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 ***
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:
