Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

"Let's Play it out"

PokePop

Administrator
Staff member
Let's start a discussion.
It's one of the last Swiss rounds. The last or next to last one. Two players near the top table are playing a best of 3 game. Based on their records, they figure that with a win, one of them will make or possibly make top cut, but if they tie, then neither player has a chance to make it.

So, they're playing the match out and time is called. As it stands, the match will be a tie with an incomplete 3rd game. They discuss it among themselves and decide that they are going to just keep on playing to decide the match based on a complete 3rd game. If asked what turn they are on, they're going to say that they don't remember, so they can keep on playing.

How should this be handled?
 
Let's start a discussion.
It's one of the last Swiss rounds. The last or next to last one. Two players near the top table are playing a best of 3 game. Based on their records, they figure that with a win, one of them will make or possibly make top cut, but if they tie, then neither player has a chance to make it.

So, they're playing the match out and time is called. As it stands, the match will be a tie with an incomplete 3rd game. They discuss it among themselves and decide that they are going to just keep on playing to decide the match based on a complete 3rd game. If asked what turn they are on, they're going to say that they don't remember, so they can keep on playing.

How should this be handled?

Great topic!

I have an idea of what I would do in this situation, but first a question in regards to the "game state". How exactly is "game state" defined? How would "game state" be defined in a casual game? How would "game state" be defined in a tournament where time limit is a factor? Is the current time left on the clock apart of the "game state", is the current turn of +3 part of the "game state"?

I know how I would define "game state", but would like to hear others opinion on how this is defined, especially in a tournament setting.

United States National Championship Judge / State Championship Head Judge
 
Not sure I understand the significance of your question.
Generally, I don't think I'd include the time remaining as part of the game state.
 
Not sure I understand the significance of your question.
Generally, I don't think I'd include the time remaining as part of the game state.

I'll reword, is it the players' responsibility to keep track of which turn of +3 it is currently is? Yes, of course it is.

Would keeping track of which turn of +3 it is fall under the umbrella of maintaining a clean "game state"?
 
I don't think they would get very far. After a turn or two, a judge should be at the table.

At the first attack or change of turns, the judge should assess which of the +3 turns it is. If neither player "remembers" and both claim they didn't hear the "time" announcement, I would make a judgment call, based on the pace of play I had observed, and the elapsed time since the round ended whether the just announced attack was the end of "turn zero", turn 1, or turn 2. The judge should continue to monitor the match, and after three turns the judge should stop the game and declare a winner of the match.

If the judge learned that the decision to keep playing was an intentional choice of both players, then I would put it in as a Proceedural Error, and I would put it in the Major level. I base this on the description "Occassionally errors are made that have a much larger impact on the tournament's operation. Some can cause a major delay in the timeliness of the event;" in the penalty guidelines.
 
If the judge learned that the decision to keep playing was an intentionalchoice of both players, then I would put it in as a Proceedural Error, and I would put it in the Major level. I base this on the description "Occassionally errors are made that have a much larger impact on the tournament's operation. Some can cause a major delay in the timeliness of the event;" in the penalty guidelines.

I'll wholeheartedly disagree with that. Per the Penatly Guidelines-

With the exception of the Unsporting Conduct penalties, the penalties outlined in this document assume that all rules violations are unintentional. If a judge deems that a rules violation has been made intentionally, the Unsporting Conduct: Cheating penalty should be applied. POP feels that cheating is among the worst offenses that a player can commit at an event and should be dealt with swiftly.

Intentional errors must be addressed with an Unsporting Conduct Penalty.
 
You have the right to decide a game in any non-random way, but apart from the actual issue, you do not have the right to delay the tournament. Further, if I determine that both players are lying to me, its a double game loss. The first "I don't remember" is a warning. If the game is then not over in 3 turns, DGL.
 
Using the Penalty Guidelines, this is my take on it...

4. Unreported Infractions
It is each player’s responsibility to ensure that he or she and his or her opponent are playing by both the game and tournament rules.

6.5. Game Loss
The Game Loss penalty is generally used when a mistake has been made that has a severe impact on the game state, to the point where the game is irreparably broken and unable to continue.

7.1. Game-Play Error
This infraction covers general mistakes made during the course of a game. These mistakes can have very little impact on a game, or they can bring a game to an abrupt halt. This category defines the three levels of errors and outlines the appropriate penalties for each.

7.1.3. Severe
In some cases, a game-play error occurs which irreparably breaks the game state. In these cases, there is no way that either player or a judge can reset the game to the point where it can be continued.

Recommended Starting Penalty:
Tier 1: Game Loss
Tier 2: Game Loss

As judges we can't be expected to guess at which point in the game time was called, 1 second of game play could mean the difference between Player A is Turn 0 or Player B is Turn 0. According to the penalty guidelines players are responsible for playing by both the game and tournament rules. Tournament rules does include keeping track of turns in +3. By not keeping track of the +3 turns, the game state is broken, judges can not figure out who was Turn 0. This is just like a hand being shuffled into the deck w/o use of card effect... what is a judge expected to do in this situation... a broken game state is a broken game state. Since both players are at fault, Double Game Loss is the right way to go by the books.

Another course of action is to tell the players, "Look, you are X amount of minutes over time, you likely have played +3 turns and then some at this point, lets call this game a tie." This does walk the fine line of what would be called a "creative fix", which I shy away from, but I have seen my fair of "creative fixes" from Head Judges at large Tier 2 events before, which would make me think that this is ok, especially for the younger players. Now there may be matches that are close to being complete, which the idea of calling the match a tie would cause resistance from the player in the lead (or both players if it is a close game), in this case Double Game Loss is easily back on the table because the Penalty Guidelines gives us the justification to issue the penalty given the circumstances presented.

Of course if I believe that these two players decided (intentionally) to play it out instead of conforming to the tournament rules, DQs for Unsporting Conduct- Cheating is hands down the right call, it is a text book decision in this case.

7.6.4. Cheating
Players who intentionally commit infractions are looking to gain an unfair advantage over other players at the event. The Head Judge should carefully consider whether an infraction was intentional or not before applying this penalty. If the Head Judge feels that an infraction was unintentional, this penalty should not be applied.

Recommended Starting Penalty:
Tier 1: Disqualification
Tier 2: Disqualification

- - - Updated - - -

You have the right to decide a game in any non-random way, but apart from the actual issue,

No, players do not.

RPS = Non-Random = Not allowed

Arm Wrestling = Non-Random = Not allowed

Chess = Non-Random = Not allowed

Pokemon VG being used to decided a Pokemon TCG Match = Non-Random = Not allowed

There are alot of random and non-random means to decide matches. Most (if not all) are not allowed.

you do not have the right to delay the tournament.

Correct

Further, if I determine that both players are lying to me, its a double game loss.

Actually Lying to event staff warrants a DQ per Penalty Guidlines.

The first "I don't remember" is a warning.

Calling it a Warning still doesn't fix the game state, unless your next sentence is suggesting that you call "time, you are now in turn 0" when the error is discovered.

If the game is then not over in 3 turns, DGL.

If you are suggesting Warning and then they play it out... why the DGL? Why not call it a tie? Can you quote the Penalty Guidelines and other ruling documents to justify your ruling/fix?
 
I think he means if they take a 4th+ turn in that situation he would DGL them, though if at all possible, there should be a table judge because of that situation.

US Nationals Floor Judge
 
The game state can be quite damaged before it reaches the point of being irreparably broken. There are already well known situations, such as drawing too many cards and not knowing which they were, that irrevocably change the game state but do not earn game losses, because the game can still be brought (fixed) to a state where it can continue. In my opinion, forgetting which turn of +3 you're on, or failing to hear the announcement, is a changed game state but not an irreparably broken one. For fixing this, I agree with FunnyBear - current turn is turn 0/next turn is turn 1, keep a judge at the table to enforce it.

Credentials: Not much, I'm a local judge/professor in Norway
 
Let's all take a step back and think about this. This is actually a tournament operations issue about how judges handle games-in-progress after time is called.

pokeMATHter is correct: "I don't think they would get very far. After a turn or two, a judge should be at the table."

A judge does not have to watch every game. The judges and the computer operator should be in communication to determine which games are still in progress and coordinate to check on them. During a pause in the game or between turns, ask the players what turn it is. The players should be able to answer. If they "did not hear that time was called," the judge makes the ruling about when turn 0 is, then moves on to check the other games and providing more attention to those which are losing control of pace of play. As the number of games-in-progress does down, judges are then able to watch games even more closely until they are table-judging the last turn of the last few games.

Any games active after time will have a judge on them quickly to determine the turn count and then will be followed up by other judges and then the first judge at the game will circle around again if by then a judge is not actively watching the game. If this is not happening, it is a symptom of a different problem, such as a staffing issue, a lack of communication between the computer operator and the TO or head judge, or the judges not getting enough direction from the TO.

To address the OP more directly if somehow an event comes up where there is an all-around problem with operation and protocol, two players agreeing to play it out will have to answer the judge's question about what turn it is (if they are trying to play it out, they should be trying to establish the current turn as turn 0 or 1 :rolleyes: ). After the judge walks off, the players could disregard the turn count or there could actually be a breakdown in event operations allowing the players more time without a judge to check up on them but the judge WILL return and again ask the turn count. If they admit to losing the count, work with them to track what happened (supporters played, attacks used, pokemon KOed) and write up a procedural error major (Warning) for both players. If you discover the players have moved past the 3rd turn, take the result of the game at the end of the third turn. If you determine the players have made it very difficult to determine the turn count and/or causing you to devote an unreasonable amount of time to determine what should not take very long to figure out, write it up as procedural error severe with the penalty double game loss. If, after determining the third turn has past and the game is over, the players dispute ending the game or are resistant to the decision and/or signing the match slip, write it up as unsporting conduct major with the penalty double game loss.

VA Winter Regionals 2014, Masters division floor judge.
 
You know, this exact thing has its own section in Magic The Gathering's penalty guidelines.

4.3. Unsporting Conduct — Improperly Determining a Winner

Definition
A player uses or offers to use a method that is not part of the current game (including actions not legal in the current game) to determine the outcome of a game or match.

Recommended Penalty: Disqualification

Examples
  • As time is called, two players about to draw roll a die to determine the winner.
  • A player offers to flip a coin to determine the winner of a match.
  • Two players arm wrestle to determine the winner of the match.
  • Two players play rock-paper-scissors to decide if they should play the match or draw.
  • Two players compare the converted mana costs of the top cards of their libraries to determine the winner of a game at the end of extra turns.
  • Two players reveal cards from the top of their libraries to see “who would win” after extra turns.

Philosophy
Using an outside-the-game method to determine a winner compromises the integrity of the tournament.

Matches that result in a draw due to time are expected to be reported as such and are not excluded from this penalty if the players use an illegal method to determine the outcome.

In most cases this penalty will be issued to both players, unless the other player calls over a judge as soon as an inappropriate suggestion to determine the winner is made.

Now, do I think DQ is appropriate for this in Pokémon? Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I lean toward yes.

I am very much in sync with MTG's philosophy here: "Using an outside-the-game method to determine a winner compromises the integrity of the tournament." Everyone is supposed to be playing by a prescribed set of rules, which includes tournament policy for resolving a match when time is called. Players deliberately choosing to ignore core game rules would be dealt with in a decidedly harsh way. Why should this be any different?

Nationals Senior Division Judge / States Head Judge
 
In a midwest states last year, this happened in Juniors. Probably unintentional, but the match went on well after time. I would fix this with a warning to both players for not maintaining game state, then start counting from turn 0. If I determined that anyone was lying to me about not knowing time was called, it would be escalated to GL or DGL. Its hard for me to see DQing Juniors for this sort of thing, though I appreciate your pointing out of 7.6.4. I suppose I would have to make very sure both players understood the situation and the instructions. I am loath to DQ Juniors except for the most egregious violations.
 
In a midwest states last year, this happened in Juniors. Probably unintentional, but the match went on well after time. I would fix this with a warning to both players for not maintaining game state, then start counting from turn 0. If I determined that anyone was lying to me about not knowing time was called, it would be escalated to GL or DGL. Its hard for me to see DQing Juniors for this sort of thing, though I appreciate your pointing out of 7.6.4. I suppose I would have to make very sure both players understood the situation and the instructions. I am loath to DQ Juniors except for the most egregious violations.

I agree with treating JRs differently than other age groups.
 
Back
Top