What would you do?
In a blitz game a player promotes in the following manner. The pawn is not placed on the back rank but a queen is put on the promotion square. The pawn is then removed from the board and the opponent's clock started. The opponent claims a win as an illegal move has been played as the pawn had not advanced as is defined in the Laws. Would you uphold the claim?
The position was W: Kc6, Rc5, Pc3, Pa5; B: Kg3, Ra3, Ph3. White has stopped the DGT with Black's flag down and White having one second left, so on the face of it White has won on time.
The issue is that at some point near the end the White pawn on c3 had been knocked over (probably by White) and was lying on its side. This had been rectified by the time the Arbiter got to the board, but it was agreed that White had done this after making the claim.
White said that they had made the last two or three moves with the pawn displaced. Black did not dispute this.
These are the facts. What would you do if you were the arbiter?
The arbiter concerned gave a White win as the facts were not contested and the game was otherwise ended.
It is difficult to see what other result could be given. Had Black made a correct claim that the pawn had been displaced on White's previous move and that White should not have started his clock before replacing the piece then the arbiter would have had to add some time to the Black clock and continue the game.