](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Harold_S)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/66 "2009-12-24T16:35:36Z")
tsawmiller wrote:
> [@](#):
>
> No where, absolutely NO WHERE, have I advocated ignoring any rules. Yes I want to see the rules changed. But I shouldn’t have to “go though the proper channels” just to express an opinion on a discussion board
tsawmiller wrote:
> [@](#):
>
> I’d deny the claim, if appropriate for the indicent [sic] at hand. If the complainer asks why, then the answer would be…wait for it…“because your flag is down”.
Above are your responses. If you haven’t advocated ignoring the rules then how can you claim that you would tell a player that his flag is down when rule 13C1 clearly states: “it is considered to have fallen ONLY when either player points this out”? You are not abiding by 13C1 to do it your way.
It’s not that you “advocated ignoring any rules” by those specific words, but the actions you claim you would take ignore 13C1. The rule ties the fallen flag claim directly to the necessity of it being called by one of the players. When you do what you claim you would, it is no longer just an “opinion”.
Please explain how your second quote above doesn’t ignore 13C1.
---
### Author:  [@jwiewel](https://forum.uschess.org/u/jwiewel)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 5:14pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/67 "2009-12-24T17:14:33Z")
> [@Harold S.](#):
>
> tsawmiller wrote:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > No where, absolutely NO WHERE, have I advocated ignoring any rules. Yes I want to see the rules changed. But I shouldn’t have to “go though the proper channels” just to express an opinion on a discussion board
>
> tsawmiller wrote:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I’d deny the claim, if appropriate for the indicent [sic] at hand. If the complainer asks why, then the answer would be…wait for it…“because your flag is down”.
>
> Above are your responses. If you haven’t advocated ignoring the rules then how can you claim that you would tell a player that his flag is down when rule 13C1 clearly states: “it is considered to have fallen ONLY when either player points this out”? You are not abiding by 13C1 to do it your way.
>
> It’s not that you “advocated ignoring any rules” by those specific words, but the actions you claim you would take ignore 13C1. The rule ties the fallen flag claim directly to the necessity of it being called by one of the players. When you do what you claim you would, it is no longer just an “opinion”.
>
> Please explain how your second quote above doesn’t ignore 13C1.
The second quote is actually Tim quoting another person. I was under the impression that Tim included the quote as an example of something that he felt shouldn’t be done.
---
### Author:  [@jwiewel](https://forum.uschess.org/u/jwiewel)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/68 "2009-12-24T17:20:19Z")
> [@Steve\_Immitt](#):
>
> > [@rfeditor](#):
> >
> > One of the reasons for confusion here is that we’re using “flag has fallen” in two different senses. “Flag has (physically) fallen” is an objective fact. “Flag has fallen for the purposes of awarding a win on time” is a legal definition. Clarifying which definition is meant where would resolve much of the problem.
> >
> > That being said, is any of this speculation even remotely realistic? Hypothetical: A’s flag falls. B doesn’t notice or call it. A summons the TD to make an illegal-move claim. The clock is stopped while the TD hears the claim and makes a decision. How likely is it that, with plenty of time and his attention drawn to the clock, B still doesn’t notice or claim that his opponent’s flag is down?
>
> A more likely scenario, in Sudden Death time pressure, might be one where
> White claims Black just completed an illegal move and then White’s flag immediately fell;
> while
> Black claims White’s flag fell immediately before Black made his last move, which happened to be an illegal move.
If you can’t figure out who is correct then you could always fall back on 21F3b and make the ruling that allows the game to continue (adding two minutes).
---
### Author:  [@tsawmiller](https://forum.uschess.org/u/tsawmiller)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/69 "2009-12-24T18:08:20Z")
Harold S. seems to be having a problem following the course of the discussion.
Here is the COMPLETE posting that you only partially quoted:
> [@tsawmiller](#):
>
> > [@artichoke](#):
> >
> > > [@sloan](#):
> > >
> > > > [@artichoke](#):
> > > >
> > > > So let’s walk through this. The TD gets called to the table. He sees a flag down. Does he call it, or what does he do?
> > >
> > > what part of:
> > >
> > > 16E. When flag is considered down. The flag is considered to have fallen when either player points this out. See also 5G, The flag; and 13C1, Only players may call flag.
> > >
> > > is unclear to you?
> >
> > No part at all. This is clear, it’s straightforward for the TD to handle, and that’s part of the point I’m aiming at. Under the current rules, the TD keeps a poker face and acts as if no flag had fallen, unless a player calls it.
> >
> > What is unclear to me is how this would be handled under the rule change Tim Sawmiller is contemplating.
>
> I think Mr. Hillery summed it up nicely at
> [viewtopic.php?p=174405#p174405](http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=174405#p174405)
> I’d deny the claim, if appropriate for the indicent at hand. If the complainer asks why, then the answer would be…wait for it…“because your flag is down”.
For easy reference:
[viewtopic.php?p=174509#p174509](http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=174509#p174509)
I didn’t even fix my spelling error…
If you disagree with my opinion, fine, let’s hear your opinion. But please stop criticizing me for things that I DID NOT SAY.
---
### Author:  [@Harold\_S](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Harold_S)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/70 "2009-12-24T18:23:38Z")
> [@](#):
>
> The second quote is actually Tim quoting another person. I was under the impression that Tim included the quote as an example of something that he felt shouldn’t be done.
I don’t think you’re correct. Take look at Tim’s posting on Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:35 pm EST #174509. Look at the bottom of it and you will see the following:
> [@](#):
>
> I think Mr. Hillery summed it up nicely at
> viewtopic.php?p=174405#p174405
> I’d deny the claim, if appropriate for the indicent at hand. If the complainer asks why, then the answer would be…wait for it…“because your flag is down”.
Tim seems to be endorsing Hillery’s view. Are you, Tim? Who wrote the word “I’d” changed to red above? That is the person who’d be ignoring rule 13C1.
Either way, the flag is not considered down because neither player called it!
---
### Author:  [@tsawmiller](https://forum.uschess.org/u/tsawmiller)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/71 "2009-12-24T18:51:18Z")
> [@Harold S.](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > The second quote is actually Tim quoting another person. I was under the impression that Tim included the quote as an example of something that he felt shouldn’t be done.
>
> I don’t think you’re correct. Take look at Tim’s posting on Wed Dec 23, 2009 4:35 pm EST #174509. Look at the bottom of it and you will see the following:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > I think Mr. Hillery summed it up nicely at
> > viewtopic.php?p=174405#p174405
> > I’d deny the claim, if appropriate for the indicent at hand. If the complainer asks why, then the answer would be…wait for it…“because your flag is down”.
>
> Tim seems to be endorsing Hillery’s view. Are you, Tim? Who wrote the word “I’d” changed to red above? That is the person who’d be ignoring rule 13C1.
>
> Either way, the flag is not considered down because neither player called it!
Did you even LOOK at my post preceeding your last one??? 😒
---
### Author:  [@LaughingVulcan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/LaughingVulcan)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/72 "2009-12-24T19:46:03Z")
> [@Harold S.](#):
>
> LaughingVulcan wrote:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Assuming the physical flag fall is irreversible
>
> That’s a rather large assumption!
Yes, it is a rather large assumption, which is why I prefaced it that way. 😉 I take that from my conclusion that there does not seem to be agreement upon this point, as we have discussed it upthread. If the flag fall is not irreversible (in this case, at minimum), then the rest of what I wrote makes little sense IMVHO. 😃
I’m editing to add that in all the circumstances you mentioned there was some defect or reason-in-equity to possibly go “extrajudicial,” or existing rules to cover the situations. Unless I missed something there.
* * *
And, for the record, it was me who wrote that a rules addition could probably be written to cover allowance of a TD to call a flag in situations where a claim is presented. (It was in response to posts already existing.)
Alternatively, a TD TIP could be written to reinforce that under no circumstances may a TD ever call a flag fall. Which may have the consequence, among others, of requiring a TD to break the rules. (e.g. If a game in a round is running unbearably long / the players keep playing / and the owners of the playing venue say, “GET OUT!”)
Alternatively again, absolutely nothing could be done and thus all us Club TDs remain confused and interpret the ambiguous rules as best we can. (Although I know others will reply there is no ambiguity.) And get reversed and sanctioned or appeal denied and a precedent is established.
---
### Author:  [@LaughingVulcan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/LaughingVulcan)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/73 "2009-12-24T20:05:48Z")
The rulebook, in one of it’s more confusing (to me!) sections, spends quite a bit of text distinguishing between determined moves and completed moves. (Actually, I think I understand those rules well enough to apply them.)
Would it be of benefit or detriment to establish a distinction between a ‘determined fall’ and a ‘completed fall’? (I’m experiencing lack of better terminology in my phrasijng at this point.) Or simply unnecessary?
(I feel like I’m back in Seminary discussing [Karl Rahner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rahner#Economic_and_Immanent_Trinity) and wrapping my head around the theology of the [economic Trinity and immanent Trinity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#Economic_and_ontological_Trinity). 😉 )
---
### Author:  [@sloan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/sloan)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2009, 5:52am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/74 "2009-12-25T05:52:44Z")
> [@tsawmiller](#):
>
> > [@sloan](#):
> >
> > > [@Harold S.](#):
> > >
> > > tsawmiller wrote:
> > >
> > > > [@](#):
> > > >
> > > > I’d deny the claim, if appropriate for the indicent [sic] at hand. If the complainer asks why, then the answer would be…wait for it…“because your flag is down”.
> > >
> > > And how is doing what you are proposing consistent with 16Y which REQUIRES that the TD not bring attention to the fallen flag?
> >
> > I suspect he’ll want to repeal 16Y - and any other rule that stands in the way of ruling on THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION exactly as his gut tells him to rule.
> >
> > A case study illustrating the maxim: “Hard cases make bad law”.
> >
> > To create a good rule-set, it is sometimes necessary to push all the bad results into a few, rare cases. The alternative is to get it right in the rare cases and completely #### up all the (more common) rest of the cases.
>
> This is hardly a good reason to avoid fixing a clear flaw in the rules.
a) What’s the flaw? (are you sure everyone AGREES that it’s a flaw?)
b) What’s the fix? (all the details, please - we don’t want any nasty surprises)
You seem to have skipped the part about getting agreement that the current rules lead to situations that are “flawed” - and have jumped ahead to the implementation. At the same time, you have been fairly vague and incomplete in specifying the implementation.
You must work in IT.
---
### Author:  [@sloan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/sloan)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/75 "2009-12-25T05:57:28Z")
> [@tsawmiller](#):
>
> > [@Harold S.](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > tsawmiller wrote:
> > >
> > > > [@](#):
> > > >
> > > > Harold S. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [@](#):
> > > > >
> > > > > tsawmiller wrote:
> > > > > I’d deny the claim, if appropriate for the indicent [sic] at hand. If the complainer asks why, then the answer would be…wait for it…“because your flag is down”.
> > > >
> > > > And how is doing what you are proposing consistent with 16Y which REQUIRES that the TD not bring attention to the fallen flag?
> > >
> > > It’s quite consistent with an opinion advocating a CHANGE to the rules.
> >
> > But which rules you intend to ignore needs to be stated in advance. You can’t go around ignoring rules during a tournament because you don’t like them. Players expect you to follow the rules or announce variations in advance.
> >
> > If you want the rule changed, go though the proper channels and if you succeed, no one who disagrees with you will have a leg to stand on.
>
> No where, absolutely NO WHERE, have I advocated ignoring any rules. Yes I want to see the rules changed. But I shouldn’t have to “go though the proper channels” just to express an opinion on a discussion board. 😒
You do if you want to be taken seriously.
---
### Author:  [@MHoffpauir](https://forum.uschess.org/u/MHoffpauir)
#### Post date: [December 26, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/76 "2009-12-26T00:35:22Z")
A most unusual situation indeed! It’s hard to fathom how Y didn’t see that X’s flag had fallen, especially when the TD came over and X asked the TD to add 2 min because of Y’s illegal move. Oh well, that’s the situation.
I am going to assume the players were using an Analog clock (but it doesn’t matter). Adding “2 min” to X’s clock would most likely put X at some increment of time remaining between 2 minutes and 0. If it doesn’t, then I’ simply add the two minutes and allow play to continue. As a TD, I can’t mention to X, “Hey X, your flag has already fallen,” or “your 2 minutes doesn’t get you above 0.” Play has to continue because the players have to call the flag fall, not the TD. Regardless, play proceeded as indicated in the scenario, and X won because Y ran out of time “first.”
What makes this one really interesting is what would happen when the players are using a digital clock that the TD doesn’t know how to set … and the TD asks one of the players to “add 2 min to X’s clock.” And, if it just so happens that Y is the person adding the time and he then spots that X’s flag has fallen … now what do you do? I would rule that the game is over because Y saw that X’s flag had fallen even though it was during the time in which the TD was making a ruling.
---
### Author:  [@harveylerman](https://forum.uschess.org/u/harveylerman)
#### Post date: [December 26, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/77 "2009-12-26T01:45:00Z")
> [@Steve\_Immitt](#):
>
> > [@rfeditor](#):
> >
> > > [@Harold S.](#):
> > >
> > > tsawmiller wrote:
> > >
> > > > [@](#):
> > > >
> > > > My opinion? He listens to the complaint first. If it’s not enough to supercede (sic) the flag being down, the TD can rule the complaint out of order since the complainant’s flag is down.
> > >
> > > The TD may not do as you suggest unless this is announced as a rule variation in advance. In order for the TD to point out the flag he must violate rules 13C1 and 13C14. Doing so is clearly assisting one of the players to the point that he wins a game he might not otherwise win. A player that does not notice a fallen flag has only himself to blame and deserves to suffer the consequences of his ignorance. The TD is required to be impartial, or he has no business being a TD.
> > >
> > > If the TD waits until the game is completed, then it would be acceptable to mention the the flag could have been called.
> > >
> > > If you, as TD, called the flag and the losing player appealed your decision, what would your defense be? You certainly can’t plead ignorance of the rules.
> >
> > That’s your interpretation of the rule. I don’t accept it, because it leads to absurd consequences – specifically, allowing a player to make a claim after his flag is (physically) down. Since the conclusion is unacceptable, the language must construed be in a way to save the rule while avoiding the result. One way to do this in the case Tim describes is for the director to say, not “You lose on time,” but rather “I’m rejecting your claim because your flag is down” The opponent would still have to make a claim in order to win on time. He’d have to be pretty stupid not to under those circumstances, but the player should have thought of that before stopping the clocks and summoning the TD.
>
> Once he is summoned to the game and asked to make a ruling, I think the TD should quote the rule to the players and talk to the players in the third person:
>
> “Just to let you know, the USCF Rule on Illegal Moves In Sudden Death states:
> ‘If, in a sudden death control, a player completes an illegal move by pressing the clock, in addition to the usual obligation to make a legal move with the touched piece if possible, two minutes shall be added to the remaining time of the opponent of the player who made the illegal move.’
> Is one of the players in this game making some kind of claim? What, specifically is the claim?”
>
> ```
> But I think a [i]much [/i]more likely scenario than the above one would be one where
> White claims Black just completed an illegal move and then White's flag immediately fell;
> while
> Black claims White's flag fell immediately before Black completed his last move, which happened to be an illegal move.
>
> ```
* * *
```
I don't believe that I would allow a player who's "flag" is physically down to make a claim which would raise his flag. I might agree to his claim, but I wouldn't raise his flag.
In a worst case scenerio, I'd fall back to the "TD is God" Rule, 14J, and declair the game a draw.
```
* * *
---
### Author:  [@artichoke](https://forum.uschess.org/u/artichoke)
#### Post date: [December 26, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/78 "2009-12-26T15:54:21Z")
Is there something in the rules that answers the question unambiguously: if a player’s flag is down (for less than two minutes if that is known) and he gets two minutes added, does it raise the flag?
---
### Author:  [@sloan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/sloan)
#### Post date: [December 26, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/79 "2009-12-26T18:50:22Z")
> [@artichoke](#):
>
> Is there something in the rules that answers the question unambiguously: if a player’s flag is down (for less than two minutes if that is known) and he gets two minutes added, does it raise the flag?
If the flag is down, he can’t make a claim.
BUT - if no player has pointed out the flag, then the flag is NOT down.
More than that may depend on the actual clock being used, and the TD will have to rely on RULE 1.
With an analog clock, the physical flag is the only indicator, and it may be physically impossible to set the clock to 5:59 without raising the physical flag. With a digital clock (depending on model and settings) it might be possible to set it to 31:00 remaining in the second time control.
If I were called to the board in the first case, I would act as if the flag had been raised - simply because there us no other option.
In the second case, we need to probe further. WHY are we adding time to a clock? At least one reason is that time came off that clock while the player was dealing with the opponent’s infraction. We don’t know how much time precisely - two minutes seems like more than enough but nit too much. So, if the flag fell BECAUSE if the opponent’s infraction it canNOT BE CORRECT to leave the flag down. You should raise it (and, as much as possible NOT call attention to the fact that you are doing so).
---
### Author:  [@harveylerman](https://forum.uschess.org/u/harveylerman)
#### Post date: [December 26, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476/80 "2009-12-26T22:09:35Z")
If the TD is to ignore the fact that a flag is “down” in all situations, I believe “unfair” rulings can be made. For instance in 14G2 (or 16T), if a player calls for the TD, makes a win claim that his opponent’s flag is down, but his own flag is “down” without anyone mentioning it, you’d agree with the claim and give him the win. I wouldn’t unless the rule book was changed to explicitedly indicate this; I’d go with 14J after 1A.
[Previous page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/illegal-move-claim-after-claimants-flag-already-fell/11476.md?page=5)