Judge Quality

[Lawman]

I had some frustrations with the way things went - specifically an incident in T128 where I lost on time, asked for a time extension, and was denied said extension by both the judge (Prime) and the HJ (lawman) despite my opponent not only receiving a slow play warning from Mr. Meches, but him admitting that he did in fact play slow. You can't really do anything either, since judging proactively determined the time my opponent used to be unequal.

The rationale? It wasn't written on the slip at the time, so it didn't make the match eligible for a time extension. I was kind of shocked that this kind of thing would actually happen, especially when a staff claims that it doesn't tolerate unfair slow play...Why, it even said so on that sheet each player received on Friday!

When it's established that an unfairness occurred in a match, you don't cop out to "well this is the technicality we're going to screw you over on" - you remedy it.

I ruled straight from the guidelines and precedent. If the time extension wasn't given at the time the penalty was assessed, then I cannot go back and add time to the match at the end, when you suddenly need it. He rec'd a warning. A warning does not = auto time extension. The entire judge team was aware of how the time extentsion would be handled. If you felt like a time extension was necessary, why didnt you ask for one when the ruling was handed down?? You have that right to appeal that part to the HJ too. Dont tell me you dont know the rules Kettler!


7.4.1. Slow Play
Players should take care to play in a manner that keeps the game pace brisk, regardless of the complexity of the situation. A player who takes too long to make decisions about game play runs the risk of putting his or her opponent at a disadvantage due to the round’s time limit. In addition to the recommended penalty, the judge may issue a time extension to offset this disadvantage.Examples of Game Tempo: Slow Play include:
•
You are excessively slow when deciding which Pokémon to attach an Energy card to. Pokémon Organized Play Penalty Guidelines
Rev: September 1, 2009
14
•
You take an unreasonable amount of time deciding which Basic Pokémon to take from your deck after playing a Poké Ball card.
•
Counting or searching your (or your opponent’s) deck or discard pile more than once in a short time period.
•
Repeatedly searching your deck, hand, or discard pile while performing a card effect.
•
Attempting to engage in extraneous conversation that interferes with timely play.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Tier 1: Caution
Tier 2: Warning

See above. A Judge MAY give an extension. Not shall. And it occurs when the penalty is given. And, now the Tourney Rules 5.3.1

5.3.1. Lengthy Rulings
In the event of a ruling that takes more than three minutes, the judge may extend the
match time. As game rulings are a standard part of tournament play, these extensions
rarely need to be on a one‐for‐one basis, and only need be applied as the result of a
complicated ruling, or when it takes longer than normal for a judge to reach a match.
The extra time allotted must be clearly communicated to both players and recorded
immediately by the judge.

Again, see the bolded areas. The ruling didnt take 3 mins or more to make. He made a slow move and got tagged. If he did it again, bad things could happen ie PL, GL, time extension. The ext. MUST be recorded immediately, not when you ask for one at the end of time.

Your oppo admitted that he took some time on whichever play/search he made. He was tagged with a penalty. Did you appeal at that point? NO! You waited until the match was over and you needed time then. You had the entire match to get ahead and you wait til the end to appeal to HJ? Sorry, I cannot help you or any player at that point.

Keith

---------- Post added 06/30/2010 at 02:44 PM ----------

@the Lurb: This thread isnt about judge comp. Judge comp usually comes out of the TO/PTO's pocket. They decide what to give. Dont try to hijack the thread with that junk. Stick with the topic please.

Keith

 

[Prime]

That was unfortunate, but I agree with everything Keith said. The judges can't just award extra time at the end of a match. A player needs to ask for it, or a judge needs to give it when the warning is initially given.

Also, I know a lot of you are just saying "Well, you can consult the head judge!"

Well, just as an example, my friend was playing in the mutant draft at nationals, and his opponent argued a ruling, and called the judge over. The judge agreed with my friend, but his opponent appealed to the head judge, who got the ruling wrong. Obviously there wasn't a lot at stake, but it does prove that head judges are not always better than regular judges.

That's a bad example. You're comparing a head judge of a FUN event to a head judge of a very serious event like Nationals. That would be like using the head judge (if you have one) for the tournaments at your local hobby store as an example to why the head judges at Worlds are incompetent. It just doesn't work.

Do realize that it was really late at the mutant draft, and any staff for the mutant draft had to show up at 8AM and have been working for more than 12 hours at that point. People make mistakes.

 

[EeveeLover]

Well, just as an example, my friend was playing in the mutant draft at nationals, and his opponent argued a ruling, and called the judge over. The judge agreed with my friend, but his opponent appealed to the head judge, who got the ruling wrong. Obviously there wasn't a lot at stake, but it does prove that head judges are not always better than regular judges.

I am rather intrigued by this statement. Do you actually know anything useful about this issue, or is this simply a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend telling you junk.

As I was the HJ of the Mutant and I never went to any calls that were appeals, I would say not.

The Mutant is a rather unique event. That event requires some rulings to be simply made on the fly, as some of these cards have never interacted with each other, nor were they ever designed to.

Sure, we could use the penalty Guide in this event as well, but I think it would remove a lot of the fun from the event and just turn it into yet another competitive event for the weekend. That is not the point.

The point of Mutant is to have fun.

Not a fair comparison to make.

 

[Leaf]

Alright, it's fair that you guys disregarded my example, but I think the point still stands that Head Judges don't always know what they're doing either.

Also, as it has been previously stated, just because an event is a fun event, isn't an excuse for bad rulings and poor judging.

 

[EeveeLover]

I agree with you Leaf. Whether the event is a League Level of for the World Championship, the players deserve to have the best rulings available. I don't think that anyone here is disagreeing with you on that point.

However, like the players that are in need of rulings, earn a penalty, whatever, mistakes are made - even by the best available judges. That is how we learn to be better judges. Any judge worth their salt cannot possibly say they know everything. If they do say that, they are just lying to themselves and everyone around them.

The problem I have is with the people that are taking this topic and using it to smear the people that I had the privileged to work with last weekend, and in many cases, the last 3 years.

Plain and simple, if a Judge messes things up and makes bad calls, TPCi won't bring them back.

If a Judge makes a bad call at the table, you can appeal it. Appeal it at that time - anything else (like here / now) makes you (general you) look like you want to dogpile the staff.

Just remember, the players made whatever mistake to require a judge in the first place. I have never seen a player complain about a ruling that was in their favor.

 

[SLOW DECK]

I had some frustrations with the way things went - specifically an incident in T128 where I lost on time, asked for a time extension, and was denied said extension by both the judge (Prime) and the HJ (lawman) despite my opponent not only receiving a slow play warning from Mr. Meches, but him admitting that he did in fact play slow. You can't really do anything either, since judging proactively determined the time my opponent used to be unequal.

Judges seemed to hand out many many warnings and cautions on slow play... but did they catch and rectify a single case of intential slow play .... .IE STALLING.

Day One, I had an opponent cautioned/warned for slow play in a match that I was ahead of and in controll of. If anything my opponennt needed the extra time. In fact, the judge extended time of the match. (how was that fair) Being in the game, I knew my opponent was thinking through a complicated game state, and nothing about gaming the time aspect.

Day Two, I was cautioned/warned for slow play in a match that I was behind and my opponentn in control. Being in the game, I knew I was thinking through a complicated game state, and play cards ahead of a uxie drop. I personally play the slowest when I am in the most dire straights, not when I am ahead, I know that is what happened with the guy in day one. Again, there was plenty of "technical" slow/thoughtful play moments during my nat's matches from my opponents, but when I was ahead and in control, that is natural for most folks. Slow play when you are ahead and in control is where stalling comes in.

Thus I ask the simple question, did judges catch any STALLING at nationals. Please Note, Issueing Warnings and Cautions for slow play(especially the ones I experienced above) isn't the same thing as catching Stalling. Again, I push this not to say Judges are bad, but I think Time plus One or T+3, with current watching for slow play and stalling is a better way. The cautions and warning that were handed out just seemed to interupt games and didn't address the manipulation of time by a player who is cheap.

 

[Prime]

Slow Play doesn't equal Stalling. They are two separate issues.

Slow Play has nothing to do with "who is winning". It has to do with how long each action is taking. In the judge manual, and penalty guidelines, it gives a solid time limit to each action. For example, a player has 5 seconds to promote a pokemon active after a previous one is knocked out.

It doesn't matter if stalling was caught or not, because even if there were no stalling issues, slow play would still be penalized.

It's important that players get as much of the game completed in the 40 minute round. If each player plays slowly, there is a much higher chance that the game will be decided upon by the time, not by the skills of the players. Nobody wants that, and thus judges have to watch for slow play and give penalties for it.

Even in a Time + 3 Turns format, slow play would be enforced.

 

[loudkirbyking]

Normally, I do not prefer to call a judge unless I have proof, and they do a problem more than once, such as one of my opponent's in nats continually forgetting to discard his supporter. I'd remind him, and he'd still do it the next turn, and I called the judge over after a while. Yeah, some good, some bad.

No person is perfect. I mean, I've seen a judge completely screw something up, and I've seen one make a grand call.

Regionals, my opponent asked the judge if he could go to the restroom, and no judge went with him to make sure he didn't go ask someone for the help. The judge just sat down diagonal from me, giving me a slightly odd look.

Simple enough, that was a mistake on the judge's part. The proper thing would be to get a second judge to go with him to make sure he wasn't asking for help.

I respect judges. They have to go through, what, 50 rulings a day for nats? Minimum, probably. They have probably the hardest, and most nerve-wrecking job out there. Just thinking that you could cost someone the national championship with your calling is probably the worst feeling you could have while out there. Yet, throughout this matter, we still normally complain about them. Why not be happy people gave up their time, money, and ability to play to answer your call as fast and efficiently as they can? Yeah, there are nasty judges out there, but there's also some of those great judges. Just depends on the luck you get with them.

As for changing the age limit, it might be good. I've seen some very smart players that are younger than 18. Once they figure out some of the compendium's rulings, get more detailed looks at card effects, and truly get into judging, they could easily be some of the best judges around. But, to do that, it might be good to add some extra information, just in case of that. One true problem is, if they do get the offer to judge to nats, some can't drive themselves up.

Overall, be happy we at least have judges. Good, bad, or sometimes just out there, they still try their best to give a grand ruling.

 

[aade8]

Being a judge may make me biased, but I always try to be objective (as it should be in any case =).

I think that judges should frequently check the compendium and rulings board (Ask the Masters) to see what's been said and what questions still remain. A bad call can cost a player thousands of dollars worth of prizes, and that simply shouldn't happen without full consultation.

When I judge, I live by the adage said by another judge at Nats, "Our job is to be intelligent furniture." That's not to say active judging isn't important, but I think it means that personal comments on games, especially during games, is inappropriate. Asking players to play faster, or scoop so that everyone can go home is absolutely improper. My attitude is that I am not Alex when I judge, I am the game.

A judge should never be embarrassed to ask questions, and consult their peers when a call needs to be accurate and substantiated. Failure to do so is arrogance that many players can not afford.

 

[The Ralts]

I don't believe the OP (or any of us for that matter) had the intention of bashing judges as a whole. We appreciate good judges, the thing everyone is complaining about is the how the judges who AREN'T good are left to continue being terrible without penalty. You can't come on here and defend the judges who are clearly bad/don't care at their duties.

 

[batmylashes]

Maybe I should already know this, being a Prof. and all, but...

Would it be deemed okay for a player to keep rulings on their phone, mp3 player, etc. and use them at a match? Like, if we called a Judge and the judge gave an incorrect ruling, could I (assuming it didn't take forever), be like, "No, look on my iPhone, I have this specific part of the compendium bookmarked." and show the judge etc? Of course you wouldn't want to have to search through the whole thing, but maybe you could just have a few of the rulings you know you might come up at the tournament bookmarked?

POP should release a Compendium/rulings iPhone/Android app.

EDIT: errr....sorry, kwisdumb posting on fiance's account.

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

PokeJudge app for the iPhone would be sooo awesome!

 

[ShadowCard]

Would it be deemed okay for a player to keep rulings on their phone, mp3 player, etc. and use them at a match? Like, if we called a Judge and the judge gave an incorrect ruling, could I (assuming it didn't take forever), be like, "No, look on my iPhone, I have this specific part of the compendium bookmarked." and show the judge etc? Of course you wouldn't want to have to search through the whole thing, but maybe you could just have a few of the rulings you know you might come up at the tournament bookmarked?

Although they are generally not allowed, the use of electronic devices is decided by the tournament organizer, according to section 8 of the Tournament Rules:

8. Electronic Devices
With the exception of devices necessary to participate in an event, electronic devices, such as cell phones, MP3 players, or text‐messaging devices, are not to be used during a match. In some special instances, an electronic device may be allowed by the Tournament Organizer.

I think a rulebook can be referenced during a game though.

 

[SteveP]

The rulebooks and rulings should always be available to the judging staff to consult. If a player thinks a ruling is incorrect, they can appeal and/or request a ruling lookup.

Like any electronic media, rulebooks and rulings can be digitally altered. So, although players might have electronic copies of the rulings, only the officials' copies should be consulted for rulings.

 

[MrMeches]

I had some frustrations with the way things went - specifically an incident in T128 where I lost on time, asked for a time extension, and was denied said extension by both the judge (Prime) and the HJ (lawman) despite my opponent not only receiving a slow play warning from Mr. Meches, but him admitting that he did in fact play slow. You can't really do anything either, since judging proactively determined the time my opponent used to be unequal.

The rationale? It wasn't written on the slip at the time, so it didn't make the match eligible for a time extension. I was kind of shocked that this kind of thing would actually happen, especially when a staff claims that it doesn't tolerate unfair slow play...Why, it even said so on that sheet each player received on Friday!

When it's established that an unfairness occurred in a match, you don't cop out to "well this is the technicality we're going to screw you over on" - you remedy it.

Sorry I am late to the party, but read this and needed to comment as I was directly identified. When this Penalty was handed out, Game Play was not stopped for the Ruling and the Slow Play call was based on several moves that took a little longer but not long enough to warrant a Time Extension. When the Penalty was assigned it was explained to both players and, as I always do, asked both players if there were any questions. Both players acknowledged the Penalty, said they had no questions, and continued on with the match.

If a time extension was desired, the opportunity arose at the time in which you were offered to ask questions. Unfortunately you did not request it then so it can not be awarded when time is called.

 

[DukeFireBird]

After reading up on this, I have to ask you this...

Do you think you could do the job?
You may think it is easy, and on paper, it is. The thing that makes it hard is in our sub-conscience we do not want to make an incorrect ruling that can cost a player dearly. Whenever I had to think about a ruling, I consulted another judge to verify my thoughts, and every time I was thinking correctly. The rulings that I did not have to bring another judge into were card interactions on damage vs counters, and things of that sort.

I had a tricky one that I was sure on how to fix, but consulted the HJ on before hand. An attack was made against a Garchomp SV but the energy was not returned. The owner of Chomp then played Judge and then after the players drew their 4 cards, they halted play and called for help. You may think, ya this ones easy, and after thinking about it, yes it was, but I wanted to make sure I was not creating a gamestate that should not be there.

The thing about judging is that most people don't realize that we are only arbiters. The players do everything in the game, and we only make sure the gamestate is correct. Judge's do not give penalties, we assess them. The players give penalties to themselves.

I do have a challenge to those who are "bashing" us. Go judge a BR, City, State, etc. See if you dont get what I am trying to say.

With this, I have a parting saying that I teach my staff in my area. "A good judge knows their rulings. A great judge verifies them" After that I tell them that I do not expect good judges. I expect great ones.

(side note: When I am HJ events, I have my laptop with 5 tabs open. Compendium, penalty guidelines, tournament rules, errata, and reprints. Guess where I go when I get a ruling that im not 101% sure on)

~Duke Floor Judge for Masters Nationals

 

[totoro]

These potentially broken game states that DFB mentions are the ones that are the real trick to judging. They aren't in the compendium since that is not the compendium's purpose, but happen all too often. And these kind of situations certainly have the potential to upset one or even both players as the situation is rewound to a legit gamestate, if possible.
There are an infinite number of these kinds of scenarios, and just when a judge thinks that he/she has seen them all, we get something new. So, we talk with the parties, assess, rely on previous similar situations, consult our fellows, then make a call--and then often get raked over the coals here.

 

[The Gorn]

Almost all the judges do a great job almost all the time.

But we've seen some pretty goofy rulings at every level of tournament including Worlds.

I don't think it's overly harsh to tell those judges "We appreciate what you've done, but we're going to give another person the chance to judge next year. We hope we see you as a competitor." And send them on their way.

Being a judge isn't an entitlement nor is it a life-long appointment. You earn the right to remain a judge with your performance at every tournament. If you do good, you remain a judge and get more responsibility. If you do not do good, you can stay in the game as a player.

That's not harsh. That's not unfair.

 

[EeveeLover]

Almost all the judges do a great job almost all the time.

But we've seen some pretty goofy rulings at every level of tournament including Worlds.

I don't think it's overly harsh to tell those judges "We appreciate what you've done, but we're going to give another person the chance to judge next year. We hope we see you as a competitor." And send them on their way.

Being a judge isn't an entitlement nor is it a life-long appointment. You earn the right to remain a judge with your performance at every tournament. If you do good, you remain a judge and get more responsibility. If you do not do good, you can stay in the game as a player.

That's not harsh. That's not unfair.

With this logic, the Judges must be doing just fine - since TPCi keeps having them back.

Now, I was first invited to Judge US Nats in 2008 - I was scared to death. I thought the guys at TPCi were on something really good to choose me to come out to Nats.

I must have done good in their eyes, as I have been back in the 2 years since. That does not mean I am still not slightly scared every year. I see what is on the line and I see the dedication that the Judges have to making the right call.

We don't go out there with the mentality of 'who can we screw out of the Championship?', we go out the with the mentality of 'how can I not screw up the calls I will be making today'.

 

[The Gorn]

With this logic, the Judges must be doing just fine - since TPCi keeps having them back.

Now, I was first invited to Judge US Nats in 2008 - I was scared to death. I thought the guys at TPCi were on something really good to choose me to come out to Nats.

I must have done good in their eyes, as I have been back in the 2 years since. That does not mean I am still not slightly scared every year. I see what is on the line and I see the dedication that the Judges have to making the right call.

We don't go out there with the mentality of 'who can we screw out of the Championship?', we go out the with the mentality of 'how can I not screw up the calls I will be making today'.

I have no reason to doubt that you doing a great job and deserve to remain a judge.

I also do not believe that anybody is saying that a judge has intentionally made a bad call nor do I believe that anyone has made an accusation that a judge is "out to get them." (I could be wrong on both counts, as I'm not really interested in reading the rest of this thread.)

But we have all seen judges who have made bad calls then are back again at the next event.

Do people (and judges are people too, or so it's been claimed! hehe) deserve a second chance? Absolutely. But if they keep making bad calls after that, maybe they should be replaced.