Calling the arbiter

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.

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

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.

What if you knock your King over?

в сем привет

Can an arbiter intervene and stop the clock if he saw a flag has fallen?

Hello, I am a design student and am working on a project for chess arbiters and would like your insights. Do you think that there should be a brand of only chess arbiters where the training, exams, manual, and every process is handled by them since FIDE is the sole organization who looks after everything in the chess industry?