Judge Ball
- Thread starter FunnyBear
- Start date
- Status
A judges ball is something that has been around for as long as I have been. Not many people have heard about it, and I haven't heard of any body using it, but the judges are given no restrictions on using this.
As I have understood the rules, although there are no restrictions against the ball, it should only be used in certain situations when the shuffles are just going just way too long tht they delay the tournament.
3 times should not be enough for the judges ball, I would say give them until it is a real issue, if you need a number about 5 or more.
As I have understood the rules, although there are no restrictions against the ball, it should only be used in certain situations when the shuffles are just going just way too long tht they delay the tournament.
3 times should not be enough for the judges ball, I would say give them until it is a real issue, if you need a number about 5 or more.
Not only was it used, it was announced as a standing rule for a division during the event
No, I would not allow repeated pile shuffling, but I would have a judge shuffle
Easy. Just because its legal, doesn't mean its acceptable. I can build a deck with 4 basics and have room for all sorts of speed trainers if I don't have to worry about mulligans. The rules of the game should be known in advance, so you can build decks around them, not be announced just before round 1.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
I can see Judge Ball as a great way of fixing problems caused by decks with 4 or less Basics.
I really don't like this mandatory 3 mulligan only thing though. That seems much too low.
It also penalises the player by forcing them to start with a lone Basic. What if Judge Ball reveals a Basic off the top card and there were one or two others (that were better starters) in the first 7 cards? Tough luck mate, shuffle them back in.
That's VERY harsh after only 3 mulligans. It's the kind of thing you can accept if you choose to run 4 Basics, but what if you run 10-12 and just got unlucky?
I really don't like this mandatory 3 mulligan only thing though. That seems much too low.
It also penalises the player by forcing them to start with a lone Basic. What if Judge Ball reveals a Basic off the top card and there were one or two others (that were better starters) in the first 7 cards? Tough luck mate, shuffle them back in.
That's VERY harsh after only 3 mulligans. It's the kind of thing you can accept if you choose to run 4 Basics, but what if you run 10-12 and just got unlucky?
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
^ Good point. Thanks.
Still seems harsh that you lose a potential choice of starter after just 3 though.
Still seems harsh that you lose a potential choice of starter after just 3 though.
DukeFireBird
Gallery Administrator<br>Forum Moderator
Pokepop, I thought the judge balled pokemon was put aside, then the player shuffled and drew 6, adding that 7th card into their hand, and setup continued normally, ,could you clairify this, because what I said is what I thought happened.
P_A
Active Member
Wow ... I'm shocked!
Ness, I couldn't agree more! The "when" of its use, or "if it should even exist" have never been discussed on any of the forums that I remember. Perhaps it was a practice that happened which was not fully sanctioned by TPCi (or PUI), so we didn't hear about it's use. If this becomes common use, it would change things up substantially, making decks viable that weren't viable before. I can see how people are going to take advantage of this now that would have never considered a low basic count deck beforehand. Is this a practice that we really want to encourage? Not in my opinion. However my opinion doesn't count for much. :biggrin:
NoPoke
Active Member
I agree with this.
Personally, I would not take the specific circumstance of when it is implemented at one event as setting a precedent for all events and all time. (Three mulligans in the current format for juniors could be 5 or more minutes into a round. Players, juniors in particular, are not good at shuffling. )
Last edited:
Wow ... I'm shocked!
If this becomes common use, it would change things up substantially, making decks viable that weren't viable before. I can see how people are going to take advantage of this now that would have never considered a low basic count deck beforehand. Is this a practice that we really want to encourage? Not in my opinion. However my opinion doesn't count for much. :biggrin:
It has been discussed in forums that you have had access to. Can't help with the memory issue.
It is not only sanctioned by POP, it is their solution.
It is not something that should be used very often.
It is not used very often, as can be seen by the fact that most players are unaware of its existence.
I have done it or had it done (at events that I've run or HJ'd) less times than I can count on the fingers of one hand.
That's how often it should be used. It should be a "last resort", not a "first action".
If it is used after only a couple of mulligans, then yes, it could be seen as potentially abusable.
However, if a player has mulliganed over three times, the first thing I would do is to monitor their shuffling. If I see they are doing a full shuffle each time, involving multiple riffle or other kinds of shuffles that take 30 seconds or more per shuffle, the first thing I would do is to mandate a truncated shuffle. After all, the cards are randomized already. We're just looking at groups of 7 cards at a time. We're not moving the cards around (declumping) or anything, so extended shuffling is not required each time.
If they have a problem with shuffling quickly, I will shuffle for them!
If, after a few more draws, the player is still getting mulligans, then finally I will declare the judge ball to resolve it. By this point, the opponent has probably had the option to draw upwards of 6 or 7 additional cards.
P_A
Active Member
Yes, a few minutes after I wrote and submitted that post I did remember where I did indeed read about it. However due to real life intruding into my computer time, I just never had the time to edit my post. Sort of a moot point to do so now.
I certainly hope that this does not become common practice, nor that players deliberately abuse it, however I'm sure that since it now has become common knowledge that it definitely WILL happen.
I certainly hope that this does not become common practice, nor that players deliberately abuse it, however I'm sure that since it now has become common knowledge that it definitely WILL happen.
This is the first time I've heard about this. It's a neat concept, but I think it should be standardized quickly or something. It's unsettling to know I can play at one tournament and never be "Judge Balled," and then play at another where it's a mandatory process. IMO, it needs to be a consistent ruling.
I, personally, would prefer a certain number of mulligans to Judge Ball than an amount of time. For example, I would much rather have the "If you mulligan 3 times, you get a Judge Ball" than "If you mulligan for 5 minutes, you get a Judge Ball." The latter could be abused by slow shuffling, and would also be inconsistent. Like I said, this needs to be discussed for a tournament setting if it's gonna be used. It's concerning to me that we have a rule that's not found within any official document without any real guidelines, but is being used a high tier event like Regionals. It's basically up to the TO's or HJ's or whatever's discretion =/
Still, 3 mulligans seems really low >.> I do that even with 12+ basics. Maybe 5? I dunno, I've never timed myself when I mulligan several times, lol.
I, personally, would prefer a certain number of mulligans to Judge Ball than an amount of time. For example, I would much rather have the "If you mulligan 3 times, you get a Judge Ball" than "If you mulligan for 5 minutes, you get a Judge Ball." The latter could be abused by slow shuffling, and would also be inconsistent. Like I said, this needs to be discussed for a tournament setting if it's gonna be used. It's concerning to me that we have a rule that's not found within any official document without any real guidelines, but is being used a high tier event like Regionals. It's basically up to the TO's or HJ's or whatever's discretion =/
Still, 3 mulligans seems really low >.> I do that even with 12+ basics. Maybe 5? I dunno, I've never timed myself when I mulligan several times, lol.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
I'll argue the other side for a moment: maybe it's better if it remains unwritten? That way there is a grey area, which gives the Judges freedom to exercise discretion.
For instance:
If a Junior is getting frustrated/upset that they cannot get a Basic after X number of mulligans, a Judge can intervene with a Judge Ball immediately.
If a Senior thinks their opponent is taking too long to mulligan each time intentionally, they can call a Judge over and request a Judge Ball because it is starting to eat into their match time. The Judge might do it, if both parties agree.
If a Master constructed a deck with a very low Basic count, and is having poor luck after X mulligans and calls a Judge over to request a Judge Ball for him/herself, the Judge might observe a few more shuffles, suspect that is how the deck is constructed, and just let them keep mulliganing because the player is shuffling fast enough and let the other player benefit from the extra cards.
You see, the possibility of a Judge Ball should NOT factor in to deck construction. As an unwritten rule that might get implemented differently from tournament to tournament based on the age and skill of the players, it can't be factored in.
For instance:
If a Junior is getting frustrated/upset that they cannot get a Basic after X number of mulligans, a Judge can intervene with a Judge Ball immediately.
If a Senior thinks their opponent is taking too long to mulligan each time intentionally, they can call a Judge over and request a Judge Ball because it is starting to eat into their match time. The Judge might do it, if both parties agree.
If a Master constructed a deck with a very low Basic count, and is having poor luck after X mulligans and calls a Judge over to request a Judge Ball for him/herself, the Judge might observe a few more shuffles, suspect that is how the deck is constructed, and just let them keep mulliganing because the player is shuffling fast enough and let the other player benefit from the extra cards.
You see, the possibility of a Judge Ball should NOT factor in to deck construction. As an unwritten rule that might get implemented differently from tournament to tournament based on the age and skill of the players, it can't be factored in.
But they can't know that, can they?
One tournament used that number.
No, three mulligans is not the number that players should have in their mind.
As I outlined in my post above, put 7-9 mulligans in your mind.
Also, for those saying "slow play can abuse it" also note how I outlined monitoring the shuffle. Even doing it myself if needed to speed the draws.
This mechanism has been available for about three years.
Almost all of you are unaware of it. So it's a problem?
No. It's not a problem. It's a tool.
Players do not and should not request a Judge Ball.
They call a judge over because of the excessive Mulligan issue.
The judge then uses their discretion to monitor and/or intervene.
If a player called me over to have a judge ball done on his deck, I'd have a very close observation of the situation.
- Status