Deck List Penalties

Discussion in 'Professor Forum' started by Mr_Bond, Jul 28, 2016.

  1. Mr_Bond

    Mr_Bond New Member

    I've been hesitant to post here because there doesn't seem to be any posts in many years!

    This post is for two purposes:
    * I would like feedback on whether I handled this correctly
    * I would like to get the penalty guidelines changed for 2017

    This is regarding the "new" 2016 penalty guidelines for Deck List errors. I'm specifically talking about the language that says:
    "If decklist or deck problems are caught after game play has begun a Game Loss should be issued."

    While this may be reasonable for a major event where matches are decided in two-out-of-three games, it is not at all appropriate for smaller events. My suggestion is to bring back some flexibility into the penalty guidelines.

    Here is my real life example/experience:
    I'm hosting a League Challenge, I collect deck lists, and begin checking them during after the first 30 minute round begins. I find THREE deck lists out of about 20 players that don't add up to 60 cards.

    Here's the breakdown. In all cases, I collect the deck immediately when their game ends and do a deck check:
    * Player 1: Simple handwriting mis-read/non-issue: they wrote 5, but we read it as 9 (energy). No penalty.
    * Player 2: Forgot to list one of their cards. They had lost game one. Issued a warning.
    * Player 3: Forgot to list two of their cards. They had won game one. Issued a warning.

    Unfortunately, at this point, Player 3's opponent, let's call them "Rules Shark," who had just lost 6-0, overhears what is going on and challenges the ruling. I showed them my print-out of the penalty guidelines, but they insisted the rules had been changed. So, I pull up the latest rules from the website and realize Rules Shark is correct--the rules had changed. I see the new wording was changed from (paraphrasing) "Judge has discretion to determine if advantage was gained" to the new "No matter what, you issue a Game Loss."

    I am now stuck awarding Rules Shark with a Match Win and penalizing the "offender," who had a perfectly legitimate deck. His outlook to win this 5-round tournament is now extremely unlikely.

    The problem with this penalty is a "game" is actually the entire match, so the penalty is too severe. Not only does it greatly penalize the "offender," it also unfairly benefits their opponent.
    * Player 2's Round one opponent already had the win, so there was no impact--or was I supposed to give him a round two loss?? And some other player receives a free win??
    * Player 3's Round one opponent, Rules Shark, who didn't even take one prize, now gets a win, even though the opponent had a perfectly legal deck. Or was I supposed to leave that result alone and give the loss for the next round??

    In hindsight, I wished that I had stuck with my original ruling and told Rules Shark I didn't agree with the guidelines because they only made sense for Regionals and above. However, I obviously felt pressured/obligated to follow the published rules and went ahead with what I believed to be a completely unfair ruling.

    We need to recognize that penalties affect best of one and best of 3 tournaments differently and allow for variation in the guidelines.

    Thank you!

    - - - Updated - - -

    By the way, I just re-upped my "Judge Certification." Coincidentally, there is a question on this topic. Yet, none of the choices reflect these new 2016 rules--as you can see, none of the choices are correct based on the newer 2016 rules:


    *** Edited out the question ***
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2016
  2. BJJ763

    BJJ763 Trading Mod Supervisor Staff Member Trader Feedback Mod

    Please do not post Professor Exam questions.

    The Game Loss should have been given for the next round, not a completed round. This way Rules Shark does not gain.
     

Share This Page