Double Game Loss after 1 player has irreparably breaks game state

Discussion in 'Judges' Chambers' started by gwsmith001, Apr 4, 2016.

8 league13 468 60
  1. gwsmith001

    gwsmith001 New Member

    I had a ruling at a State Championship that seemed too severe. During game 1, I attacked using Quaking Punch, item locking my opponent. My opponent had 2 cards in their hand. On her next turn, she played a VS Seeker for a Professor Birch, and shuffled her lone card into her deck. We realized the mistake within seconds.

    We were both penalized a game loss. Under the penalty guideline for a severe game play error (7.1.3) the opponent (me) should have only got a warning.
    I appealed to the Head Judge stating my penalty was too severe. He stated this is how it was ruled at both Nationals and Worlds so players would not do that on purpose just to have a game loss issued to their opponent.

    Certainly, if “Judge” was played, and both shuffled their hands into the deck (similar to “N”), both players could/should have a game lose.

    Is this the case? Has it been ruled this way for all Tier 2 tournaments, superseding 7.1.3 in the penalty guideline? If so, what prohibits a player that won game one quickly playing a 2nd supporter (for example, plays Lysandre, then playing various other cards during the turn, then playing Shauna, shuffling their hand into their deck), breaking the game state, and causing a double game lose, thus winning the match?

  2. PokePop

    PokePop Administrator

    Well, that's a bit too much to say.
    I will say that it has and can be ruled that way.
    I can't say that it is universally ruled that way.
  3. Abudoggie

    Abudoggie Moderator


    The penalty guidelines are a starting point for any given situation. In the situation you describe, for a Masters age group Tier 2 event, I think the line of thought for escalating the penalty on your side is that your Quaking Punch attack ascribes a burden of responsibility to you to monitor and prevent the playing of Item cards. Indeed, that is the reason you play the card and use the attack. Stop items. So the "oops" on your side is elevated more than that of a player just passively watching an opponent play their turn out. You created a game effect that carried into your opponent's turn. Proper application of that game effect should have prevented the broken gamestate. Therefore, the judge felt you bore the same burden for preventing playing the card as the opponent had for not playing it. Just my interpretation fwiw.
  4. LOLZ

    LOLZ Member

    Well, I was at the Nationals Head Judges Meeting and I was at the Nationals All Judge Meeting when we got clarity about how this should be ruled. I will say that there was a spirited debate among very passionate people in the all Judge meeting, which was resolved by Dan stating what the penatly is suppose to be.

    The gamestate breaking error is the shuffling of the hand into the deck, if a player shuffles their hand into their deck when they are not suppose to or shouldn't be able to, THIS IS THE ERROR THAT GETS THE GAME LOSS. If both shuffle in, BOTH gets the GL.

    It was also stated at Nationals that should Player A play sloppy and Player B shuffles their hand into their deck because Player A is playing sloppy and isn't keeping up, Player A will get a WARNING, but the next time, they too will get the Game Loss. Player B still gets the Game Loss regardless of what Player A received as they shuffled their hand into their deck

    That being said, applying this concept to the error in the original post, Player X played VS Seeker, got Birch and used Birch. Player X broke gamestate, Player X gets a Game Loss, Player Y gets a warning. Yes Player Y started the Sesmitoad lock, but Player X committed the bigger error that can not be fixed.

    I did hear at a regional, someone (Player M) was issued a GL and their opponent (Player N) not a Game Loss. Player M started the Trainer Lock, and Player N broke item lock (VS Seeker for Birch) which lead to a broken gamestate. The wrong logic that was used in this case was that Player M (the toad player) was more at fault as it was his card that started the lock. Yes both players are at fault, but the wrong person got the Game Loss here as the person who broke the gamestate did not the GL.
  5. Abudoggie

    Abudoggie Moderator

    Anthony.. in your discussion I note the "next time, they too will get a game loss". Just curious if the OP had previously been warned? Any other facts that the judges might have taken into account?
  6. LOLZ

    LOLZ Member

    Regardless of History, if a judge can prove baiting, then it is a DQ.

    Other then that, nothing else to take into account, when dealing with a unrewindable broken gamestate, really there is nothing we can do other then end the game in a Game Loss for the player who broke the gamestate. There is no leeway in penatly if that is what you are looking for.

    Note, I brought up a few different variations of shuffling hand into deck w/o card effect.

    In the original post, the issue was Player X played a VS Seeker under item lock which led to them playing a Birch, in this case it should start warning (caution for Tier 1) for Player Y for not stopping the play of the VS Seeker. This is a GPE-Major for the player who played the VS Seeker, but the penatly is escalated to Game Loss as the Game State as advanced to a point where it is unrewindable. The next time Player X allows the opponent to play an item under item lock, their penalty should be increased 1 step regardless of what item the other opponent as played and how broken the gamestate is. Even if it was an Ultra Ball that was played under item lock 3 players prior, the penatly for Player X still increases.

    Regarding the case of 2nd supporter N or something like it where, we were told to notate on the penatly sheet very clearly that Player A played a 2nd supporter and Player B shuffled their hand into the deck. We were also told to commucate to Player A that next time this happens they will get a Game Loss as well.

    Does this answer your question?
  7. Abudoggie

    Abudoggie Moderator ran a lot of directions there. Let me regroup you. The OP as Player A was concerned why he got a game loss along with Player B. He felt he should have got a warning. You then shared some of the rationale you recalled from Nats. Specifically: "It was also stated at Nationals that should Player A play sloppy and Player B shuffles their hand into their deck because Player A is playing sloppy and isn't keeping up, Player A will get a WARNING, but the next time, they too will get the Game Loss."

    So I was referring back to the OP if he had already rec'd a warning? That may have triggered the escalation. Also wondered if was he aware of any other factors that the judges may have considered that occurred over the course of the day
    ? (those were questions for the OP, not you Anthony :calm: ). Its always hard to step on the floor after-the-fact and get into the judges minds without hearing their perspective and rationale.
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2016
  8. meganium45

    meganium45 Active Member

    Anthony, what you stated about the situation at Nationals was correct, but like any judge call, there is certainly more to the story.

    What I have heard, clearly, is that not only did the player play the VS Seeker, they also did so as a "shortcut" where they simply dropped the VS Seeker in the discard, and said "Birch" and shuffled their hand into their deck. This gave the Toad player NO time to correct the second play, and very little time to catch the first play. That makes a double game loss, while already an "escalating" call against the Toad player even more in question here.

    The question I always ask myself is, what was done, why was it done, and could it have been stopped by proper play. Shortcuts with VS Seeker, and other cards really hamper the ability of a player, or a judge to stop the illegal play in the chain (to use terminology from another game).

    The argument "that's the way they did it at nats and worlds" is less convincing to me at all times than "this is why we are issuing this penalty in this circumstance". the fact that there are a privileged few judges who KNOW what was said at Nats and Worlds meetings (but have no proof in the rulebooks or guidelines for normal people) make it a responsibility to fully explain the call and rationale for the penalties.

    My 2 cents (thanks to Kim and 'pop for getting me back on :) )

  9. gwsmith001

    gwsmith001 New Member

    Thanks for the responses and opinions. I do understand each point.

    To give it a bit more text, this was a mid-round game, near a bottom table. The question is based on no extraordinary circumstances. No CPs were going to be received that day by either player. No warnings were issued to me (the Toad player) that day, as this was the first and only issue I had. I had not been issued a warning for this play at any previous events. (My kids are competitive, not me. So I attend many events, but do not normally top cut.)

    The opponent played the VS seeker for a Birch, that was in the discard pile, and shuffled her lone card into her deck. She had not retrieved the Birch from her discard pile, simply declared and shuffled her hand. Hence, the declaration of VS seeker and shuffling her hand probably took 2 to 3 seconds, if that. (I do agree it is still my responsibility to catch it, though). But it happened quickly.

    The HJ asked my opponent if she remembered what card it was, implying he would allow her to retrieve it if she remembered (we spent some time on this). She did not. No other queries, other than asking me if I tried to stop her, were done. After speaking to the HJ, he stated a double game loss would be issued to everyone in the same situation at his event-- no warnings would be issued. He also stated this was the way it was ruled at Nationals and Worlds and was following that guideline. I had stated a Warning was appropriate for me, as per the guidelines. But his ruling was final. No announcement stating the guideline would be elevated for this offense occurred prior to the start of the event.

    I think my biggest question was answered -- was this a ruling at Nationals that went beyond the guidelines. As Anthony explained, "It was also stated at Nationals that should Player A play sloppy and Player B shuffles their hand into their deck because Player A is playing sloppy and isn't keeping up, Player A will get a WARNING, but the next time, they too will get the Game Loss." That does fall within the guidelines and makes perfect sense. However, I think the HJ was in the camp where he believes there is a higher standard upon those players using item lock decks, and issues a game lose to both opponents no matter of the circumstance. I personally do not agree with it, and believe our current guidelines, as stated by Anthony, is clear. I am glad to hear it was not ruled a double game loss at our National Tournament. I hope as a player rulings like this are consistent across all Tier 2 events. It certainly discourages me in attending events that are not.
  10. LOLZ

    LOLZ Member

    Can you elaborate on this Vince? If I am reading what you said correctly the Toad player had no opportunity to stop the error (VS Seeker-Shortcut-Birch) of the other player, yet the Toad player still gets a Game Loss? Are you agreeing with the Double Game Loss or are you questioning the call? It isn't exactly clear to me what you are intending to say.

    Even if the Toad player did have time to stop the other player, it would only be a Warning to them. Judges will take this into consideration if the error happens again and escalate accordingly.

    If a player doesn't have time (because of very fast play or use of shortcuts) to stop the other player from committing an infraction, they get no penalty provided they catch the error right away.
  11. Speedy

    Speedy Member

    At the Texas State Championship in 2015, a precedent was set by the PTO and the Head Judge that any player playing Seismitoad EX and employing Quaking Punch would be held responsible for the play described in the original post. Clearly the player that shuffled his hand into his deck is responsible for the broken game state and deserves a Game Loss. What is unclear is the correct penalty for the Toad player. In most situations, he would be getting a Game Loss also for not preventing his opponent from playing the VS Seeker. However, there are always situations where that may not be appropriate. These include when a player goes so fast that he couldn't be stopped, which may be what happened in this example. In addition, if a player is up a game in a best of 3, a double game loss could be advantageous. If he's up 1-0, a double game loss makes the record 2-1 and gives him the match win. So, there will never be only 1 way to rule this situation. However, in most cases, a double game loss is appropriate. Sorry. Next time the player needs to pay attention.
  12. LOLZ

    LOLZ Member

    My comments is red....

    This is EXACTLY like 2nd Supporter N that was discussed at Nationals. Lets discuss that issue.

    Player A plays VS Seeker gets N, does not play it but Player B assumes the card is played (or Player A played 2nd supporter N). Player B shuffles their hand into their deck.

    Opinions varied about how to handle this, some said GL for Player A, some said GL for Player B, few said GL for both. Dan Brandt made it very clear is that the error that is being penalized is the shuffling the hand into the deck. Player B gets the Game Loss. Yes, Player A may get something for contributing to the error, but Player B made the larger error and broke the gamestate.

    Now lets look at Toad and Items being played. What is the error here- A play of an Item under Item lock. Unless we are thinking unsporting conduct for Toad Player, the player playing the item under item lock gets the larger penatly.

    My 4 cents.
  13. SaxyMan

    SaxyMan New Member

    I had a situation at St Louis Regionals where my opponent and I were given a DGL in game 2. Instead of the game 1 winner winning the match, we were told the result of game 2 is that there is no winner and to move on to game 3. The guys at the match next to ours thought it was weird that it was ruled that way, but is it correct?
  14. LOLZ

    LOLZ Member

    From the Compendium


Share This Page