Hello fellow judges !!!
This is the scenario.-

It's the semifinal of a WMCQ
In the third game Player A against Player B both stop playing waiting for
the result of Player C vs Player D
Player C won
Player A and B hear the result so Player A concede to Player B because they are
teammates and Player B has better match against Player C
I know you can concede any time, but conceding after knowing the result…

Thoughts?

Edited David de la Iglesia (Feb. 22, 2017 10:33:32 PM)

Did you discuss it with the judges?
It is often useful to do so as sometime a key element of a ruling could be missing to a spectator point of view.

But let's talk about it theoricaly, discussing an imaginary scenario corresponding to the parameters you described. In your opinion, which specific infraction has been committed and why?

- Emilien

I just fail to see how this is not “UC - Improperly Determining a Winner”, and I'm quite surprised that the judges allowed this.

"Unsporting Conduct — Improperly Determining a Winner Disqualification
Definition
A player uses or offers to use a method that is not part of the current game (including actions not
legal in the current game) to determine the outcome of a game or match."

The results of another table are clearly NOT part of the current game. I'm pretty adamant that the definition of UC - Improperly Determining a Winner applies here, so both players should've been disqualified.

Jasper, do you think that this passage of MTR5.2 applies to this case, not
to rule Improperly Determining a Winner?

*Emphasis mine*
"Players may not reach an agreement in conjunction with other matches.
Players can make use of information regarding match or game scores of
other tables. However, players are not allowed to leave their seats
during their match or go to great lengths to obtain this information.“

El 22 feb. 2017 6:16 PM, ”Jasper König" <

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

Did you discuss it with the judges?
It is often useful to do so as sometime a key element of a ruling could be missing to a spectator point of view.

But let's talk about it theoricaly, discussing an imaginary scenario corresponding to the parameters you described. In your opinion, which specific infraction has been committed and why?

- Emilien

Hello Emilien!
I wasn't in the venue, many players told me the story

Jorge

I have edited the original post, so it meets the Forum Etiquette as per the Forum Protocol:

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/o/communication-channels/judgeapps-forum-protocol/

“If you weren’t involved in a specific ruling or situation, do not speculate about the actual ruling; do not challenge the decisions of judges involved.

If you are curious how a specific situation would be ruled, just list the situation without any additional commentary.”

Originally posted by Jorge Rodriguez:

In the third game Player A against Player B both stop playing waiting for
the result of Player C vs Player D

This is where you have an infraction.

Originally posted by Julio Sosa:

Jasper, do you think that this passage of MTR5.2 applies to this case, not
to rule Improperly Determining a Winner?

*Emphasis mine*
"Players may not reach an agreement in conjunction with other matches.
Players can make use of information regarding match or game scores of
other tables. However, players are not allowed to leave their seats
during their match or go to great lengths to obtain this information.“

El 22 feb. 2017 6:16 PM, ”Jasper König" <

Well, obviously you have more experience in interpreting the MTR than I have, but please, let me mark the sentences differently:

"The result of a match or game may not be randomly or arbitrarily determined through any means other than the
normal progress of the game in play. Examples include (but are not limited to) rolling a die, flipping a coin, arm
wrestling, or playing any other game.
Players may not reach an agreement in conjunction with other matches. Players can make use of information
regarding match or game scores of other tables.“

Isn't this what happened? Basically the players Anthony and Norman (allegedly) said: ”If result A happens: Anthony concedes. If result B happens: Norman concedes."

How is this not an agreement in conjunction with other matches? As the scenario is proposed, the players even stopped playing and waited for the other result, so it's clearly a conditional agreement in conjunction with another match. How is this not determining a result through means outside of the normal progress of the game in play?

Edited Jasper König (Feb. 22, 2017 11:29:50 PM)

Originally posted by Jasper König:

How is this not an agreement in conjunction with other matches?

Because it wasn't in conjunction with them. The players of the other match didn't agree on anything- they just played their match normally.

It says “an agreement in conjunction with other matches”, not “an agreement in conjunction with other agreements”. But I admit one could read it the way you do.

I will note that this topic has come up before.

“Players may not reach an agreement in conjunction with other matches” means that players in Match A cannot discuss with the players in Match B whether if they both ID it's better than 1 match IDing and the other match having Player A concede to Player B.

Knowing the match result just means that the players have more information to determine whether they can ID or not.

One thing that should be taken away from this discussion is that players cannot just sit and wait for other match results, they must continue playing their match in a timely manner. Slow Play penalties can be applied to players that are trying to wait until another match finishes.

As Mark & Josh mentioned, the issue is sitting around waiting, not the rest of what happened - that's all legal.

Also, a big thumbs up to Emilien's point about asking the judges who handled the ruling to help you understand it. Often, all we can do is speculate, since we weren't there to talk to the players.

d:^D

Originally posted by Mark Brown:

Slow Play penalties can be applied to players that are trying to wait until another match finishes.

Why wouldn't it be stalling?

Stalling requires there to be a time limit that you're trying to take advantage of. In untimed rounds, it's just not possible.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

Why wouldn't it be stalling?

Some judges may consider it stalling, the strict definition is to intentionally play slow to take advantage of a time limit. Even if this were in timed rounds I'm not sure I would consider stalling becuase they aren't taking advantage of a time limit, they are just waiting to find out a match result. As Mark mentions it's also in a semi-final match that are usually untimed, so at that point it's generally going to fall under slow play.