Judges do not ask players to do something for giggles. If the judge is asking, it likely means the partiality is being called into question. If that doesn't matter because the coin is allowed and the judge cannot prove anything, then look at the player's behavior: why would the player behave in such a defiant way, to continue to use a randomizer that makes the judges turn their eyes to that player's games at every available moment? Because he there is nothing wrong with the coin, or because the judges can't detect the problem with the coin and the player is getting away with exploiting the rules to gain an advantage.
Yes, there are situations in which the player would have to reply because judges don't make such requests for their own amusement. The judge is trying to protect the player from accusations of cheating.
First, let me elaborate about myself a little bit. I've been playing and judging this game for a long time. I've been the head judge of states, masters head judge of regionals, the TO of cities and battle roads, and player since base set. I'm not just some random that wants to stir up trouble. I started this thread because a judge at a tournament that I was playing in BROKE THE RULES. I wanted to make sure that this didn't happen again, so I started this discussion to bring awareness to it.
That being said, you're missing the point. I am well aware that in many aspects of the game, in fact, almost all of them, there is room for judge's discretion. I think this is a good thing, as the rules can't always cover every case that may come up.
HOWEVER, in this case, the rules are 100% clear and EXPLICITLY states that there is no room for interpretation. It says, IF this, THEN that, OTHERWISE something else. So a judge never has to think about anything. They check to see IF the coin is altered or not official, THEN if it is altered or not official they disallow it, OTHERWISE they don't do anything. THAT'S IT. There's no discussion, there's no feelings, there's no past history to consider. It's completely black and white.
Because of this, there's never a way for a player to defy the judge's ruling and still be ok, because the judge should say nothing to the player unless the coin is altered or not official.
Has nothing to do with how the deck is designed. If the deck is designed that way, how has the player not become good at flipping a coin? As you said in your post 56, if it is being done on purpose, then penalize.
You're ignoring the questions, Ditto. Maybe I'm not phrasing them properly. It is not a matter of the deck, it is the player. How does a player use a deck so flip-reliant but be bad at flipping?
PokePop even said, "you can inform the player that you will allow them to continue to use a coin, but that since they have been having problems controlling it and have been offered an option that would eliminate that problem (which is affecting the game play and their opponent), that if they have more issues with flipping the coin properly again, you will be forced to give them a penalty ... which will escalate each time they have that problem. Then offer them the dice again. "
A player using a flip-based deck can't flip a coin reliably on the table but insists on using one? No.
You brought up the hypothetical situation of a player having a highly flippy deck and not being able to flip a coin. Regardless of how likely I feel that is to occur, I answered your situation. Now you're saying that the situation that YOU came up with is unlikely. Please don't bring up irrelevant topics to this thread.
The penalty would not be for using a coin. The penalty would be for game tempo.
This is fine, but has nothing to do with a coin. The same penalty could be given if using a die. So again, this is irrelevant.
bolded for emphasis.
I don't think any seasoned judge would ever say this (seasoned judges, correct me if I'm wrong). Judges always say "consider the player's history." If there is a concern about a habit that has taken place across several events, that is definitely considered in a penalty and may lead to increasing the first penalty for that player at that event. If the judge feels that the player is not experienced with the tournament procedures, the judge may reduce the penalty. Judges are taught to look at signals that players are sending. Such signals trigger concerns that alert the judges that attention may be needed on that game, leading to the discovery of a problem and could influence the penalty.
The use of the same coin, if it appears to welcome partiality, leads to the player being asked to use a different coin. If the player replies, "only this coin and you can't make me change it unless you prove there is something wrong with it," it has trouble written all over it. This player is welcoming accusations of cheating, wants you to prove they are ruleslawyering, and is testing the judges abilities.
In this case, the player is not in the wrong, the JUDGE is in the wrong. The judge should only say something to the player if the coin is altered or not official. Otherwise, the judge says nothing.
If the judge is saying nothing, then there isn't a situation where the player would say, "only this coin and you can't make me change it unless you prove there is something wrong with it," and so there's no point in saying what if a player does this cause it can't happen.
This is exactly the same as a player saying, "I'm playing grass energy and you can't make me change it." Of course this is true, but there's no situation when it would actually come up, unless the judge is trying to make up a rule that they can just ban grass energies from decks.
"Should" is not the same as "must".
In this case, it does. The rules read, "...should...UNLESS X". So unless X is satisfied, then the coin should be considered fair and impartial. The only time that it SHOULDN'T be considered this, is if X is satisfied.