|
Author
|
Topic: What would you have done?
|
Professor_Sharkie
Member # 65849
|
posted February 19, 2003 05:36 PM
A questions for all those Pokemon Professors out there. Two players are playing in a Super Battlezone for the championship. (Side note: the Super Battlezone is being ran as unlimited) Both Players are both Pokemon Professors. Player A is active and plays a Professor Oak . He has no hand but begins to shuffle his deck and than draws seven cards. A judge is called over. You are the judge give me a ruling please.
--------------------
DCI Rating:2084 I rank 23th Globally. Yet I am still an unknown player....
Major Events that I have played in:
ECSTS 2000
ECSTS 2001
NJSC Professor's Draft
2002 Orgins Professor's Event
2nd Place Syracuse SBZ-Feb 2002
2003 Origins Professor's Event-3rd place
From: Somewhere in a deep hole. Other people call it Buffalo NY | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
yoshi1001
Member # 825
|
posted February 19, 2003 05:54 PM
Well, the minimum penalty Procedural error-Misrepresentation necessitates a caution. I would do that. Now if they had a hand at the the time, that would warrant a prize swap.
--------------------
Visit Pokéwatch!
Listen to PIRN, the Pokémon Internet Radio Network. We have interviews with Master Trainer Mike, Kierin Chase, and more, as well as your favorite Pokémon music! PIRN: The number 1 Pokémon Internet Radio Station!
PIRN: The Magazine
PIRN Message Boards
GCAbGEbGF
AIM: yoshi1001
From: Janesville, Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prime
Member
Member # 102940
|
posted February 19, 2003 06:40 PM
I don't see what is wrong. Its unlimited and he had no hand. The only thing I could see wrong was if he had played a elm before and cannot play trainer for the rest of the turn, but you have not said that. So whats so wrong here?
--------------------
"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: Asheville, North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Professor_Sharkie
Member # 65849
|
posted February 19, 2003 06:42 PM
Thanks Yoshi. Prime it is not a professor Elm that they played but a Professor Oak. That is what is wrong.
--------------------
DCI Rating:2084 I rank 23th Globally. Yet I am still an unknown player....
Major Events that I have played in:
ECSTS 2000
ECSTS 2001
NJSC Professor's Draft
2002 Orgins Professor's Event
2nd Place Syracuse SBZ-Feb 2002
2003 Origins Professor's Event-3rd place
From: Somewhere in a deep hole. Other people call it Buffalo NY | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prime
Member
Member # 102940
|
posted February 19, 2003 07:00 PM
It was unlimited. Is there a rule about not being able to play oak? I thought Unlimited supported all cards?
--------------------
"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: Asheville, North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mysterioustrainer
Member # 1049
|
posted February 19, 2003 07:03 PM
No no no... Shuffling can only be done when it is called to, that was a free shuffle infraction which warrents the penalty.
[ February 19, 2003, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: mysterioustrainer ]
--------------------
~Myst
www.freewebs.com/mysterioustrainer
Check out my personal website. Includes my ideas for decks my own fake cards, GB Teams, links to Ebay auctions, main trading page and much, much more.
1748 DCI Rating
Top player in state of Wyoming (Hmm. Could have something to do with the fact that the other four players in the state haven't played in over two years?)
From: Wherever the adventure takes me! | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Dark Llama
Member
Member # 75434
|
posted February 19, 2003 08:23 PM
Had he not shuffled, there would be no penaty at all, as a hand of zero cards is still considered a hand. However, I guess in this case, you can't follow the text on the card and shuffle your invisible hand into yor deck eh?
[EDIT] *looks at Oak* My bad! I forgot Oak had no shuffling required, sorry!
[ February 19, 2003, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: The Dark Llama ]
--------------------
Best Decks
Kurai Tsuki no Kokoro
Dark Ampharos/Dark Espeon
31-7
Kage Ha!
Dark Scizor
8-0
Elm, Oak, Cleffa and Copycat are archetypes.
YGO Deck:
Yukai na Shi ni yotte Ryu
Pleasant Death by way of Dragon
25-8
My have/want list
One Sentence Add-On!
From: San Diego | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 19, 2003 10:51 PM
*** See update below ***
Well, shuffling is irreversable in my book. So, it would depend. If he did something before the Oak like Peek, Recycle, or Pokedex (or anything where he knew what was in the top 7 cards of his deck), it would definately be a prize swap penalty. Also, I'd look closely at his sleeves and deck. If the Holos are slightly curved, he could have easily seen that and shuffled his deck to try to get one of those holos in the top 7 cards.
This is a tough one. But, if this is the finals, the player should've known better and certainly knows he made a mistake. But, without the above mentioned situations, personally I'd probably give a caution and verbal warning. Nevertheless, I could see a stricter judge ruling a prize-swap penalty (because the mistake is irreversable).
So, tell us Prof Sharkie, how did the judge rule?
*** UPDATE ***
There's an example of this infraction in section 113 (Procedure Error - Severe) of the Penalty Guidelines:
quote:
(E) A player shuffles his deck when it is not appropriate to do so.
The normal penalty for this unintentional infraction is a game loss (which equates to a prize-swap in 1-game Pokemon matches). However, the guidelines also say this in section 113:
quote:
Procedural errors vary significantly and the judge should adjust the penalty appropriately to reflect the level of tournament disruption.
So, I nicer judge might use his discretionary powers to lighten the penalty to a caution if the circumstances warranted.
[ February 19, 2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: SteveP ]
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DMTM
Member # 10
|
posted February 19, 2003 11:44 PM
It is a caution under REL 1 or 2.
Re-randomizing does not change game state. A random deck is a random deck. Re-shuffling it does not change that.
Penalty is a caution here.
DMTM
--------------------
Frodo_Baggins - "Like the guy said "Get out of the box""
From: Seattle, Wa, USA | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 19, 2003 11:48 PM
At first glance, I tend to agree with you DMTM. But the example in the Penalty Guidelines certainly can't be ignored. IMO, I think a judge could rule either way (caution - game loss), depending on the circumstances.
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porygone3
Member
Member # 73689
|
posted February 20, 2003 12:19 AM
well, unless there was a reasion that the deck was not random, for example, the new slowking's attack, or some other reasion- I dont see the problem with shuffling- however I would ask the perosn that did that just what in the world were they doing...
--------------------
Erica total 24, thats right, 24.
Dunsprace total 41.
I've gotten 98 on that Machoke at work game. I beat Driving Corasola.
I almost beat the record in Hold Down hip hop. I got 2000 or so in Kinglers day. I got 7 in Rapadash's dash. Butterfree's Flower Power 4700. 123 In Jumping Dodoro. My all foil deck is finished.
"I've got floating engery."
"I've got counter productive Powers."
"One heart can make a diferance."
"Rock the world baby, rock the world."
"Roll out!!"
From: USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DMTM
Member # 10
|
posted February 20, 2003 12:53 AM
Procedural Error—Severe
Definition
A severe procedural error occurs when a player performs an unintentional, extremely disruptive action at the tournament.
Example
(A) A player spills coffee on his deck and is unable to play the match effectively.
(B) A player draws from his sideboard and places it into his hand instead of drawing from his deck.
(C) A player loses his or her deck and must find replacement cards.
(D) A player in a Pokémon tournament uses Cleffa's Eeeeeeek attack and shuffles her hand back without flipping a coin per the Baby Pokémon rule.
(E) A player shuffles his deck when it is not appropriate to do so.
Philosophy
Procedural errors vary significantly and the judge should adjust the penalty appropriately to reflect the level of tournament disruption.
Game Loss all levels is the Penalty
This from the UTR.
The issue I have with the Game loss penalty on this one has to do with the overall philosopy which states that you always believe someone did not do something intentional until you are sure of it.
Now Oak and Elm are very similar cards and often played cards. The person in question just did not pick up their deck and shuffle it out of the blue. They picked it up after playing an Oak.
The level of tournament disruption is very low here. Given the info we have. I would not issue the Game loss prize swap here ever. It is way to harsh. I can see a warning and the a Game loss on the next infraction. Upon reflection the caution is probably not warranted.
Can't see a game loss on this particular shuffle though. The playing of the Oak mitigates it.
Remember all Pokémon tournaments for the most part are REL 1 or 2. This further mitigates the offence.
Good discussion. Good points Steve.
DMTM
--------------------
Frodo_Baggins - "Like the guy said "Get out of the box""
From: Seattle, Wa, USA | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spectreon
Member # 60305
|
posted February 20, 2003 07:28 AM
Like stated above, unless he did something to know what some or all of the cards he would draw, I would issue a warning. It sounds like an honest mistake, and one I could see my self doing. I cant remember the last time I even played an Oak, I have been playing a lot of Modified, and with no hand, it sounds like he played it like an Elm. Simple mistake, no real harm, warning only.
Just my 2 cents
--------------------
To evolve, treat Eevee poorly, when it hates your guts, let it get ko'ed in th night while holding Spell Tag. PS, if it gets ko'ed outin the day, then it will die, go visit its grave in Soul House of Lavender, next to Fuji
Spectreon: The Scary Ghost Pokemon
Spectreon often haunt graveyards, sneaking up and scaring unsuspecting visitors
From: Lavender Town, Kanto | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sands
Member # 31153
|
posted February 20, 2003 09:05 AM
I would also view this as an unintentional error and give it a caution. Also, since all players are to be responsible for what they are doing (representing their card played), I would also say that the player loses their hand.
Would that still be too sevre?
From: Rochester Hills, Mi. U.S. | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
yoshi1001
Member # 825
|
posted February 20, 2003 09:57 AM
Remember that the DCI documents are mainly guidelines and are in no way designed to cover every scenario. Yeah, the cleffa error should result in a prize swap, but for shuffling your deck? Only if other factors existed. Now, if they had shuffled their hand in as well, that's more serious.
--------------------
Visit Pokéwatch!
Listen to PIRN, the Pokémon Internet Radio Network. We have interviews with Master Trainer Mike, Kierin Chase, and more, as well as your favorite Pokémon music! PIRN: The number 1 Pokémon Internet Radio Station!
PIRN: The Magazine
PIRN Message Boards
GCAbGEbGF
AIM: yoshi1001
From: Janesville, Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SD_PokeMom
Member # 97
|
posted February 20, 2003 11:15 AM
Okay...this situation happened at the SBZ in SD, during one of the semi-final games.
Player 1 Elmed, shuffled in, then attempted to search his deck for seven cards. As I understood it, he had already looked through most if not all of his deck by the time Player 2 got the attention of the judge (who was NOT a Professor) to stop play.
What's the penalty in THIS situation?
[ February 20, 2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: SD_PokeMom ]
--------------------
Master Professor/Tournament Organizer/Pokémon League Gym Leader,
Adventure Games and Comics, Poway, CA
Nothing endures in this world. Everything changes according to karma. But, like the ocean, underneath the restless existance of the countless waves there is one boundless stillness that embraces and gives life to all the moving waves. Namuamidabutsu...
From: San Diego, CA --location of WCSTS-2001 and West Stadium Challenge 2002 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
yoshi1001
Member # 825
|
posted February 20, 2003 11:25 AM
From the penalty guidelines:
quote:
122. Card Drawing—Looking at Extra Cards
Definition
Players are considered to have looked at a card when the card is moved any significant amount from their decks. This could include dropping cards on the floor, turning a card over while shuffling their opponents' decks, or revealing cards from their decks in the act of misplaying a card. This penalty also applies when a player has looked at a card in an opponent's deck or hand in the course of a game (such as turning over an extra card while resolving a random discard effect).
A player is not considered to have looked at extra cards when he or she places a card face down on the table (without looking at the card) in an effort to count out cards he or she will draw.
This penalty should be applied only once to one or more cards if they are seen in the same action or sequence of actions.
Examples
(A) A player accidentally flips over a card while shuffling her opponent's deck.
(B) A player flips over an extra card while drawing from his deck.
(C) A player looks at the bottom card of her deck when presenting it to her opponent for cutting/shuffling.
(D) A player shuffles his deck or his opponent's deck with the cards face up.
(E) A player takes a card from her opponent's deck instead of her own.
Philosophy
A player can accidentally look at extra cards very easily, so the penalty is less severe than Card Drawing—Drawing Extra Cards. Drawing extra cards is a separate, more severe penalty because of the increased potential for abuse. In order to avoid supplying a free shuffle, the card(s) is placed back on top of the deck (if it was the top card of the deck that was seen) or returned to the area where it came from.
Penalty
In addition to the appropriate penalty, the situation should always be corrected. The opponent of the player committing the infraction should be allowed to see any cards that the other player has seen illegally due to this infraction.
An automatic game loss should be applied if a player has seen so many cards that a judge is unable to correct the situation or has received too much of an advantage by seeing an extra card (for example, the player sees the next card, which reveals some crucial, strategic information).
Card Drawing—Looking at Extra Cards
REL 1 REL 2 REL 3 REL 4 REL 5
Caution Caution Warning Warning Warning
(emphasis mine)
So at least a prize swap, maybe even a Match Loss if warranted.
--------------------
Visit Pokéwatch!
Listen to PIRN, the Pokémon Internet Radio Network. We have interviews with Master Trainer Mike, Kierin Chase, and more, as well as your favorite Pokémon music! PIRN: The number 1 Pokémon Internet Radio Station!
PIRN: The Magazine
PIRN Message Boards
GCAbGEbGF
AIM: yoshi1001
From: Janesville, Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DMTM
Member # 10
|
posted February 20, 2003 11:33 AM
Not so Yoshi. It would be a disqualification if you believe the person was intentionally cheating.
If you believe this person is not cheating it is a warning.
This person is searching their deck assumably because they believe that Elm allows them to do that.
Re shuffle the deck. and have them draw seven cards. It is a warning. If you believe they are intentionally cheating ( I would need to know more then the info I have) then they should be disqualified.
DMTM
--------------------
Frodo_Baggins - "Like the guy said "Get out of the box""
From: Seattle, Wa, USA | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 20, 2003 11:37 AM
DMTM brings up a good point. Adjusting the penalty 2 levels (from a game loss to a caution) may not be warranted (or proper). Although I hate giving warnings (because you have to report them to DCI), normally you're supposed to downgrade a penalty by only one level (I think).
In the author's original scenario, like others have stated, a lesser penalty is proper. IMO, the following could be considered severe disruptions:
1. Repeated infraction (like DMTM said)
2. Multiple Mindgames caused there to be 3-4 trainers stacked on top the deck
3. Pokedex was previously played
Item 2 could probably be reversed (and considered non-disruptive) by calling the judge over, randomly returning 3-4 cards from the player's hand, having the judge search the deck for those 3-4 trainers (or less if some/all are already in the player's hand) and putting them in the player's hand.
Now, DMTM brings up an excellent point. This all assumes that the infraction was unintentional. Now, if it could be determined that the infraction was intentional, that would required a more thorough investigation, and a difference penatly guideline would be applied.
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
yoshi1001
Member # 825
|
posted February 20, 2003 11:41 AM
Thanks for the correction, DMTM. (one closer to 5000! Whee!) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Actually, the penalty did seem a bit severe when I wrote it. However, the guidelines did seem to support it.
--------------------
Visit Pokéwatch!
Listen to PIRN, the Pokémon Internet Radio Network. We have interviews with Master Trainer Mike, Kierin Chase, and more, as well as your favorite Pokémon music! PIRN: The number 1 Pokémon Internet Radio Station!
PIRN: The Magazine
PIRN Message Boards
GCAbGEbGF
AIM: yoshi1001
From: Janesville, Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SD_PokeMom
Member # 97
|
posted February 20, 2003 11:48 AM
I guess my concern with the situation above was: this was at the end of the tourney, so the player had been playing this deck (and presumably Elm) all day...and, these were NOT inexperienced players. I am not saying that there was anything intentional on the Elm'ing player's side, cheating-wise; my point is that there IS NO CARD that comes close to allowing one to shuffle in their hand and SEARCH for a hand of 7 cards...and that the player had gone through his deck, therefore having a pretty good idea of what was available and what was in the prizes.
--------------------
Master Professor/Tournament Organizer/Pokémon League Gym Leader,
Adventure Games and Comics, Poway, CA
Nothing endures in this world. Everything changes according to karma. But, like the ocean, underneath the restless existance of the countless waves there is one boundless stillness that embraces and gives life to all the moving waves. Namuamidabutsu...
From: San Diego, CA --location of WCSTS-2001 and West Stadium Challenge 2002 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
yoshi1001
Member # 825
|
posted February 20, 2003 11:58 AM
Did they pull out cards? Put them in their hand? At this point all we have is a search.
--------------------
Visit Pokéwatch!
Listen to PIRN, the Pokémon Internet Radio Network. We have interviews with Master Trainer Mike, Kierin Chase, and more, as well as your favorite Pokémon music! PIRN: The number 1 Pokémon Internet Radio Station!
PIRN: The Magazine
PIRN Message Boards
GCAbGEbGF
AIM: yoshi1001
From: Janesville, Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 20, 2003 12:00 PM
Wow PokeMom, that's a tough one. Generally, I give the player the benefit of the doubt. I assume he did the searching unintentionally. It's a subjective determination that some critical information was revealed by the searching. For example, if the player told you he was checking to see how many of a particular card he had left, well, that MIGHT be critical.
IMO, the infraction you witnessed at SD could also be considered a Card Mis-interpretation if the player actually thought that's what Elm let you do. I believe this falls under Penalty 112 - Procedural Error - Major, which is a warning penalty.
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 20, 2003 12:10 PM
PokeMom, was he playing the Elm that way all day? If so, then he repeated the infraction on numerous occassions, which definately gave him a distinct advantage to advance in the tournament.
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prime
Member
Member # 102940
|
posted February 20, 2003 01:47 PM
Search your deck for 7 cards? I want that card!!! Still, whats up wit dat!? Hmm I don't know. He does know what cards are in his deck then but he might have done it by accident. Yea right, who plays elm that way? Seriously, if he got up to the finals, he should know how to play the card.
--------------------
"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: Asheville, North Carolina | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
