Under the philosophy for USC-Major though, it says:
“Officials should expect their instructions to be followed without needing to issue an interim warning.”
However, in my opinion, in the best interest of customer service, I'd give the final warning before pulling any drastic measures.
I'd say after the second telling, albeit firmly, it would be good if you could get them to actually look at you.
A firm, loud but angry tone of “PLAYERS!”, followed by a neutral and softer, but still firm “The round has ended. I need you to fill in your results slip. Now.”
I've learned that an angry sudden tone would definitely get all eyes on you, even the non-attentive spectators. This way, you get them to acknowledge that you are speaking to them by eye contact.
After which, if there are still no acknowledgments nor actions, then I'd be very immediate in giving out USC-Major GLs for both players, which can escalate to a DQ for both if it continues.

I would advise against sounding angry. That is not considered very professional, at least in the US.

One thing I want to ask is what purpose we believe we are serving by giving out USC - Major to two players who are both being eliminated from top 8 contention already? How does this protect tournament integrity? How does this reflect on the judge program? How will this color your future interactions with these players and spectators?

Although this is certainly a textbook case of USC - Major for failure to follow instructions, I don't think the textbook is telling us everything in this case. We can get what we want by saying “I am now filling out this match slip 1-1-1 unless one of you wishes to concede. When I finish filling it out, I will expect both of you to sign it unless you want a game loss in the next round for failing to follow my direct instructions.” This is likely to cause less disruption to the tournament, and the players will not be nearly as upset because they will understand exactly what their options are.

I think this is one of those scenarios that looks very different on paper than it would in reality. I think that most judges would be much less likely to snap to a Game Loss in person than they are on these forums, and I think that reflects that handling a situation well often requires clear communication and good customer service rather than completely rigid application of this particular policy.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

I would advise against sounding angry. That is not considered very professional, at least in the US.

I agree with this. A better way is to check the match slip for the players' names and address them by name. This will typically cause you to get the players' attention without the need for being the “big bad judge”.

Judges, thanks for another week of great discussions!

Here's the solution:

This is a failure to follow a direct instruction from a tournament official. The judge should make sure that players have had ample opportunity to listen to and follow the direction of the judge. The judge has already politely asked, then firmly instructed. The judge could say something along the lines of “Gentlemen, I have given you a direct instruction. Since you two can't resolve this, I will. This game is a draw, and each of you will receive an Unsporting Conduct - Major penalty; you each receive a Game Loss in this match.” Then mark the slip 2-2-1, and get it to the SK, quickly.

The players have heard the judge and decided not to follow his instructions. These two players are holding up the entire tournament.

This situation may feel like Slow Play or Stalling, but it does not fit the definition of either of those. This is Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Major.




Stay tuned for another thrilling question!

Edited Bryan Spellman (July 31, 2013 11:06:48 AM)

Originally posted by Bryan Spellman:

The game losses will be applied to the current match, so the match slip will read 2-2-1.

Why is the slip filled out as 2-2-1, rather than 2-2-0?

As the last game did not finish it should be recorded as a draw.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

I would advise against sounding angry. That is not considered very professional, at least in the US.

Well, you're at the point where players are not paying any attention to you, and that's just a simple “PLAYERS”, just to grab their attention. Feel free to disagree as I can see that at certain areas it's not professional, just that it works quite well and diffuses quickly if you follow up very quickly in a neutral tone, using a very contrasting flow to disrupt them, like, “PLAYERS-I need you to fill up the result slip, now.”

Why do the game losses not carry over to the next round? Is it because the match isn't officially over because they didn't fill out and sign the match slip?

While I understand the logic of applying the losses to the current match (since it hasn't been recorded yet, it IS still in progress,) I'd also like to note that this is likely to have a beneficial effect for the players involved, assuming they don't care about having a GL penalty on their record.

The players go from winning 33% of the games this match to winning 40% of the games this match. This increases their secondary tiebreakers. Because both players are affected this way, both players also have their tertiary tiebreakers bumped up slightly. It's odd that both players can commit an infraction and be arguably better off than if they hadn't.

Or am I looking at this incorrectly?