Originally Posted by
Pierre Dénommée
In his book the Chess Organisers' Hanbook, which is now obsolete because it refers to outdated laws of Chess, IA Stewart Reuben, former Word Championship arbiter, outlined that arbiters are obligated to strictly enforced the Laws of Chess. A situation could arise in which strict enforcement would lead to a poor decision. Local Appeal Committees have greater power then arbiters and are not bound by the strict application of the Laws of Chess. For instance, an appeal committee did rule that a game must be brought back to a previous position despite the fact that no Article in the Laws of Chess was allowing for such a decision in this specific case.
It is not that IA are incapable of seeing the big picture, it is that they are forbidden from doing so. Since this book has been written, FIDE did add this article 12.2.1 (arbiters must) ensure fair play but it is unclear if this article releases the arbiter from his duty to enforce the rules when fair play and strict observance are in conflict.
Mr. Reuben was secretary of he Rules Commission when he wrote that and the book displayed a FIDE logo, making it quite official. So until the AC or the RC decides otherwise, arbiters still need to strictly enforce the Laws of Chess. According to an old USCF source, an arbiter who believe that strict enforcement would be unfair should advice the player of his right to appeal.
It should be noted that Appeal Committee duties and arbiters duties are distinct. Serving on an Appeal Committee has no impact on arbiters inactivity and arbiters promotion.