Allowing Players to finish/complete the Game even after time has been called

[Jariel]

This recently happened in one of our major tournaments. The match is a 1 hour game and best 2 out of 3. During the 3rd round time has been called normally a tie would have been handed out to them given. However one of the players asked the judge if they can finish the game (determine a winner instead of a tie) the judge agreed (they have both 3 prizes by the end of last 3 turns). My question is, is allowing the game to continue (assuming both players agreed) a legal or acceptable?

In my honest opinion i believe that it shouldnt have not been allowed and a tie should have been given right away irregardless if both players agree. Need help/comments/opinions

 

[bullados]

Was this in Swiss, or Top Cut? There are two different sets of rules for those situations.

 

[King Piplup]

In my honest opinion i believe that it shouldnt have not been allowed and a tie should have been given right away irregardless if both players agree. Need help/comments/opinions

Assuming this is Swiss due to the presence of ties, as a player, I would be concerned by the "a tie should be given right away" remark. A concession is not a certain hallmark of any sketchy dealings; there've been times concessions are given for other reasons in the event of a tie. The floor rules give the players the option to sign the slip, not have it signed for them.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cyrus]

If it's swiss, then that's not only not allowed; it's a gross injustice to every other player at the tournament. That judge should lose his professorship and be barred from ever judging again.

If it's single elimination, you play until a winner.

 

[tutti]

If it's swiss, then that's not only not allowed; it's a gross injustice to every other player at the tournament. That judge should lose his professorship and be barred from ever judging again.

If it's single elimination, you play until a winner.

This covers it. If time permitted, I would likely allow them to continue playing as a friendly game, however the game as it stands when time is called is how the game ended as far as the tournament is concerned.

 

[PokePop]

Treating any match differently that how other players' matches are treated is a big issue.
No one should ever be given any special treatment.
Ever.

My hope is that there was a time extension on the match that was not clear to the observer.
We can only hope.

 

[Jariel]

Assuming this is Swiss due to the presence of ties, as a player, I would be concerned by the "a tie should be given right away" remark. A concession is not a certain hallmark of any sketchy dealings; there've been times concessions are given for other reasons in the event of a tie. The floor rules give the players the option to sign the slip, not have it signed for them.

I believe it would only be fair to apply a tie since in earlier matches this is how he, the judge in question, automatically decides when time is called. No chance for players to decide whether to decide on a winner or call a tie. Iam well aware that sometimes players agree to get a tie or let the other one win especially in cases of top cuts to allow themselves or their friends to join the top cut and have been considered as an acceptable practice. But seeing as how he dealt with the earlier situation then the same should have been applied in all the succeeding matches

Treating any match differently that how other players' matches are treated is a big issue.
No one should ever be given any special treatment.
Ever.

My hope is that there was a time extension on the match that was not clear to the observer.
We can only hope.

Nope there was no time extensions and as it stands it was a special treatment allowing them to finish instead of giving ties which the judge did to the other players. Atleast Iam sure that what he did was illegal/ not in the "spirit of the game"

Thanks for the feedbacks

Cyrus
If it's swiss, then that's not only not allowed; it's a gross injustice to every other player at the tournament. That judge should lose his professorship and be barred from ever judging again.

If it's single elimination, you play until a winner.

Maybe this is something to consider.

 

[DukeFireBird]

imo, that tournament is now under a ton of scrutiny, as the result of that game is now muddied, since the tie should of happened, and instead was changed to have a winner.