Questions about the action of retreating

Discussion in 'Judges' Chambers' started by jconti2818, Sep 10, 2017.

8 league13 468 60
  1. jconti2818

    jconti2818 Member

    Dear Judges' Chamber Members,

    Similar to other actions, we had a dispute between two players at our league cup yesterday about whether an action could be taken back or not, namely retreating. Scenario: player 1 starts to move his active with a float stone attached and simultaneously has his other hand on one of his benched Pokemon. He claims he said, "I am going to, no, I changed my mind and want to take it back" (the opponent, player 2 claims he used the word "retreat"; player 1 claims he didn't). The new active wasn't fully in the active position when the judges arrive and both players agree that player 1 never took his hands off either the benched or active Pokemon.


    1. Should player 1 have been allowed to cancel the retreat or did it need to go through?

    2. Should player 1 been forced to retreat but allowed to pick a different benched Pokemon as his new active?

    3. Was player 1 only allowed to retreat if the opponent gave him permission to take it back?

    4. Would the ruling differ depending upon whether he did or did not actually say the word, "retreat?"

    5. Would it have also made a difference if the player didn't have a float stone on his active and had discarded energy in the discard pile instead to pay for the retreat?

    I ended up allowing the player to take it back because he had not completed the action, there was conflicting evidence of whether he actually used the word "retreat", and because he never took his hands off the cards. Was this the correct call and is there any information in the rules and regs to help in rulings like these?

    I would appreciate the forum members' opinion because player 1 was upset the rest of the tournament because he felt the final ruling wasn't fair.


  2. PokePop

    PokePop Administrator

    I would have allowed it as well.
    As you note, the action had not been completed and no new action had been initiated.
    We want the games determined by player skill, not by judge rulings, as much as possible.
  3. meganium45

    meganium45 Active Member

    This may warrant special attention for a slow-play/stalling issue as well. These "back and forth" decisions are not considered an action that furthers the game state. Once, OK, if it becomes a pattern, slow play penalties start to become appropriate.


Share This Page