When a Game Loss is issued for tardiness or DDLP, why is a time extension given? The first game has been “completed”, why should the players require extra time to complete the next 2?

Players get 50min + 5turns for their match.
If someone shows up 4min late to their match, then they still deserve to
have 50min to try to win 2 games.
If we do a deck check and subsequently hand out a DDLP to one player, then
again that player still deserves to have 50min to finish the match.

The penalty is a Game Loss, not a Game Loss + loss of time.

-R.

2016-02-04 8:47 GMT+01:00 Isaac King <forum-24517-469d@apps.magicjudges.org>
:

Players are usually given 50 minutes to complete theyr match (if they are playing in a tournament they even paid for that) so they are given that amount of time, no matter if there was a Game Loss issued. The good thing is, because one player is ahead, chances are lower that they will need the whole time extension compared to other matches.

Because everybody gets the same amount of time to finish their games. For example if the matchup is very slow, and a game would take 45 minutes to finish, then the tardy player would never have a chance to get a draw any more, and we would have effectively given him a match-loss. The game-loss is the penalty, there is no need to pour on some extra salt.

Those were a lot of answers in a short timespan :)

Edited Jona Bemindt (Feb. 4, 2016 04:54:55 PM)

Given a regular match of 3 games and 50 minutes, the average game will take about 17 minutes. If a player is 10 minutes tardy and receives a game loss, they now have 40 minutes to complete 2 games- 20 minutes per game. They have not lost any time.

They still have the right to play 50 minutes. Average times is not a
Magic concept.

On 4 February 2016 at 10:22, Isaac King
<forum-24517-d395@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

Yes, everyone is saying they have a “right” to the full 50 minutes. Why? What purpose does this “right” serve? Why should they get more time than other people do, possibly delaying the rest of the event?

They are not getting more time, they're getting the same time as all other players. Giving extra time is just another way of saying “my intervention here as a judge took X minutes from your match, so your time does not end until the round end time + x minutes”. They're still getting the same time as all other players, you're just offsetting what time you used as a judge in their match.

Isaac, also see it like this: His opponent wasn't late to the match, so why should he get less then 50 minutes to play his match? We shouldn't punish him for an impropiate action his opponent took.

He just gets the ‘luck’ that he already has 1 game won without playing it. But he still has the full 50 minutes for the other games.

Edited Erik-Sander Kwebeman (Feb. 4, 2016 06:33:59 PM)

Erik has a good point.
Remember his opponent might still loose the first game and would then have less time to finish his second one. He still plays two games, but now has only 40 minutes to do so. If you don't give the time extension, you've essentially punished the opponent for an infraction he did not commit.

If you don't give the time extension, you've essentially punished the opponent for an infraction he did not commit.

It's actually the other way around. Once the first game has been won, taking away time punishes the player who is behind, as they have less time to win game 2 and catch up.

Edited Isaac King (Feb. 5, 2016 07:09:01 AM)

While I don't agree with the opponent getting punished see it like in this simple example:

I play Deck A, which has a 100% winning chance against Deck B (which you are playing), but it takes 45 minutes to do so.

If we just played our match, I would win 1-0.

I was 6 minutes late, so I got a game loss and a time-extension. Our end score is 1-1 in that case (which is fair, I got a penalty and thus lost my advantage).

If I don't get the time-extension the end-score would be 0-1, which would turn the game-loss into a match-loss, which seems to me to be quite over the top. If you want to argue that I should deserve said match-loss, then that is another topic, which has nothing to do with the time-extension.

Yes, that's what I was saying. Not giving a time extension punishes the player who received the penalty.

But this isn't my point. I'm not suggesting that the tardy player needs to receive an additional penalty. I'm saying that the original 50 minutes should be enough time to finish their match. If a player is 5 minutes late, they receive a game loss, which is the same as them having simply played their first game in 5 minutes. The time extension is actually giving them extra time.

Edited Isaac King (Feb. 5, 2016 07:10:11 AM)

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Yes, Jona, that's what I said. Not giving a time extension punishes the player who received the penalty.

But that's not the point. I'm not suggesting that the tardy player need to receive an additional penalty. I'm saying that the original 50 minutes should be enough time to finish their match. If a player is 5 minutes late, they receive a game loss, which is the same as them having simply played their first game in 5 minutes. The time extension is actually giving them extra time.

It only gives extra time to the late player if he would have lost that game anyway. By removing the time extension he does not have 50 minutes to win 2 games.

> On Feb 4, 2016, at 4:29 AM, Isaac King <forum-24517-430d@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, everyone is saying they have a “right” to the full 50 minutes. Why? What purpose does this “right” serve? Why should they get more time than other people do, possibly delaying the rest of the event?

Well, they bought and paid for a 50 minute round.
It may mean their individual games can take longer without going into turns, but they don't have more time in the absolute sense.

Finally, as you have pointed out, they typically don't need the time, so the impact to round turnaround is generally minor.

Now let's flip this on its head and go to the extreme. If a player gets a GL for tardiness, and shows up a minute late, how do you feel about only giving them 33 minutes to play the next 2 games? If a game is 17 minutes, and that game isn't being played..why not dock that time from their match. If 50 minutes isn't a “right” then a 33 minute match should be fine in this case and no one can say they were unfairly penalized.

Till that player wins game 2, and his opponent runs out of time in game 3 and the match is a draw…
If only he had the same amount of time as everyone else had