If you have been living under a rock for the last year, then you probably do not know that five brave men from Poland won the Electronic Sports World Cup tournament in Counter-Strike last year. They won it as PGS Gaming and for PGS Gaming, and the invitation to defend the title goes to PGS Gaming.

Controversy arose when it turned that after moving to Meet Your Makers the five brave men that won the ESWC lost the right to defend their trophy. According to the ESWC rules, the performance of the players belongs to the name they played for and under. The shirts will be re-invited to the ESWC, but not the players.

Rules are rules, they are there to be followed, without exceptions. Everyone knows why. Why do people create rules in the first place? And what good is a rule that does not serve its original purpose?

I am a judo referee with ten years of experience. I was taught that rules should protect the integrity of the sport, to safeguard against absurdities. This very rule can make a complete mockery out of the ESWC finals. All PGS needs to do is send their writing staff as the title defenders to stay in a five star hotel booked by the ESWC. Would it be a consolation for the ESWC if PGS is lambasted left and right if the finals event becomes a laughing stock? That the management of PGS Gaming would never do such a thing does not justify the existence of such a dangerous contingency.

The second thing I learned as a referee is that there is an intention behind every rule. There is a reason, a purpose to the rule, and it should not be forgotten along the way. Let me give an example:

There used to be a point penalty for stepping outside of the competition area because competitors would leave the area in order to avoid an attack. The rule was made in order to eliminate this kind of “negative judo.” Several years later, the penalty rule was changed almost completely because players would try to score points by getting their opponent to leave the mat instead of throwing him.

It was not the intention of the International Judo Federation to allow players to win fights without really using judo. The purpose was to stop negative judo, so as soon as the penalty started rewarding it, the rule was overhauled.

What was the intention behind giving ESWC champions autoberths into the next season's finals? It was to see that the players that won the tournament come back and defend their title. In today's reality this is not the case.

As it is today, there is no champion to defend the title! According to the ESWC rules, the champion does not exist at the moment because PGS Gaming does not have a CS team. The five players that won the event in 2007 are still on the same team together but they are not the ESWC champions anymore.

They have no right to defend the title is as if they were not even there. They will have to qualify like everyone else. Imagine a situation where kuben, Loord, LUq, NEO and TaZ, the ESWC 2007 champions, are in attendance at the ESWC finals this year. And their championship title is defended by five brave men from Madagaskar!

Most likely, PGS Gaming will not hire five CS players from Madagaskar (as good a country as any, by the way, please do not get offended). But there is no one to top stop them. What moral right would those brave Madagascans have to defend a championship title won by someone else?

If MYM.pl beats the five brave Madagascans from PGS Gaming in the 2008 final, will Matthieu Dallon tell the press that the Polish team defeated the title defenders? If PGS Gaming does not get a Counter-Strike team and MYM.pl qualifies for the event, will Matthieu Dallon say that the title defenders could not attend the event because they disbanded?

Is this the idea the ESWC officials had in mind when they created their rules? Was this the intention? Does the rule serve its original purpose? My answer is: no, I do not think so.