So you'd give someone a penalty for slow play if they were using Darmanitan, insisting on using a coin as their randomizer, even if they were flipping each coin in a reasonable amount of time?
Head Judge Banning Coins
- Thread starter Ditto
- Start date
- Status
So you'd give someone a penalty for slow play if they were using Darmanitan, insisting on using a coin as their randomizer, even if they were flipping each coin in a reasonable amount of time?
meganium45
Active Member
For the record, the easiest way for ANY player to have me ban a randomizer he is using as HJ is tell me that I can't do it.
I won't ban coins as a class, but if I really don't like a coin, I have the right as a HJ or TO to disallow a randomizer, Not at the request of a player, but at my own request.
Hope to never have to do it...but for the record, I have told people they couldn't use certain coins or dice, especially when they go into their bag for a "crucial flip" (love you psyduck).
Thanks
Meganium45
I won't ban coins as a class, but if I really don't like a coin, I have the right as a HJ or TO to disallow a randomizer, Not at the request of a player, but at my own request.
Hope to never have to do it...but for the record, I have told people they couldn't use certain coins or dice, especially when they go into their bag for a "crucial flip" (love you psyduck).
Thanks
Meganium45
You would ban it just because you don't like or because you think something is wrong with the coin?
(Note keep all coins out of bag so i am prepared for any flip.) :lol:
Vince, I have to respectfully disagree. If the coin is altered, or not an official pokemon coin, then you certainly could, but I don't believe that you can do it if you just don't like the timing or reason for wanting to use the coin.
meganium45
Active Member
Respectfully, as the TO, I will never tolerate a player telling me I "have" to allow something that I do not believe is correct for any reason.
The moment a player has that kind of power, all players are in trouble.
Now, I will disagree with the position that some TOs are taking that players "have" to use certain randomizers, but until the powers that be at Pokemon come down on one side or the other, it is not my place to overrule another TO in an event that I am not running.
Vince
The moment a player has that kind of power, all players are in trouble.
Now, I will disagree with the position that some TOs are taking that players "have" to use certain randomizers, but until the powers that be at Pokemon come down on one side or the other, it is not my place to overrule another TO in an event that I am not running.
Vince
waynegg
CotD Editor<br>Forum Moderator
When the tournament rules expressly say that "x" is allowed, then "x" should be allowed. I don't see where that should be left up for interpretation, by player or TO. This is the rule in question:
Any coin released with any Pokémon TCG product from EX Ruby & Sapphire on should be considered fair and impartial. That means unless they're altered or misformed, it's not up to discretion. It's legal. Don't understand the hubbub.
Any coin released with any Pokémon TCG product from EX Ruby & Sapphire on should be considered fair and impartial. That means unless they're altered or misformed, it's not up to discretion. It's legal. Don't understand the hubbub.
Exactly my reason for this thread.
ShadowCard
Active Member
Ditto, meganium45 was talking about the same thing I was talking about. Not banning all coins as a class but instead disallowing a specific coin because the player has brought its fairness and partiality into question. When a player says "I will not use a different pokemon coin even though they all should be considered fair and impartial, I will only use this one here pokemon coin," the player is testing the staff to find an error with it. What is so special about that one coin that you insist on using it? How is that not ruleslawyering? No one has addressed those questions. Judges ask players to change card sleeves for almost any imperfection and even when there are no imperfections. How is a coin different?
What happens if a player does have to flip 5+ times for Darmanitan multiple times during the game, on top of SSU, Crushing Hammer, and other cards? I used to play FRLG Exeggutor (Big Eggsplosion is the same as DarMAXitan) and would be able to flip 10 coins at the same time for the attack. Instead I rolled 10 dice all at the same time or separately one by one if asked (still faster than flipping 10 coins). I guess I'll have to wait to see if it actually happens. Such a player should be skilled at flipping a coin if the deck is so heavily flip-based and the player insists on flipping a coin, so it should not be a problem.
---------- Post added 03/14/2012 at 12:35 AM ----------
Of course, if the player is skilled at flipping a coin and makes flipping 5+ coins look good, there is no reason for a penalty.
That was my opinion too. It appears that our only response is "the opponent can use the coin too." If there is something amiss about it, the opponent gains the advantage too.
bolded for emphasis. That's not what I said. For a slow play penalty, the player would have to be taking an unreasonable amount of time to flip the coin. Observable evidence can include that the coin flips over/behind the two players onto the floor in multiple attempts.
What happens if a player does have to flip 5+ times for Darmanitan multiple times during the game, on top of SSU, Crushing Hammer, and other cards? I used to play FRLG Exeggutor (Big Eggsplosion is the same as DarMAXitan) and would be able to flip 10 coins at the same time for the attack. Instead I rolled 10 dice all at the same time or separately one by one if asked (still faster than flipping 10 coins). I guess I'll have to wait to see if it actually happens. Such a player should be skilled at flipping a coin if the deck is so heavily flip-based and the player insists on flipping a coin, so it should not be a problem.
---------- Post added 03/14/2012 at 12:35 AM ----------
To add to this, I was putting out the idea that a player who is choosing to flip 5+ coins is choosing a slower method compared to rolling 5+ dice. Why would a player choose the slower method if not to manipulate the clock? It is using the rules to gain an advantage.
Of course, if the player is skilled at flipping a coin and makes flipping 5+ coins look good, there is no reason for a penalty.
It's not ruleslawyering because there should never be a case when the judge asks a player to use a different coin. Either the coin is official and unaltered, or it isn't official, or it is altered. If it's the first option then a judge should say nothing, if it's either of the second two options then the judge should rule that way and the coin not be used.
There is no where in there where a judge's feelings or concerns or thoughts come into play. It's completely black and white. So there should never be a time when a judge ASKS a player to use a different coin. The only time a coin should be talked about is if there's something wrong with it, and then the judge RULES that the coin can't be used. There should never BE a situation where the player says, "I will not use a different pokemon coin even though they all should be considered fair and impartial, I will only use this one pokemon coin," because the player is never asked anything in which that would be an appropriate response.
Nothing happens. That's how your deck is designed. So what?
Rolling 10 dice on a table is a horrible idea.
At the tournament that I was at, players were only allowed to roll the "official" die given to them at the start of the tournament. So they were actually forced to roll one die at a time. This is perfectly fine.
ShadowCard
Active Member
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.
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.
The penalty would not be for using a coin. The penalty would be for game tempo.
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.
waynegg
CotD Editor<br>Forum Moderator
It's irrelevant whether the fairness and partiality have been brought into question. That isn't one of the criteria for disallowing an official coin (see rule I quoted). Only those with alterations or which weren't cast properly are disallowed. There's really no other point of discussion.
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
Did I just read a professor saying fairness is irrelevant? SOTG disagrees.
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
I disagree. If fairness has been called into question in any aspect of an event, something needs to be done. To hear that a Professor would outright dismiss an issue where a core value of SOTG was called into question is depressing, to say the least.
Chairman Kaga
Active Member
"Should" is not the same as "must".
Puff N Stuff
New Member
I would laugh in a judges face if he told me that I couldn't use any kind of randomizer other then the one he states is ok. : /
If the coin(s) were altered, damaged, worn, etc. I could understand.. But to just say newp can't use it? Yeah.. No.. Would not fly..
If the coin(s) were altered, damaged, worn, etc. I could understand.. But to just say newp can't use it? Yeah.. No.. Would not fly..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
NoPoke
Active Member
I suspect that the floor rules were changed in response to the incident at USA nationals last year. Calling the additional text a change though is wrong nothing changed from teh previous version in terms of what judges could or could not do.
The additional text (one sentence) does not say a lot of things in particular it does not say that the ONLY reason that a judge may disallow a particular coin is in the given list. In fact the given list is mostly about what constitutes an acceptable flip and very little to do with legal coins. That is restricted to the statement that all POP coins since EX R&S should be considered fair and impartial. So a judge cannot ban a POP coin from EX R&S on based upon its fairness or impartiality. That still leaves lots of other reasons why a judge CAN ask you not to use a coin. The floor rules are not supposed to be a legal tomb of encyclopedic proportions.
There is no UNLESS in the new text either.
The additional text (one sentence) does not say a lot of things in particular it does not say that the ONLY reason that a judge may disallow a particular coin is in the given list. In fact the given list is mostly about what constitutes an acceptable flip and very little to do with legal coins. That is restricted to the statement that all POP coins since EX R&S should be considered fair and impartial. So a judge cannot ban a POP coin from EX R&S on based upon its fairness or impartiality. That still leaves lots of other reasons why a judge CAN ask you not to use a coin. The floor rules are not supposed to be a legal tomb of encyclopedic proportions.
There is no UNLESS in the new text either.
Last edited:
ShadowCard
Active Member
Ah NoPoke, a thoughtful post, as always 
(I've exceeded my "Thanks" for the day)
It occurred to me, the side of this conversation where we look at a player's ability to flip a coin in the interest of time would not normally occur in Japan because, when Tego reported what a lower-level tournament was like, he mentioned that there is no time limit. There may be no concern about a player who cannot flip a coin reliably because they would end up just flipping and flipping until they got it right with no worry about when time will be called.
Ditto, you keep saying "the judge should not be asking..." I remember a post from PokePop where he replied to my question with "The judge can ask about any darn thing he wants." I unfortunately cannot find it. I remember it because I found the comment particularly bold. I think it was in reply to asking about what is in a player's hand and possibly Scramble Energy or some other card that would impact a PL (if anyone wants to look for it), but the comment applies that the judge can ask about anything concerning a game when making a ruling.
Ditto, let me see if I can summerize to where you can hopefully agree.
1) A pokemon coin may be disallowed if it is damaged*. (even though the rules as written would allow one, it is clarified that it cannot be used through an ATRT post)
2) In the absence of damage, a player may be asked to use a different coin but does not have to comply. A failure to comply cannot result in penalty.
3) Players may get penalties for impacts on the game because of the player's insistence on using a coin, such as Game Tempo if the player demonstrates an inability to reliably flip a coin. However, flipping a large number of coins is not a reason for a Game Tempo penalty if the player demonstrates an ability to reliably flip a coin and complete the entire action, requiring the many flips, in a timely fashion.
*To clarify damage, a "worn" coin counts as damaged, correct? For example, if the coin's holographic side is worn to the point that it is difficult for a judge walking by the game to tell which side is heads or tails.
(I've exceeded my "Thanks" for the day)It occurred to me, the side of this conversation where we look at a player's ability to flip a coin in the interest of time would not normally occur in Japan because, when Tego reported what a lower-level tournament was like, he mentioned that there is no time limit. There may be no concern about a player who cannot flip a coin reliably because they would end up just flipping and flipping until they got it right with no worry about when time will be called.
Ditto, you keep saying "the judge should not be asking..." I remember a post from PokePop where he replied to my question with "The judge can ask about any darn thing he wants." I unfortunately cannot find it. I remember it because I found the comment particularly bold. I think it was in reply to asking about what is in a player's hand and possibly Scramble Energy or some other card that would impact a PL (if anyone wants to look for it), but the comment applies that the judge can ask about anything concerning a game when making a ruling.
I am not saying it is unlikely--I never said that. I'm saying that when it happens, there is something else going on besides a player being insistant on using a coin because the rules say he can.
Isolating this statement to apply to only randomizers (coins or dice), it still cannot be correct that things like past history cannot be considered when it comes to a judgement about a player and a specific randomizer.
Ditto, let me see if I can summerize to where you can hopefully agree.
1) A pokemon coin may be disallowed if it is damaged*. (even though the rules as written would allow one, it is clarified that it cannot be used through an ATRT post)
2) In the absence of damage, a player may be asked to use a different coin but does not have to comply. A failure to comply cannot result in penalty.
3) Players may get penalties for impacts on the game because of the player's insistence on using a coin, such as Game Tempo if the player demonstrates an inability to reliably flip a coin. However, flipping a large number of coins is not a reason for a Game Tempo penalty if the player demonstrates an ability to reliably flip a coin and complete the entire action, requiring the many flips, in a timely fashion.
*To clarify damage, a "worn" coin counts as damaged, correct? For example, if the coin's holographic side is worn to the point that it is difficult for a judge walking by the game to tell which side is heads or tails.
That would be unsportsmanlike conduct. Your penalty would be from that, because you did not respectfully decline the judge's request but instead laughed in his face, rather than from using a coin.
Last edited:
"UNLESS" is my own wording used to explain the concept. There is not IF, THEN or, OTHERWISE either, but are my own words to explain the concept.
It DOES say that the ONLY reason a judge can disallow a randomizer is in that list. It specifically says, they may do X based on a, b, c, etc. If it's not based on a, b, c, etc, then the tournament guidelines have NOT given the judge power to disallow a randomizer.
You can't just insert extra power just because it doesn't say something specific about that instance. It covers the instances where power is given, and in all other cases, power is not given.
Of course the judge can always ask anything. However, that doesn't mean it means anything. If a judge is going to ask a player to do something that isn't in their power to enforce, then there's nothing wrong with that player stating that they are declining the judge's request and will continue on with their right.
A police officer can ASK to search your house, but you have the full right to decline unless they have a warrant. If you decline then you can't be arrested for it. You didn't do anything wrong. The officer overstepped their bounds.
I'm pretty sure I agree with that list.
- Status