Calling the arbiter

Yes, that is a good option. Or stop the clock and call an arbiter.

No he wasn't correct. He should have stopped the clocks immediately. The correct procedure was to press his clock immediately the piece was knocked over. Since it was clearly an accident, the arbiter would be incorrect to punish the player who knocked the piece over. If, however, it were to happen often, then the arbiter would be correct to warn him and perhaps employ sanctions. I got the impression that the arbiter didn't know what he was doing.

Most likely, Sergei was hoping to get a few seconds added to his clock, or time subttacted from Hikaru's clock due to the error by Hikaru. Apparently the Arbitrator disagreed. Looks like all Segei got for his effort is wasting time on his own  clock.

I do think think it was a legit question on part of the OP.

Although it's obvious a minor error on part of Hikaru, and not worthy of calling an arbitor, it's clarity is more apparent when looking at a video of it, and less apparent to Sergie, who was no doubt lost in thought, and not happy to get his concentration broken.

Did Sethuraman knock them over more than twice? If he did that then it's understandable. If not, he shouldn't have lost. I know of at least one International FIDE senior arbiter who habitually makes bad judgments and is biassed depending on whether he knows or dislikes someone. Back when I used to play in tournaments there were various ECF arbiters who didn't know the rules properly but for a FIDE Senior Arbiter it is inexcusable. I was once warned in a tournament for speaking loudly when I wasn't saying a word. Afterwards I challenged him about it and he told me it was clearly my voice. Since it wasn't, the man was a liar. There must be a moral to this somewhere.

It wasn't blitz chess, it was rapid. And yes i am familiar with the rule that a player should correct his pieces on his own time, but it happened accidentaly just after he pressed his clock and put the piece back in just a fraction of a second. If he took like a half hour to do so, i would understand there would be need for arbitrary assistance, but in this instance? I would feel like a real d*ck for calling an arbiter. Also, it happened at the corner of the board, totally not interfering with Zhigalko's play.

Here's Naka's comment on that 

The problem is... Which piece did he touch first? It's clearly the rook. That should make it an illegal move since chess is played by FIDE rules. Not by USCF rules.

Some people can find the 'sportsmanship' is a BS word that can create conflict between rule and ethics.take the 'Mankading out' in cricket for example

Good, so you completely agree with my own thoughts on the matter. Good for you.

A lot of people who play chess do have issues with self-consciousness and perhaps they use chess as a sort of shield from the world just as others would use stamp collecting. If you wish to interpret that as "uptightness" that's your opinion but the people concerned probably aren't going to worry about it because they live in their own world where what you call "pedantry" is probably normal. In fact, there are ranges of behavioural characteristics throughout humanity and it's best to accept that unless the behaviour is damaging, perhaps.

Regarding the incident, my impression was that Zhigalko was deliberately using gamesmanship in calling the arbiter, in an attempt to unsettle his opponent. That is my personal opinion and you may disagree.

Happy New Year to you and to all Armenians.

Nakamura castles with both hands against Jan Nepomniatchtchi, what's that to do with Nakamura accidentally knocking over a rook when pressing his clock in his game against Zhigalko? Nothing. Nevertheless, I'm frankly extremely surprised that Nakamura did this (typical off-hand blitz thing). It's not an illegal move since he moved the rook first, but Nepomniatchtchi could have insisted on Nakamura playing Rf8.

I started this thread for arbiter cases in general. So it doesn't need to have to do with Nakamura knocking over his rook in his game against Zhigalko.

According to the rules when castling, you need to move the king first. Not the rook. So technically Nakamura did make an illegal move. If it wasn't an illegal move, Nepo could've insisted on nothing. Adding that makes your comment quite contradictory.

Forfeiting a player for knocking pieces over? Who is this bozo of an arbiter? There's no support for this in the laws of chess.

Tell me how Naka is supposed to replace the piece on his own time when he's already hit the clock prior to knocking it over, and also considering the fact that this game is played on increment, so hitting the clock would give Naka more time back. You're just cherry-picking one rule and ignoring the rest. There's also rules on accidentally knocking over pieces, and it specifically says it's not illegal if unintentional. You're just dumb.

Basically, the arbiter didn't know what he was doing.

What if you knock your King over?

в сем привет