A player who is eligible for both a place prize and a class prize of an identical amount shall receive the place prize. A player who is eligible for more than one class prize of an identical amount shall receive the prize for the highest class involved. A player who is eligible for prizes of identical amounts, with one being a rating-based class prize and the other being a prize for juniors, seniors, etc., shall receive the rating-based class prize."
I notice here it only uses the term “class” prize and not “under” prize.
Also, wouldn’t the statement “A player who is eligible for more than one class prize of an identical amount shall receive the prize for the highest class involved”, really only come about when dealing with “under” prizes instead of “class” prizes?
I guarantee that you can’t come up with a tournament hypothetical so stupid that someone, somewhere hasn’t tried it.
I mean heck it was hypothesized on these forums to have a set of U2000 quads with something like EF $2100 and prizes for the first four places of $2000 to get every player a rating floor.
So basically in rule 32B4, the term “class” means something different compared to when the term “class” is used in other rules. Another secret handshake.
“33C. A common variation on class prizes is the use of under prizes for players below a specified rating…”
The Rulebook clearly points out that an “under prize” is a variation of a “class prize”. While you may not agree with this, or it may not be ideal for this clarification to come after various previous references to class prizes, it does clearly point out for everyone, including new TDs, that under prizes also fall under the definition of class prizes.
A problem with this definition of “class” prizes is that there are cases in the rulebook where “class” prizes means only class prizes and does not include under prizes.
So essentially in the rulebook, sometimes when the term “class” prizes is used it is referring only to class prizes and in other cases “class” prizes is referring to class and under prizes.
Instead of arguing about this, it would simply be better to fix the terminology in the rulebook.
The “simplest” thing is to leave it alone (since it seems to be good enough for everyone except you) and direct our limited time and energy toward more important things. I might also add that if you hadn’t brought it up, nobody would be arguing about it.
“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” Sometimes, things really are good enough, and it’s a waste of time and energy trying to achieve an impossible perfection.
100 years from now, when all of us are long gone, the rulebook will still not be perfect. In the meantime, are you sure that you don’t have anything better to do than constantly nitpicking the rulebook?
You don’t have to explicitly say it to imply it. There is nothing wrong with the rule in question except that it isn’t perfect – and it doesn’t need to be. It’s clear enough just as it is.
A forward reference to 33C would be helpful, but I seriously doubt that anyone is actually confused. And if “class” is replaced by “rating-restricted” throughout, there would need to be a definition of that since (unlike “class”) isn’t a term in active use.
There is plenty that is confusing about prize distribution (since it can be devilishly complicated in some cases), but this isn’t included.