Originally Posted by Fiona
everyone is so bent up over some silly arbitrary ideas of which broken rule in the match was more broken then the other...
After all, trying to justify the windmill breaking rule with a weak "Oh, but it didn't disadvantage him much!" excuse when it broke the rules and that's what matters is not how things work when it comes to breaking rules. A broken rule is a broken rule, whether or not it disadvantaged the other guy a lot.
That (broken thoughts because he said things very nicely with conclusions that I disagree with).
If you played thinking there were any rules, there's no sense in arguing over which disqualification was worse than the other. They're both disqualifications, and you were disqualified first. He did a stupid thing by retaliating, but the match was over before he did anything wrong.
You obviously don't have to pay him. You should, but you don't have to.
In your case, the first person to break a rule did it intentionally. In dopi's case, it was an accident. The new scenario would be more like this:
Someone challenges you to a game of basketball.
Near the end, it's near a tie and you [accidentally] knock him down.
The guy knocks you down and makes the winning shot.
This is like a game of checkers where no one can take back a move. One person misses a possible jump, and so accidentally breaks a rule. The other person retaliates by ignoring a jump, which allows him to win the game. Regardless of the fact that one person cheated intentionally and the other accidentally, the game was over after the first person was disqualified.