[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
You're possibly depriving those two players of his chips that they would have won.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what. How can anyone say that havign a dealer take in someone's bet and then taking his cards is fair. Player's are to win these cards on the strength of their cards, not on a mistake. It is unfair to the other players in the touranmetn to give these two a shot at money that has no cards to beat them. This is the same reason a disqualified palyer has their chips removed from play rather than blinded off.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, since it's a tournament, you're affecting all other players since seat 10 may have more chips than he would have had if he lost the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

And he has less than if the dealer had not taken his cards.

Another thing that is missed is an all-in player should "protected." This isnt' adressed specifially in most rules becasue NL was an after thougth when most rules were written, but the rules call for a player to be "protected" when it takes a major mistake to kill there hand. The written example is a stud player's up cards are consdiered protected. If I were to write a modern rule book I would add all-in player's as a protected class as everyone sees their chips in the center and htey have bet all their chips so they do not have a chip to protect their cards.