Touch Move

4.6 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. The move is then considered to have been made:

I witnessed a controversial ruling long ago that still bothers me. A player, with no physical handicaps, was very nervous during a classical chess game. He picked up his queen and made a sweeping arm motion towards a far away square. Before reaching the square, he observed something he did not like about his intended move and arrested his arms motion and froze, apparently to consider what square the queen should be placed. During this time the queen hovered over the board. Then the queen slipped out of his hand. He immediately moved his hand to grab it, but not before fell about 3 inches and hit the board and stood upright on a square it could legally move to. On this square the queen was hanging and could be immediately captured. The opponent claimed the touch move rule applied so the move was mandatory. Was the opponent correct?

The FIDE rule above requires an interpretation regarding "released on a square". When the queen was released, it was not on any square unless we have a vertical airspace interpretation. We do not want to create a touch move rule exemption where players can intentionally drop pieces from some height, study the position, and then claim the drop was accidental. Perhaps some USCF rule takes priority over the FIDE rule.

You didn't say what the ruling was.  I assume the tournament director believed him that the release was accidental and let him move the queen to a different square.

Is that right?

Why does this bother you? If the queen had been dropped on a square where it couldn't have legally gone, wouldn't you have agreed with a ruling to require another move with the queen?

Your questions lead me far off from the binary USCF ruling I requested.

But anyhow the answer to your questions are (a) correct (b) I lied. Regarding (c), I am not looking for a persuasive argument to justify allowing another Queen move, but rather a strict interpretation of USCF law.

I told the TD I did not see airspace between the hand and the piece. This was technically true. My focus was on having fun (as an introverted chess spectator), the clock, the players' emotions, and a decent square for the queen to move to. I was not there to get subpoenaed for a very public controversial trial that would depend on my speed vision tested over the time a Queen falls 3 inches. I omitted explaining that that the trajectory of the piece straight down and the sound it made when it hit the board removed any reasonable doubt that the piece might have stayed in contact with the guys hand all the way down. The TD based his decision on my testimony and allowed a different Queen move. I later worried that my relative likes and dislikes (at that time) for the two players biased my testimony.

Is the USCF rule that the TD has enough wiggle room to give an "accidental" verdict on intent and allow another move? 

I think every instance of unwanted touching should be taken seriously by tournament directors.