I wonder if anybody (other than me) has noted and consider the effect of the change to Law 85 in 2007?
1997 Law 85 said:
When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he shall proceed as follows:
A. Director’s Assessment
If the Director is satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84.
B. Facts Not Determined
If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he shall make a ruling that will permit play to continue, and notify the players of their right to appeal.
2007 Law 85 said:
When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:
A. Director’s Assessment
1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.
2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84.
B. Facts Not Determined
If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue.
Before 2007 the Director was free to assess facts (if at all he found himself able to) in any way he found suitable.
The 2007 laws introduced what can only be understood as a limitation on how the Director shall proceed in assessing the facts. From now on he may only use evidence that he is able to collect. (However WBFLC intended the term "evidence" to be understood)
We can only wonder what kind of information WBFLC had in mind that should no longer be available to the Director when assessing facts?
However, in a situation with disputed facts: Whatever a player asserts to me, if his assertion is in conflict with what his opponent asserts to me I shall assign a weight of exactly
zero to any such assertion that cannot be supported by witness statements or other proofs.
Exit any discussion on how we understand "evidence".
Bluejak has touched the question of responsibily for an explanation to be correctly understood. I draw a parallell to the alert regulation which (at least in Norway) clearly states that unless the opponent has recognized the alert the Director shall rule that no alert was made. When the screen regulation specifies that questions and answers are to be made in writing then the responsibility that the explanation has been correctly received must be with the player giving the explanation. He has every reason to secure his interests by giving the explanation in writing.