Slow play

[FunnyBear]

Can someone give me another example of a sport, game, or TCG in which striving for an established win condition is considered unsportsmanlike and can lead to penalties including game loss? You can win on time by being ahead in basketball and football, and passing the ball to run out the clock is just part of the game. You can win on points by being nearly dead on your feet in boxing and just not falling down in the final round.

If POP feels that winning on time when you are losing is wrong, there are several alternatives that have been presented in this thread, including time extensions to allow ambiguous game states to resolve and adjudications based on the entire game state not just the prize count. The problem with the rules the way they are is that there is a recognized win condition by being ahead on prizes when time is called and we are telling players not to strive for it within the rules, as its unsportsmanlike.

Now before anyone quotes me and bolds "within the rules", playing legal moves such as a trainer/supporter deck search, or a cosmic power, when you don't need a card just so your turn doesn't end 15 seconds earlier seems to me to be within the rules apart from any presumed intent to manipulate the time. In practice, no judge can make a finding of intent, so the rule exists to encourage players not to win using that win condition. It seems at times that POP is telling players that if you don't deserve to win based on the board position, try to help your opponent win by giving him an extra turn if that will do it. If there is a feeling that games resolve into unfair results because of the way we currently run tournaments, lets just change it, instead on engaging in this constant hand wringing.

Can POP declare that winning a game on T1 because you've got the donk in hand is unsportsmanlike as no battle has really taken place? Now thats an arbitrary rule I'd support.

 

[Kayle]

I think one pretty major difference is that it's really hard to score 2 points in basketball (for example) and then hold onto the ball and prevent the other team from making any goals, because of the shot clock, which was added to the game because specifically of a game in which a team stalled out to win after it made a free throw. Unsportsmanlike.

In Pokemon, though, if you build a deck around it, taking one prize and stalling for the rest of the game is no problem at all. And if you're allowed to slow-play stall, you can take one prize and then win the game with ANY deck.



Editadd: Also, I don't think the prize-lead win condition was intended in the game's design, which is why abusing it is considered unsportsmanlike. In a tournament scenario, the prize lead/time win condition is required because they have to conduct the tournament in a certain amount of time, and therefore need to limit gameplay time. There IS no other win condition for most sports (boxing is one you named that has other win conditions). Most sports rely on the prize-lead-at-time-called to win. Pokemon wasn't made with that in mind.

 

[ryanvergel]

most instances of people saying they were beaten by "stalling" is when their opponent legally played cards in a timely manner, that didn't seemingly contribute/alter the game state. the problem is that virtually every action in pokemon alters the game state. unless someone is just moving energy with energy trans aimlessly, almost every action alters game state.

playing the luxury ball and then going through the deck and not getting anything, perhaps to count the number of cards/outs vs the number of cards (especially late game), or to shuffle the deck, or to reduce the number of cards in one's hand to limit the impact of certain attacks or something. or to restrict re-drawing the cards later on with crucial plays like cynthias, where you don't want to draw useless cards.

players will usually play down cards, do the retreating to deny prizes, play down every trainer in their hand and use every power and ability possible. and what is a judge to do? judge their intent, goals, or strategy?

no- all they can do is see if it affects game state (and nearly everything does) and if the action took a reasonable amount of time. most people say stall when they mean to say beaten on time, etc.

 

[Mloclam]

The shot clock is not much of a factor in the final minutes of a basketball game just to let you know. If the game is close then teams simply take their time with the ball and go for the shot. If they make it they hope for good defense or a missed shot, then the opposing team (depending on how much time remains) will most likely just foul to get the ball back.

Stalling in sports is a perfectly legitimate strategy and is very effective in the latter stages of the game. Funnybear nailed the whole "unnecessary" moves bit on the head.

 

[Lawman]

Losing on time sucks, esp if you are playing a deck fully capable of a comeback. I've been on both sides and I dont play much. BUT, if you ever have been stalled out, you would know/see the difference. I agree w/ Ryan, most claim to have lost due to a stall out when they simply lost on time.

Keith

 

[rokman]

I think one pretty major difference is that it's really hard to score 2 points in basketball (for example) and then hold onto the ball and prevent the other team from making any goals, because of the shot clock,

There's a shot clock in pokemon too. Like a maximum of 2 minutes to shuffle your deck, etc.

If you want to slowplay in basketball, you waste as much time as possible within the time limit.
If you want to slowplay in Pokemon, you waste as much time as possible within the time limit.

 

[KC HANSON]

look sometimes you play players who are slow players those players dont change thier pace though the game here a tip go grab a watch with a stop watch on it and start it when the judge tells you to start.
here somethings you can do and cant do.
1 you cant play the clock or the judge well ask you too take it off
that all i know you cant really do but if you come across a player who is slower then all you can keep an eye on time and depending on if you ahead or behind ok if your ahead or tied just keep playing out your turn or if your being you got too quick play everything.
to be honest im 100% against chest clock i would rather have 1 hour rounds and play the best 2 out of 3 which would completely how the damage is change imo.
btw i have slowed to win games and i have quick played to win games also. when i slow played it gave me the time to think on how to beat my oppentit while he was playing catch up no i didnt stall i just played my turn out. when i quick played i figured out my chance of winning and i shown my growth as a player and was able to beat my opppent.

 

[rokman]

look sometimes you play players who are slow players those players dont change thier pace though the game here a tip go grab a watch with a stop watch on it and start it when the judge tells you to start.
here somethings you can do and cant do.
1 you cant play the clock or the judge well ask you too take it off
that all i know you cant really do but if you come across a player who is slower then all you can keep an eye on time and depending on if you ahead or behind ok if your ahead or tied just keep playing out your turn or if your being you got too quick play everything.
to be honest im 100% against chest clock i would rather have 1 hour rounds and play the best 2 out of 3 which would completely how the damage is change imo.
btw i have slowed to win games and i have quick played to win games also. when i slow played it gave me the time to think on how to beat my oppentit while he was playing catch up no i didnt stall i just played my turn out. when i quick played i figured out my chance of winning and i shown my growth as a player and was able to beat my opppent.

I call shenanigans on your use of punctuation and spelling.

But most of what you said I can agree with, beside "chest clock" (I'm assuming you mean chess clock?) because a chess clock could potentially help a lot of players pick up their pace.

 

[kwisdumb]

Can someone give me another example of a sport, game, or TCG in which striving for an established win condition is considered unsportsmanlike and can lead to penalties including game loss? You can win on time by being ahead in basketball and football, and passing the ball to run out the clock is just part of the game. You can win on points by being nearly dead on your feet in boxing and just not falling down in the final round.

If POP feels that winning on time when you are losing is wrong, there are several alternatives that have been presented in this thread, including time extensions to allow ambiguous game states to resolve and adjudications based on the entire game state not just the prize count. The problem with the rules the way they are is that there is a recognized win condition by being ahead on prizes when time is called and we are telling players not to strive for it within the rules, as its unsportsmanlike.

Now before anyone quotes me and bolds "within the rules", playing legal moves such as a trainer/supporter deck search, or a cosmic power, when you don't need a card just so your turn doesn't end 15 seconds earlier seems to me to be within the rules apart from any presumed intent to manipulate the time. In practice, no judge can make a finding of intent, so the rule exists to encourage players not to win using that win condition. It seems at times that POP is telling players that if you don't deserve to win based on the board position, try to help your opponent win by giving him an extra turn if that will do it. If there is a feeling that games resolve into unfair results because of the way we currently run tournaments, lets just change it, instead on engaging in this constant hand wringing.

Can POP declare that winning a game on T1 because you've got the donk in hand is unsportsmanlike as no battle has really taken place? Now thats an arbitrary rule I'd support.

I think the main difference here is that when a basketball team is aimlessly passing the ball back and forth, the opposing team can still make a difference, whereas if you're running out the clock on your turn by taking long actions, thinking for a long time, etc. the ball is completely in your court as it's your turn and there's nothing your opponent can do to take control of the game back.

 

[SteveP]

Here's a situation where slow-play is suspect:

Prizes are even. It's obvious that you're going to KO your opponent's Pokemon this turn; however, it's obvious that your opponent will KO your Pokemon on his next turn, and you won't be able to recover before time is called -- meaning you'll lose in sudden death. You know this, so you engage in time-consuming actions in the hopes that time is called before your turn ends. If the judge deems any of those actions to be unnecessary and meaningless, you can be called for slow-play or stalling.

No judge will call you for slow-play if you are making "lively" strategic plays. If you do that in an attempt to stall out the clock, you're okay.

 

[Jaeger]

Here's a situation where slow-play is suspect:

Prizes are even. It's obvious that you're going to KO your opponent's Pokemon this turn; however, it's obvious that your opponent will KO your Pokemon on his next turn, and you won't be able to recover before time is called -- meaning you'll lose in sudden death. You know this, so you engage in time-consuming actions in the hopes that time is called before your turn ends. If the judge deems any of those actions to be unnecessary and meaningless, you can be called for slow-play or stalling.

No judge will call you for slow-play if you are making "lively" strategic plays. If you do that in an attempt to stall out the clock, you're okay.

Your walking a fine line their every action that can be taken could have meaning. Judges should not be able to determine what has meaning.

 

[SteveP]

Your walking a fine line their every action that can be taken could have meaning. Judges should not be able to determine what has meaning.

I don't know of any judges out there who don't also play, at least during league play. They KNOW if you're doing something meaningless or not. Good judges are keen at discerning such actions. Don't fool yourself.

 

[totoro]

No judge will call you for slow-play if you are making "lively" strategic plays. If you do that in an attempt to stall out the clock, you're okay.

Depends on what you mean by "lively":

•Making legal plays which have no effect on the game in progress to manipulate the time remaining in a match

Recommended penalty (all tiers) : Game Loss

As you also point out, most judges also play. If you want to dance with fire, you very well might get burned!

 

[Squidwina]

It seems a bit harsh, if not somewhat uncalled for, to penalize a player who was warned but was incapable of speeding herself up. Especially if she had no idea what the deck she was playing against was capable of, and was trying to figure it out. >>

Why is she "incapable" of speeding herself up? Saying that she has no way of learning to play faster is just making excuses for her. In your earlier post, you suggest several ways that she can do exactly that:

They aren't as familiar with the format or aren't very good at memorizing cards, or maybe they just like to make sure they know EXACTLY what the card does before they play it when it's really important.

--She definitely should know "EXACTLY" what each of the cards in her deck does already. It's ridiculous to expect your opponent to sit there while you try and figure out how to play your own deck.* She's not new enough that she deserves any slack for this.

--She could become more familiar with the format and the meta by playing more, reading sites such as the PokeGym, etc. so she will have an "idea what the deck she was playing against [is] capable of" and won't have to waste time on trying to figure it out. (For the current popular decks/strategies, anyway)

--She could spend some time getting to know commonly played cards so if she runs into them in a tournament, she'll have a general idea of what they do already, meaning she won't have to spend as much time poring over her opponents' cards.

Yes, doing the above takes time and effort. She may not be motivated to make that effort. In which case, she'll have to take her lumps for playing too slowly.


* okay, many of us are guilty of having to re-read our own cards to some degree, but usually not to the extent where it causes a slow-play problem.

 

[SteveP]

Depends on what you mean by "lively":

•Making legal plays which have no effect on the game in progress to manipulate the time remaining in a match

Recommended penalty (all tiers) : Game Loss

As you also point out, most judges also play. If you want to dance with fire, you very well might get burned!

I said "lively" strategic plays. By their very nature, strategic plays have an effect on the game. BTW, in an earlier post, I quoted the same Penalty Guidelines example bullet you did above, so I certainly know about it. :thumb:

 

[TheGeneral]

Doesn't the time-limit in the Pokemon rulebook say how long each action should take? Bring a stopwatch, and if you feel your opponent is taking more time than deemed necessary, use the stopwatch and when it goes over the alotted time, say something. Even if they are using the full amount of time for that single action, it technically isn't stalling.

 

[rokman]

Doesn't the time-limit in the Pokemon rulebook say how long each action should take? Bring a stopwatch, and if you feel your opponent is taking more time than deemed necessary, use the stopwatch and when it goes over the alotted time, say something. Even if they are using the full amount of time for that single action, it technically isn't stalling.

You can't do that. You aren't allowed to stop watch each action. And in my opinion, that could also be considered rushing your opponent.

You are allowed only a wrist watch. No electronic devices are legal during play

 

[Jaeger]

I said "lively" strategic plays. By their very nature, strategic plays have an effect on the game. BTW, in an earlier post, I quoted the same Penalty Guidelines example bullet you did above, so I certainly know about it. :thumb:

Give me an example of a play that isn't lively or stragegic?

 

[bullados]

Undevelop loop. Very lively, no strategic difference to gamestate.

 

[LegendaryLugia]

Give me an example of a play that isn't lively or strategic?

Opponent finishes turn. You reach under the desk slowly and pull out a mini-carton of Ocean Spray. You drink the carton sluggishly for about 2 minutes. You finish the carton. You reach under the desk. You pull out another cartoon. You drink the cartoon sluggishly for about 2 minutes. You walk slowly over to the bin on the far side of the room after obtaining permission from an irratated opponent. You sit back down. You pick up your hand grudgingly and mull over the cards in it. You sigh and put down your hand again. You call a judge over to ask about the ruling of a Stadium card in play. He answers and you thank him modestly. He asks if your opponent has any questions. Your opponent says "no" through gritted teeth. The judge leaves the table. You pick up your hand. You examine it carefully and put it back down again. You lean over the table and stare at your opponent straight in the eye and say:

"Splash for 10."