How much respect does the chief director deserve?

I treat preople with respect. The respect they deserve. The chief director of New Zealand Bridge, how much respect does he deserve? 

Today I asked him if there was a regulation that meant the law (law 91B) should not be interpreted as written. His answer was a succint, emphatic, all encompassing, "No!" 

Let me remind you of the laws, which I would hope Geursen has at least a passing acquaintence. In particular law 81A2. Law 81 deals with the tournament director's duties and powers. Quite an important law to know and understand if one is a director one would assume. 

"Law 81A 2. Observance of Laws and Regulations The Director is bound by these Laws and by supplementary regulations announced by the sponsoring organisation"

To me this seems quite a strong law. "bound" to me is suggestive of tied tightly, cannot vary from. 

In my question to Geursen it was implicit that the law should be followed. The director after all is bound by it. According to Geursen there is also no regulation that suggests any different interpretation. One would think that therefore any director with any remnant of integrity or just a sense of duty to that which he is charged would be "bound" by the law and further influenced by the quite obvious negative inference from there being no contrary regulation to rule according to the written law - "these laws". Not so Geursen. For reasons unknown, as he has made no attempt to explain, he appears to believe he is above the law and had some god given or inate right to flout the law and rule any which way he himself chooses. And that his charge, director in charge Murray Wiggins is similarly unconstrained by the laws. 

I cannot begin to comprehend the arrogance of that position. I am a NZBridge qualified tournament director. Not to inflate my own position, but simply to illustrate that I do have at least a semi-decent understanding of the law, when I qualified as a club and tournament director I received one of the highest marks obtained in those examinations. In my view, as a director myself, the primary role of a director is to be a servant to the players, in part that is done by applying the laws and announced regulations of the game. It is not achieved by making up some regulation or interpretation to achieve your own end. That is arrogance. What possible motive can a director have for knowingly misapplying the laws and regulations? Remember Geursen freely admits that there is no regulation that allows a ruling contrary to this law's plan meaning. 

This is not the first time Geursen has ruled according to his own agenda. There have been many occasions over the years. At the 2006 national trials he allowed an opponent on the same side of the screen to point out an infraction that had not transferred through the screen. The screen regulations unambiguously said that was an infraction. In a previous NZ pairs he allowed a fouled board to be corrected using a different formula than was written in the regulations. In one interprovincials he refused to allow an appeal by the CD youth team because he thought the time limit in the announced regulation meant 'match' when it said 'session' and two matches were being played in each session. Even if he thinks that was the intention he is bound by the announced regulation. Simply it is not the director's right to write the laws and regulations after the fact. It is the director's responsibility to rule according to the laws and announce regulations. It is patently absurd for the director to make up rules or equivalently rule contrary to existing rules after the fact. 

So basically Geursen and his underling Wiggins are knowingly willing to rule contrary to the written law when there is no regulation nor interpretation that allows them to do rule. 

How much respect does this deserve?