Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Austino's Texas States Report: DQ'd from Top Cut!

I guess it's just easy to make that call until it happens to you. I'm putting myself in Austin's shoes and honestly, I'd be a little disappointed if it went down like that too. It was a simple mistake, there was no lying or intention to mislead. Honestly, they gave the option because they were running late as it was, and then we didn't even start until 2 hours later, so we were all in a rush to get things started. There's alot of what if's here. I understand the case of both sides, and the justification for the DQ as well as being upset about the DQ, I'm just siding more with the fact that a simple mistake like that doesn't seem to warrant a DQ, especially when it can be fixed easily and would have been checked if everything wasn't so far behind.
 
Whicker said:
I think some of the people here are missing what happened at this tournament regarding the DQ. Before the tournament began, to save time, the judges allowed people to opt out of deck checks if they so chose. If you did so (I did so I know the judges told me this) then they told you right then and there that if you opted out of checks and were checked later on in the tournament and your list did not match your deck, you would receive a DQ. Austin chose to opt out of deck checks and received this same warning. If he wanted to prevent this from happening he could have either 1. filled out his decklist properly (come on people, we do it every tournament), 2. proofread his list or 3. gotten his deck checked so the error would have been caught before it became a problem. The right call was made.
Click to expand...

Just like how you deserved your game loss in top cut last year in OK States. You clearly didn't KO your opponent's pokemon and took your prize anyway. Whether your opponent knew his pokemon was ko'd and discarded it is irrelevant because YOU didn't pay attention to game state.

:lol:

People aren't "missing what happened at this tournament regarding the DQ" when I clearly explained exactly what was told to me when I was offered opting out of the deck check. Everyone makes simple mistakes. These mistakes cost us Championships sometimes. I took the blame for my error. While I disagree with the decision, I knew it was the decision that was caused by MY error. I'm not as concerned with a DQ considering me losing this event wasn't decided on my inability to play correctly, but simply my hurried typing on a decklist and not checking over it. I am MORE concerned with 2 of my 3 binders being stolen (which happened to be the ones with every valuable card I own).

Another thing Whicker, you're welcome for loaning you the cards that you used for the event. Feel free to borrow anytime (if I even have the cards now). :thumb:
 
Whicker said:
I think some of the people here are missing what happened at this tournament regarding the DQ. Before the tournament began, to save time, the judges allowed people to opt out of deck checks if they so chose. If you did so (I did so I know the judges told me this) then they told you right then and there that if you opted out of checks and were checked later on in the tournament and your list did not match your deck, you would receive a DQ.
Click to expand...

Knowing this doesn't change my mind about what happened. The context of the events that led to the DQ and the DQ itself are incongruent. Period. The judge must have immediately recongnized the inconsistency for what it was: a transposition of numbers. For as hectic as any tournament is getting started, the frenzy dies down after top cut, and that's when minds need to be sharper.

If he wanted to prevent this from happening he could have either 1. filled out his decklist properly (come on people, we do it every tournament), 2. proofread his list or 3. gotten his deck checked so the error would have been caught before it became a problem.
Click to expand...

With respect, the preamble to these points is absurd. It begs that he knew that the list was incorrect, when he has already stated that he believed his decklist was properly filled out and proofread.

The right call was made.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. That's why I'm going to keep my eye on this thread.
 
Austino said:
One of the judges makes an announcement for Masters that we can elect out of the deck check and just turn in lists, but will be DQ'd if something in the list is wrong (if making it to top cut).
Click to expand...
I don't understand why people would skip a full deck check if given the option. It just opens the door for errors to go uncaught, as you experienced.

Were the binders left on a table or did someone have to go into your bag to get them? If the latter, it probably means it is someone who knows you or someone who was around you when you had the binders out.

No matter how it happened, without giving any details on here, you should get the details of the binders (size, color, style, any marks or oddities) as well as the condition of particular cards or any notable cards (identifiable marks, uncommonly seen foreign language cards, etc) and get it to the TOs and LLs of the nearby areas. The faster you do this, the better. Someone knows the person who took them. Maybe offer a reward? Perhaps offering to a "no questions asked" policy about how the binders got into someone else's hands if they are returned to encourage returning them?
 
This kind of penalty falls under the Legal Decklist, Legal Deck penalty. At either tier, this is a Warning penalty, with the option for the judge to elevate it to a Game Loss.

So, either the judge felt you gained somekind of extreme advantage by this violation, or something similiar.

Did the judge specifically tell you what the penalty was? For it to be a DQ, something needs to be serious. Most deck/decklist issues that I'm aware aren't so serious that they warrant a DQ. And, that's not my opinion -- that's straight from Section 7.3 of the Penalty Guidelines.

So, yeah, you made a boo-boo. But, either the penalty was something different, or the judge elevated the penalty beyond the normal guidelines (ie., previous penalties, serious circumstances).
 
ShadowCard said:
I don't understand why people would skip a full deck check if given the option. It just opens the door for errors to go uncaught, as you experienced.

Were the binders left on a table or did someone have to go into your bag to get them? If the latter, it probably means it is someone who knows you or someone who was around you when you had the binders out.

No matter how it happened, without giving any details on here, you should get the details of the binders (size, color, style, any marks or oddities) as well as the condition of particular cards or any notable cards (identifiable marks, uncommonly seen foreign language cards, etc) and get it to the TOs and LLs of the nearby areas. The faster you do this, the better. Someone knows the person who took them. Maybe offer a reward? Perhaps offering to a "no questions asked" policy about how the binders got into someone else's hands if they are returned to encourage returning them?
Click to expand...

I was under the impression my list was fine, and decided to make it easier on staff and myself by opting out of deck check. That was the only reason. I obviously won't skip a deckcheck again and learned from it.

IDK if they were stolen off a table or out of my bag. I don't even know when/where they were stolen. It really is a shame though, because I'm usually the person people have come to to borrow cards for events. Even loaned out entire decks before. Now I can't do those things.

Prof Tyranitar binder filled with both LEGENDS front page, with JP Pikachu M Lv. X behind them along with victory medal and TSD. Then 3 pages of Primes, and a TON of LV. X cards behind it along with Player Reward energies and a bunch of RH cards that I use in my SP decks.

The other binder is 1/2 inch black binder full of each Lv. X, followed by 20+ EX's, full Arcues set, reprint sets, rotom sets, then followed by Base Set holos, random jungle/fossil/rocket holos, and WB stamped promos.
 
deredd04 said:
It was because we had a massive number of masters and it would have been hard to get them all in a timely manner.
Click to expand...
If the TO gives the players the option of opting out of the deck check in the hopes to save registration time, then by no means should the TO hold that against players when errors are found later.

I'm not saying that happened here, but if I ever heard a TO say they allow players to opt out of deck checks in hopes of saving time, then later penalized those players more severely because they opted out, I'd be extremely angry.
 
SteveP said:
If the TO gives the players the option of opting out of the deck check in the hopes to save registration time, then by no means should the TO hold that against players when errors are found later.

I'm not saying that happened here, but if I ever heard a TO say they allow players to opt out of deck checks in hopes of saving time, then later penalized those players more severely because they opted out, I'd be extremely angry.
Click to expand...

This was my opinion as well. I explained that I pre-printed my list and opted out to save them and me time, a win-win situation. I can't do anything about it now, but I don't care to go back to TX for tournaments. KS will be easier meta, and the judges won't be throwing around threats of Game Losses for someone leaving trash on the ground.
 
only in pokemon can there be an uproar due to a wrong decklist dq.

What most of you cannot seem to grasp is that the LIST IS WRONG. He played all day with an illegal deck, how you all can say it has no weight on the outcome is beyond me.

It is not the judges call to say what is obvious or not in regards to deckbuilding.

Pokemon, the game where cheating results in a slap on the wrist.
 
Austino said:
This was my opinion as well. I explained that I pre-printed my list and opted out to save them and me time, a win-win situation. I can't do anything about it now, but I don't care to go back to TX for tournaments. KS will be easier meta, and the judges won't be throwing around threats of Game Losses for someone leaving trash on the ground.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure why this TO allowed players to opt out. If the primary motive was to save time, then penalty elevation was too excessive. But, I'm wondering if the TO allowed the opt outs for "scouting" reasons (other players might glimpse your deck during the check). I know of a few players who "guard" they deck/decklist real closely during the deck check. I've seen players get real "antsy" when I check their deck, asking me to hold the cards a certain way so that others can't see the card-face while I'm checking. Perhaps that's the primary reason the TO allowed the opt outs.
 
SteveP said:
This kind of penalty falls under the Legal Decklist, Legal Deck penalty. At either tier, this is a Warning penalty, with the option for the judge to elevate it to a Game Loss.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Yeah, I could see no reason for that, especially considering it was top cut.

If the TO gives the players the option of opting out of the deck check in the hopes to save registration time, then by no means should the TO hold that against players when errors are found later.

I'm not saying that happened here, but if I ever heard a TO say they allow players to opt out of deck checks in hopes of saving time, then later penalized those players more severely because they opted out, I'd be extremely angry.
Click to expand...

Exactly. but like Austin said, alot of questionable things happened. Hell, I got pulled aside and was told I was on a Judges "bad side" because we called a judge to our game "5 times" (it was 3, and they were legit calls) and I needed to be careful. As well, the threat of leaving trash on the ground and a bunch of other stuff equalling a DQ just added to what already was a stressful day for everyone. I understand some of it but it felt like there were alot of things that were handled far too strict and poorly. I know it's not the fault of everyone, I just think a certain few were being extremely unruly.

As for the Legal Deck Penalty, can you post the official ruling on that, just in case (god forbid) this ever happens again?
 
Mloclam said:
only in pokemon can there be an uproar due to a wrong decklist dq.

What most of you cannot seem to grasp is that the LIST IS WRONG. He played all day with an illegal deck, how you all can say it has no weight on the outcome is beyond me.

It is not the judges call to say what is obvious or not in regards to deckbuilding.

Pokemon, the game where cheating results in a slap on the wrist.
Click to expand...
No, Cheating in Pokemon results in a DQ (or ban). Bad decks and/or decklists result in something less.

In Pokemon, the penalty needs to fit the crime.
 
SteveP said:
Yeah, I'm not sure why this TO allowed players to opt out. If the primary motive was to save time, then penalty elevation was too excessive. But, I'm wondering if the TO allowed the opt outs for "scouting" reasons (other players might glimpse your deck during the check). I know of a few players who "guard" they deck/decklist real closely during the deck check. I've seen players get real "antsy" when I check their deck, asking me to hold the cards a certain way so that others can't see the card-face while I'm checking. Perhaps that's the primary reason the TO allowed the opt outs.
Click to expand...

They were WAY behind. We had over 250 people show up, over 125 of them being masters, Granted, it's Texas, we expected tons of participants. They allowed the opting out because if they didn't, we would have started late. Probably wouldn't have mattered either way as we had a 2 hour delay due to whatever reasons anyway, but the fact of it is that they offered it to assist them and everyone else by getting the game going. This was the entire reason for the Opt Out, and it wasn't offered the entire time, just near the end.
 
Austino said:
Just like how you deserved your game loss in top cut last year in OK States. You clearly didn't KO your opponent's pokemon and took your prize anyway. Whether your opponent knew his pokemon was ko'd and discarded it is irrelevant because YOU didn't pay attention to game state.

:lol:

People aren't "missing what happened at this tournament regarding the DQ" when I clearly explained exactly what was told to me when I was offered opting out of the deck check. Everyone makes simple mistakes. These mistakes cost us Championships sometimes. I took the blame for my error. While I disagree with the decision, I knew it was the decision that was caused by MY error. I'm not as concerned with a DQ considering me losing this event wasn't decided on my inability to play correctly, but simply my hurried typing on a decklist and not checking over it. I am MORE concerned with 2 of my 3 binders being stolen (which happened to be the ones with every valuable card I own).

Another thing Whicker, you're welcome for loaning you the cards that you used for the event. Feel free to borrow anytime (if I even have the cards now). :thumb:
Click to expand...

The game loss, I would argue, is different. In the penalty guidelines it states I should have received a prize loss, not a game loss. However, Fish specifically said you would receive a DQ if your decklist was incorrect. It's irrelevant, however.

I wasn't arguing against you, Austin. I know that you aren't blaming anyone and yes, the binders are the worse problem here. I was reiterating for everyone else who thinks you shouldn't have received a DQ because I think that the DQ was the right call. It wasn't anything but simple enforcement of rules that were clearly defined beforehand.

Little Lad:
He believed his list was filled out correctly for sure. I have no problem with that. That doesn't change the fact that it was filled out incorrectly. It is not hard to fill out a decklist correctly: we have to do it every tournament. I understand that with a typed out list typos can happen. I'm okay with certain typos, such as missing a capitalization or other error, but when the typo changes the deck to another one that could be legally played, then there's a problem. Proofread the list (which if you read Austin's post that I responded to he admitted he did not correctly proofread his list) and get your deck checked. Personally, the only reason I opted out of checks was because I was still borrowing cards and was worried I wouldn't have a completed deck for the check anyway. Otherwise, I believe you should always get your deck checked because this type of error would be caught along with sleeve errors or other little things that you can't catch on your own. Therefore, my three ways of avoiding this DQ stand. They seem to have worked for the vast majority of players for a long time at least.

Stevep:
Whether or not DQ is the "correct" penalty for a "simple mistake" in the list, it doesn't change the fact that the DQ penalty was made very clear BEFORE you handed in your list. At that point you know what the penalty is, and if you fall under the said infraction you must face that penalty.
 
thephoenix said:
This was the entire reason for the Opt Out, and it wasn't offered the entire time, just near the end.
Click to expand...

This is a completely and utterly false statement. I was told at nine (when registration began) that we could opt out of deck checks. Please do not spread false information just to try and make your point.
 
Whicker said:
This is a completely and utterly false statement. I was told at nine (when registration began) that we could opt out of deck checks. Please do not spread false information just to try and make your point.
Click to expand...

I was there at 9AM. Did you see the line? I only heard it mentioned near the very end, and that's what I was told by a runner. Either way, the time doesn't matter, it's the purpose.
 
Whicker said:
This is a completely and utterly false statement. I was told at nine (when registration began) that we could opt out of deck checks. Please do not spread false information just to try and make your point.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to agree with Whicker on that. I was standing next to Fish when he made that announcement. I was in the minority of it affecting because I was at the front of the deck check line. He made it clear near the beginning of deck check when the Master's line got extremely long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top