Slow play
- Thread starter afstandopleren
- Start date
- Status
On one side, we have players who complain that their opponent is slow-playing or stalling. On the other side we have players who claim they're just making legal plays. That's why we have judges -- to mediate this conflict, using the rules and guidelines as their tools.
That's also why the head judge always get involved in serious penalties like game-losses. If you get a game-loss for stalling, it's usually because multiple judges consulted with the HJ.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
That's also why the head judge always get involved in serious penalties like game-losses. If you get a game-loss for stalling, it's usually because multiple judges consulted with the HJ.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Keith, why would you give out a time extention without also giving out a penalty? Judges should only be giving time extentions without penalties for things beyond the players' control (ie., bathroom break, random deck checks, the lights go out). Anyway, this quote from the guidelines seems clear to me that if you're extending a match because you suspect slow play, you should also apply a penalty of some kind (caution or warning - depending on the tier):
Penalty Guidelines - 7.4.1. Slow Play said:
Last edited:
@SteveP: If you are in an early rd of a big tourney, then you cannot squat on one match the entire rd. If you see some slow play early on, you can give a verbal prompt to play faster, maybe even go ahead and give an extention and move on. You will loop back and check on the match and its progress. No penalty has been given but a clear message has been sent to the players.....shenagins will not be tolerated. (You have heard of verbal prompts or cautions, yes?)
What about the scenarios we had a 2 seasons ago with all the GG going around. Many times, 10 mins into a match and each player has had at most 2 turns. That doesnt seem to be a "lively pace". Especially in a mirror match. As you know, it may be hard to know which player was playing slow (pro both), so you COULD give an ext. to make the match progress fairly for BOTH. Judges can see the set up and know (bc we have the stopwatches) how much time has passed. IF a match hasnt progressed very far, you can watch briefly to see if a slow play situation is afoot or if it was draw/pass for several turns and finally they hit a supporter (look at energy drops for # of turns). We knew that in the mirror match, the player with the last turn could usually snipe w/ Gardy X and bring down a poke on the oppo's side to "win" the match.
That is one scenario. There are many others. I wont discuss all judging technics in the open.
Keith
What about the scenarios we had a 2 seasons ago with all the GG going around. Many times, 10 mins into a match and each player has had at most 2 turns. That doesnt seem to be a "lively pace". Especially in a mirror match. As you know, it may be hard to know which player was playing slow (pro both), so you COULD give an ext. to make the match progress fairly for BOTH. Judges can see the set up and know (bc we have the stopwatches) how much time has passed. IF a match hasnt progressed very far, you can watch briefly to see if a slow play situation is afoot or if it was draw/pass for several turns and finally they hit a supporter (look at energy drops for # of turns). We knew that in the mirror match, the player with the last turn could usually snipe w/ Gardy X and bring down a poke on the oppo's side to "win" the match.
That is one scenario. There are many others. I wont discuss all judging technics in the open.
Keith
SLOW DECK
New Member
When matches were 30 minutes long, I pushed hard for 30 and 1 turn. I think I finally took the 30 and 1 petition of my signature this month.
40 minute matches are better than 30 and 1, thus I was happy. If they would ever add a plus X.
+ it needs to be an Odd number. Plus 1, 3, 5.
+ The odd number makes it a game of musical chairs to keep the motiviaton for play speed at a prompt pace. You wouldn't want the turn to end on your turn, thus you won't play your turn slow. If it was an even number, then you know you would get to end the game if you played slow.
+ Time needs to be approximatly 40 minutes. Thus for one round it would be 39 and 45 seconds, another round it would be 40 and 28 seconds. Players should not be allowed to know exactly the time a matches ends. Time needs to be fuzzy. A few years ago, the rules specifically said no timing devices at the table. If you do a 40:00 and 1 more turn, there would be many turns that end magically at 39:55 seconds.
With all respect to the judges, they can only correct the slow play they observe and confirm. and since they don't see everything, they need to realize that GOOD RULES for the game go farther than they could in correcting questionable slow play issues.
40 minute matches are better than 30 and 1, thus I was happy. If they would ever add a plus X.
+ it needs to be an Odd number. Plus 1, 3, 5.
+ The odd number makes it a game of musical chairs to keep the motiviaton for play speed at a prompt pace. You wouldn't want the turn to end on your turn, thus you won't play your turn slow. If it was an even number, then you know you would get to end the game if you played slow.
+ Time needs to be approximatly 40 minutes. Thus for one round it would be 39 and 45 seconds, another round it would be 40 and 28 seconds. Players should not be allowed to know exactly the time a matches ends. Time needs to be fuzzy. A few years ago, the rules specifically said no timing devices at the table. If you do a 40:00 and 1 more turn, there would be many turns that end magically at 39:55 seconds.
With all respect to the judges, they can only correct the slow play they observe and confirm. and since they don't see everything, they need to realize that GOOD RULES for the game go farther than they could in correcting questionable slow play issues.
Last edited:
A Caution is a penalty. Although it doesn't need to be reported to POP, it does need to be reported to the HJ. It's also a good idea to document it on the Penalty summary so that you can better-prove why you escalated for repeat offenses.
A verbal prompt is something judges do to warn players that a penalty might be imposed if they don't change their behavior. A time extension is not a trivial matter -- it can impact the flow of the entire tournament, so I don't see a need to impose it without also issuing a penalty, at least a Caution.
Regarding your GG scenario, why would you extend a match when both players are going slow? Basically, that's offsetting penalties. Neither player has gained an advantage over the other, so why would you extend the match? It doesn't make sense, in the context of the Penalty Guideline I quoted in my previous post. If both players are possibly guilty of slow-play, why "reward" them with a time extention?
I really think that everyone is complicating the time + turns idea. You don't need to end rounds at random times so players will never know when the game is going to end, nor flip coins for no reason. I don't mean to be overly critical here, as there's quite a bit of good discussion going on, I just think this is a somewhat complex problem that has a very simple answer.
Box of Fail
New Member
When time is called the active player should finish their turn, then their opponent should go, and then they should each get one more turn.
As for things like Inviting Trap when your opponent is out of energy, that should be permitted. You should be allowed to play with winning on time as your main goal, as long as you play in a timely, efficient manner. For example, chatterlock and Glisctomb are totally fair concepts based on a time victory. As long as you play quickly enough, there should be no issue with trying to run the clock out on your opponent.
As for things like Inviting Trap when your opponent is out of energy, that should be permitted. You should be allowed to play with winning on time as your main goal, as long as you play in a timely, efficient manner. For example, chatterlock and Glisctomb are totally fair concepts based on a time victory. As long as you play quickly enough, there should be no issue with trying to run the clock out on your opponent.
There are 5 minutes left. You're going to KO your opponent's Pokemon this turn, putting you ahead on prizes. Can you take up those entire 5 minutes doing lively legal actions?
IMO, a 5-minute turn seems excessive. If, up until that time, turns have averged 1-2 minutes per turn, game tempo has changed. Those are the kind of judgement calls a good judge must make. Game-time-equity is described in the Game Tempo section of the Penalty Guidelines. Can a judge penalize you for taking an unfair share of the game-time, even if you're making lively, legal actions? Yes. Will they? Who knows.
IMO, a 5-minute turn seems excessive. If, up until that time, turns have averged 1-2 minutes per turn, game tempo has changed. Those are the kind of judgement calls a good judge must make. Game-time-equity is described in the Game Tempo section of the Penalty Guidelines. Can a judge penalize you for taking an unfair share of the game-time, even if you're making lively, legal actions? Yes. Will they? Who knows.
SLOW DECK
New Member
YES
Play a supportor - YES (regardless of the game effect, thinning the deck is an effect)
Play a Trainers, Night Maintence - YES
Play a NRG - Yes
Use the Claydols - YES
Using any Power - YES
NO
Doing "other than" prompt shuffles - No
Late Game Elongated Searches - No (Early in the game, searches can take a while, we inventory deck, we decide our game plans etc, at the end, they don't, the deck is thin, the prizes are known, a late game long search is just reasons for a direct caution.)
Stalling tactics Of - Needlessly searching discard piles, Cards in Hand questions, etc. These game state inquires are obvious stalling tactics.
The philosphy should be that the player should be allowed to do any action that would be done if the game was untimed. The pace of the actions can be judged. Judges should not judge if those actions are proper. I say these things as a player. If a player is up 5 prizes to 4 prizes, they should be allowed to do actions on their turn as though the game is untimed. Many players are on the up and up, and would not stall for a victory. But we should not be disallowed from doing game actions because there is less than 5 minutes and WE ARE AHEAD. The comment that says, well, I didn't disallow, but I didn't understand why those actions were taken, thus I will extend the game, and that is not a penalty.... That logic doesn't hold. (If a player is judge to be performing game actions slow, then I don't disagree with the judges ability to extend the match.)
This season, In the deck that I currently play, I will often late in the game promptly play a Roseanne's for NO effect. My reason that the Judge might not know is that I am looking to deck thin and Claydol cycle into a non searchable energies, reversals, or Palmers. Now if a judge "thinks" that that move didn't impact "the next turn", but we should be allowed to play as though we will have a turn after this. Thus I should be allowed to play my turns to set up my plays for the remaining of the game, even if the clock might say that it won't happen. Judges should not say well it's not a penalty to extend the game, it isn't there place to put themselves into the game.
In a top cut match this year, I won game 1, 6-5. Game 2 we had about 15 minutes, I was playing against a Gyrados deck and mid game I (1-1 in prizes) Tranpinch lock my opponent Regice for the last 4 turns of the game. I don't know how much time it took, but my strategic view was that I didn't need to get into a boxing match with him, he had 3 more scoop ups in his deck , but I would take my chances on him finding them and flipping heads. He had hoped that I would get into a boxing match with him so he could get to the 4 prizes. I played promptly, I did all moves available to me that I would do to, I built counter attacks on the bench, but I choose to use the lock to get the round victory, at the end of the game, he said he was fine with what I did. I didn't feel any guilt, because he could have found a SSU and a heads, and started a boxing match. He had at least 4 turns to find his outs, he couldn't. The strategy was to stall for the victory, but it was game actions that did this, not me slowing my pace of play in any way.
Last edited:
Your first statement above is absolutedly untrue. I haven't played a tournament game in many, many years that was untimed.
I'm not saying that judges should rule that a legal action is improper, unless of course it meets the criteria of having no effect on the game. I'm saying that judges can rule that you're taking an unfair portion of the game time. Has a judge actually ever ruled that way? I don't know. Can they? Yes, according to the Game Tempo rule about equity in game-time allocation.
ryanvergel
New Member
What does your not having played in that type of game recently have to do with what it is saying? It is saying that actions should be allowed as though games were untimed.
For you to show some bias towards the last 5 minutes of the game just shows bad judging. If all of the actions an individual does would be legitimate in the first 5 minutes, they should be okay in the last 5 minutes. Taking a 5 minute turn happens all the time, and there is no way to prevent it.
Seriously, there is no way you can tell a player that his or her TIMELY play of LEGAL actions that AFFECT game state are bad, or shouldn't be done, or can be penalized. On what grounds? Your ability to read minds and know intentions? No way.
The whole reason for suggesting time limits for certain actions like shuffling centers around the concept that games ARE timed. That was my point.
A few years ago I was in the finals of the Utah State Championship. It was best-of-3, untimed. Because I knew it was untimed, I played differently - my actions weren't as "lively."
Timed and untimed matches are not the same.
Regarding my "last 5 minutes" example, I used it just to make a point. If the game tempo is going along at 1 minute turns, then all of a sudden it's 5 minutes, in the right context, that CAN be considered stalling, or in the least, gamesmanship. Here's how Webster describes Gamesmanship:
Gamesmanship IS described in the Penalty Guidelines as Unsporting Conduct - Major, and punishable with a game-loss.
A few years ago I was in the finals of the Utah State Championship. It was best-of-3, untimed. Because I knew it was untimed, I played differently - my actions weren't as "lively."
Timed and untimed matches are not the same.
Regarding my "last 5 minutes" example, I used it just to make a point. If the game tempo is going along at 1 minute turns, then all of a sudden it's 5 minutes, in the right context, that CAN be considered stalling, or in the least, gamesmanship. Here's how Webster describes Gamesmanship:
Merriam-Webster said:
Gamesmanship IS described in the Penalty Guidelines as Unsporting Conduct - Major, and punishable with a game-loss.
I completely agree with this. I have played against the same slow player so many times. He slows down when he knows time is about to be called and we wind up going into sudden death every time. As soon as time his called, it is amazing how fast he starts to play again. He wins most of his matches this way, not just against me, I guess I sound like a sore loser, but it gets really old losing the same way against the same player.
The judge was called several times for him, but they say"that is the way that he always plays." I started to raise my hand and ask for time extensions because of his slow play when I play against him now and I can wind up beating him because he knows I am on to him and he doesn't use this tactic against me. I don't think it's fair that other people get losses because they don't ask for time extensions when they play him because they don't know how he is.
I think each player should get another full turn of play when time is called.
The judge was called several times for him, but they say"that is the way that he always plays." I started to raise my hand and ask for time extensions because of his slow play when I play against him now and I can wind up beating him because he knows I am on to him and he doesn't use this tactic against me. I don't think it's fair that other people get losses because they don't ask for time extensions when they play him because they don't know how he is.
I think each player should get another full turn of play when time is called.
Last edited:
SLOW DECK
New Member
Steve,
I would argue that the games are not timed, it is a time limited game. If we ask a judge how much time is left, they don't tell us. We are told less than 10 minutes.... Thus the timing of the event is like musical chairs, I don't keep a timer with me, I don't know exactly how much time is left. I just know that I need win the game or be ahead in prizes when time is called.
If judge think someone is doing their turn too slow, with a slower pace than you would expect from that person. that is fine, judge and provide a justice to that because of slow pace of play. But the game limits the number of actions we can do by not letting us play more than one supportor, playing only one evolution per turn, one energy per turn, many powers only once per turn. Just because a player is doing every move, we don't know that those moves aren't going to be necessary.
On an extreme basis, if a player is playing Meganium Prime and is moving energy all day long, yes we expect a judge to jump on it. But we are afraid of judges ruling that we didn't need to do that action this turn with 1 minute left (even though "WE" don't know we have 1 minute left). On a fuzzier action, a Garny/Gallade players plays a Roseann, fails it, then Telepass there opponent's Roseanne for a search and failure, thus only time ticked but no change in game state in terms. Fine. But when people say that we play a card for no effect, that bothers us.
My point about untimed, we should be allowed to do every action that improves our game state for this turn and for the next several turns, even if a judge might not think that those turns will happen because of time limits. You can sit next to a player all game and watch every play, and "think" you know what they are trying to do, but you often find that the player had another worry or thought process than you as judge has. So judging intent is a slipper slope. I don't know what my opponent will do next turn, thus I need to be able to prepare for those next turns.
-cut it- too much sour grapes -
I would argue that the games are not timed, it is a time limited game. If we ask a judge how much time is left, they don't tell us. We are told less than 10 minutes.... Thus the timing of the event is like musical chairs, I don't keep a timer with me, I don't know exactly how much time is left. I just know that I need win the game or be ahead in prizes when time is called.
If judge think someone is doing their turn too slow, with a slower pace than you would expect from that person. that is fine, judge and provide a justice to that because of slow pace of play. But the game limits the number of actions we can do by not letting us play more than one supportor, playing only one evolution per turn, one energy per turn, many powers only once per turn. Just because a player is doing every move, we don't know that those moves aren't going to be necessary.
On an extreme basis, if a player is playing Meganium Prime and is moving energy all day long, yes we expect a judge to jump on it. But we are afraid of judges ruling that we didn't need to do that action this turn with 1 minute left (even though "WE" don't know we have 1 minute left). On a fuzzier action, a Garny/Gallade players plays a Roseann, fails it, then Telepass there opponent's Roseanne for a search and failure, thus only time ticked but no change in game state in terms. Fine. But when people say that we play a card for no effect, that bothers us.
My point about untimed, we should be allowed to do every action that improves our game state for this turn and for the next several turns, even if a judge might not think that those turns will happen because of time limits. You can sit next to a player all game and watch every play, and "think" you know what they are trying to do, but you often find that the player had another worry or thought process than you as judge has. So judging intent is a slipper slope. I don't know what my opponent will do next turn, thus I need to be able to prepare for those next turns.
-cut it- too much sour grapes -
Last edited:
I'd like to ask, what exactly is classified as "slow play?"
Because sometimes, if I'm in a tough situation, don't know what to do next, or trying to think of the best move, I spend lots of time during my turns. I end up reading all the cards in my hand, even ones that I know what they do already. I also read some of the opponents Pokemon, sometimes even more than once, just to make sure I understand everything that is going on.
Is this kind of careful thinking/planning slow play? If it is, how do I fix it?
Because sometimes, if I'm in a tough situation, don't know what to do next, or trying to think of the best move, I spend lots of time during my turns. I end up reading all the cards in my hand, even ones that I know what they do already. I also read some of the opponents Pokemon, sometimes even more than once, just to make sure I understand everything that is going on.
Is this kind of careful thinking/planning slow play? If it is, how do I fix it?
SD, I like your analogy to "musical chairs." :smile::thumb:
I remember those days as a child. When I was certain that the music was going to stop soon, I'd walk very slow when circling at the front of the chair, but "whip quickly around" when circling behind the chair. That's very analogous to the "tail end" of some Pokemon matches. :lol:
One more analogy to the idea of judges interjecting game-play. After playing a Premier Ball, I've heard many judges say that you cannot get one from your deck if you pick up your discard pile first. In that ruling, the judge has imposed his intent upon the player which may or may not have been the player's own intent. So, it's not unprecedented for a judge to impose intent.
Anyway, I generally don't like judges imposing intent either, but I guarantee there can be situations where it's warranted, or some feel it's warranted, like the Premier Ball example above.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Also from the guidelines:
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
BTW, Game Tempo is considered less serious than Stalling. Slow-play is considered an unintential infraction. Stalling is cheating. So, if a judge tells you you're slow-playing, don't take it to mean he claims you're stalling.
I remember those days as a child. When I was certain that the music was going to stop soon, I'd walk very slow when circling at the front of the chair, but "whip quickly around" when circling behind the chair. That's very analogous to the "tail end" of some Pokemon matches. :lol:
One more analogy to the idea of judges interjecting game-play. After playing a Premier Ball, I've heard many judges say that you cannot get one from your deck if you pick up your discard pile first. In that ruling, the judge has imposed his intent upon the player which may or may not have been the player's own intent. So, it's not unprecedented for a judge to impose intent.
Anyway, I generally don't like judges imposing intent either, but I guarantee there can be situations where it's warranted, or some feel it's warranted, like the Premier Ball example above.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Here's how the guidelines describe it:
Penalty Guidelines said:
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Also from the guidelines:
Notice how it mentions turn-tempo and not action-tempo. So, slowing down because of the pressure of losing when the time is short means a judge can step in "and make corrections if needed."Penalty Guidelines said:
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
BTW, Game Tempo is considered less serious than Stalling. Slow-play is considered an unintential infraction. Stalling is cheating. So, if a judge tells you you're slow-playing, don't take it to mean he claims you're stalling.
Last edited:
You are wrong there. Does the card say look at your discard and deck then decide where to get it from. NO If they play premier ball then pick up their discard or deck then they have made known their intent is to get it from the one they pick up not the judge imposing his intent. The card does say choose your discard or deck to get a level X. When they pick up one or the other then they have made their choice. That is way they should look at their discard before playing premier ball.
- Status