I have been running events, both Regular and Competitive, for years but I have a question that I have been struggling with understanding pertaining to IPG section 3.1. I'm confused about the Additional Remedy and how to apply it fairly to all players. The Additional Remedy says “Give no penalty if the round started early and a player arrived at his or her seat before the originally announced start time.”

I have been told that although I do not schedule round times, it is assumed that the round is 50 minutes so if a round started at 1 PM, the “originally announced start time” is 1:50 PM. If all of the matches are done at 1:40 PM I try to start moving forward to the next round. I make any announcement that I am getting ready to pair the next round and handle any additional announcements that need to be made (giving out door prizes, found items, etc). I then print the pairings and post them, making an announcement that pairings are going up.

Once I post pairings I give a minimum of three minutes for the players to report to their seats before I start the round clock. At this point, it is at most 5 minutes before the previous round was supposed to end. If tardiness was announced to be enforced at 0/10 the players are expected to be in their seats…but according to the Additional Remedy they aren't.

This is where I am struggling to figure out what to do. If I am supposed to move the event along, how am I able to do this and provide fair, consistent rules enforcement? If 20 other players are in their seats even though the round started 5 minutes early, why shouldn't the 21st player be expected to be? And if I don't issue a penalty for tardiness because the player arrived in his seat with time left on the previous round clock, how is that fair to his opponent who has now had the current round time reduced by the tardiness of a player? If I give that pair a time extension so they have the full 50 minutes, how is that fair to the rest of the players in the tournament?

I feel that this is a situation that players can manipulate. I believe that I experienced this at an event. Round 4 of a 5 round got paired before the previous round's “scheduled” end time. I followed my normal procedure and announced that I was going to be posting pairings shortly, but first had some door prizes to give out. Once I was done I posted the pairings and announced that the pairings are posted. A pair of players agreed to ID. One of the players then left (I think he went to the restroom).

When the round was started, his opponent stated that he wasn't going to sit down because the round doesn't start until they sit down and they were going to draw. I explained that the round starts when it is announced to begin. The player then said that they (referring to himself and the player that were going to ID) had 3 minutes to be in their seats. I informed him that it was announced at the beginning of the event that tardiness was enforced at 0/10 so once the round starts if they both in their seats they are both considered tardy.

He decided to sit down and wait for his opponent to return to fill out the match slip. The opponent returned a few minutes later and they reported the ID. The HJ said that the player should receive the tardiness penalty for not being at the table at the time the round started. I feel that the players were using their knowledge of the IPG to manipulate the situation. I

I was approached by another player, who is also a judge. He explained that the penalty was wrong and referred me to the Additional Remedy section of IPG 3.1. This brings me back to my frustration and questions for situations outside of this example when a match still needs to be played.

1. If I am supposed to move the event along, how am I able to do this and provide fair, consistent rules enforcement?

2. If 20 other players are in their seats even though the round started 5 minutes early, why shouldn't the 21st player be expected to be?

3. And if I don't issue a penalty for tardiness because the player arrived in his seat with time left on the previous round clock, how is that fair to his opponent who has now had the current round time reduced by the tardiness of a player?

4. If I give that pair a time extension so they have the full 50 minutes, how is that fair to the rest of the players in the tournament?

I understand that I am supposed to give good customer service, but I am very frustrated with this situation.

Edited Susan Waldbiesser (May 4, 2014 09:39:01 AM)

Good question.

The main reason we don't issue a Tardiness penalty if we start a round early is that it would be unfair to players who want/need to go and use the traders, smoke, get food, feed the parking meter, etc. and relied on the announced time as the earliest time at which the round would start.

Everything else follows along from that. It's great that so many of your players play quickly (I'd love to swap you some of mine ;)) and if so, then a 5-minute extension here and there isn't going to add an appreciable length of time to your event. And it's great a lot of your players exceed expectations by showing up early for the round. But we should bear in mind that players are required to meet expectations of tardiness, not exceed them.

My personal point of view is that there probably wasn't any need to threaten or issue Tardiness penalties in the ID scenario you discussed. I definitely can't understand what sort of manipulation of a situation was going on. The reason we issue Tardiness penalties is to educate and to deter players from slowing up the event by not meeting the expected arrival times. Players are not going to slow up the event if they turn in an ID three minutes into the round rather than thirty seconds. Please think about the impression the players might get in that situation if you issue a penalty: it may well be of judges as traffic cops or penalties being issued for the sake of it. Not where we want to be.

If you are hellbent on speeding through the tournament as quickly as possible, it is open to the TO to announce that each round will start promptly after the previous round ends, which would mean that rounds effectively could not begin “before the originally announced start time”. I would strongly discourage this, however, as it is inconvenient to people who have a need to leave the tournament hall for whatever reason.

Thomas already gives some excellent points on why and how tardiness should be handled. There is, however, something else going on with the tardiness for people that are thinking about ID-ing their last round.

When you and your opponent are locked for top 8 when you ID, the decision is easy. However, in many cases, there is no guarantee that you will both make it with an ID. Often, one will make if for sure, the other is not sure. In many cases, this result depends on the outcome of nearby matches. If they play it out, and have a loser and a winner, you can safely ID. If they decide to ID, or play to a natural draw, you cannot ID.

Obviously, from the other tables perspective, the situation is the same when looking at your table. Therefore, being granted a time extension, and starting the round 5 minutes later (or even 10) gives a large strategic advantage. Not allowing this strategic advantage to exist is the reason the last round of football competetions are always played at the same time.

If 2 players agree to an ID before the round started (either because they're both the only 2 X-0 people, or because they already saw the pairing, at a 25 or less people tournament, I'd take their word for it and not enforce them to be in their seat or even sign the result slip. At a PTQ or other 100+ player tournament, I'd make them sit and sign the slip. Anything in between, depends on the situation.

I would not issue a tardiness penalty for the ‘late’ player, as he is not slowing down the tournament. Their match is one of the first to be recorded, and even if it's technically a violation of the IPG, it's no use arguing about it, since the ID is officially only recorded after the result slip is in, which means you apply the Game Loss to the current match, which the players ID'ed anyway.

If players are instructed to ‘Find their seats ASAP, since the round will start momentarily’, then the round has started, table 1 has already signed and handed in the ID, table 2 is in turn 3 and table 4 is taking a second mulligan, while table 3 is still debating whether they can ID or not, THEN you give them a tardiness penalty (preferably giving them a verbal warning immediately after you start the round that they either ID now, or start playing now, debating an ID can continue during play, but not instead of play.)

Jasper: in your example where both players at table 3 are already at their table, but are still discussing whether or not they should ID, I feel that the slow play infraction is more appropriate. It sounds like both players have met the announced time limits, but are not completing the pregame procedures in a timely manner. There is an announced time limit for when a player needs to arrive at his or her seat but not for when a player needs to finish pregame procedures.

Section 2.3 of the MTR specifies that pregame procedures “must be preformed in a timely manner.” They are certainly not completing those actions in a timely manner. Because the Slow Play section of the IPG uses a player taking an excessive amount of time for a step of pregame procedure as example C, we know unambiguously that Slow Play does apply to pregame procedures.

As a result, I feel that saying “Hey guys, I need you to either fill out the result slip or start playing,” followed by assessing the Slow Play infraction if that does not occur is appropriate.

@ William: That is debatable, since the players are not playing, but merely discussing. You can't play slow if you're not playing at all. The one incident I had was players with their decks still in the box, observing matches next to them, not preparing to play in any way shape or form. If they are shuffling (slowly, ineffectifely) slow play would indeed be more applicable.

However, that is all academic, as a judge should be aware of these things, be around the high tables at the start of the last round, and make sure players start playing by reminding them. If players are not following that instruction, it doesn't matter if you choose Slow Play, Tardiness or Failure to Follow Direct Instructions as the stick to beat them with.

Our job is to make the tournament fair to everyone, which means the last round is played at the same time with the same information as possible for all players. Not to give a penalty for a technical infraction.

Originally posted by Susan Waldbiesser:

1. If I am supposed to move the event along, how am I able to do this and provide fair, consistent rules enforcement?

2. If 20 other players are in their seats even though the round started 5 minutes early, why shouldn't the 21st player be expected to be?

3. And if I don't issue a penalty for tardiness because the player arrived in his seat with time left on the previous round clock, how is that fair to his opponent who has now had the current round time reduced by the tardiness of a player?

4. If I give that pair a time extension so they have the full 50 minutes, how is that fair to the rest of the players in the tournament?

These questions seem to be stemming from a base belief that starting the next round as early as possible is the highest priority. While keeping the tournament moving and decreasing time between rounds is a very high priority, cutting down the length of each round isn't always in the best interest of all the players. Matches can take anywhere from 10 to around 65 minutes. Some matches often times are granted extensions of well over 10 minutes because of various necessary interventions.
Starting immediately after the final match is finished is a good way to possibly speed up the tournament but you're looking to shave time off of the fair expectation of time for the tournament not prevent it from running overtime. If you can start a round every 50 minutes, then things are going very well. Starting them every 40 should not be any player or TO's expectation.

1) Seek to move the tournament along but accept that advancing past the 50 minutes per round is a significant bonus but shouldn't be seen as an expectation. 50 minute rounds is moving the tournament along; rules enforcement should be based upon that.

2) The 21st player has the right to have a clear expectation of when they are needed back when they finish their match. Most tournaments don't provide breaks for the bathroom, food, smoking, visiting vendors, getting your cards signed, etc. While all matches taking place in 40 minutes isn't uncommon, imagine the situation where all matches are done in 25 minutes and someone who was done in 20 ran across the street to grab a cup of coffee. They return at 35 minutes and find themselves stuck with a match loss for tardiness, being 15 minutes early from the expectation of when the round ends. There is also the possibility that they will return at 50 minutes and be forced to endure a particularly long match stuck in extra rounds. 50 minutes is a fair expectation.

3) In situations where the round starts early, matches that start based on the original posted start time should be granted a time extension. The opponent hasn't lost any match time. A time extension doesn't always equal a longer round. I've been involved in a 25 minute time extension on a match that was still done before time was called.

4) All players are held to the same expectations, they are to return at the noted time for the next round. All players will be given infractions based on this. The tournament may benefit from players finishing their match early but this isn't an expectation. Just as the tournament benefits when all players play aggro decks that lead to short games and that don't go into extra rounds, the expectation of playing at a decent pace is the same for all players. It is just as fair as other players having to wait for an Esper Control mirror match. The expectation is 50 minutes to return and to have 50 minutes to play a round. we take action to have our players meet those expectations.

Jasper Overman
You can't play slow if you're not playing at all. The one incident I had was players with their decks still in the box, observing matches next to them, not preparing to play in any way shape or form. If they are shuffling (slowly, ineffectifely) slow play would indeed be more applicable.

While the example given in the IPG is excessive shuffling, I think “Taking too long to present your deck” fits the philosophy. I'm not going to avoid giving someone a Slow Play because they're taking too long making sideboard decisions but not shuffling their deck.

Judge: “The next round will start at 14:00!”
Player finishes match at 13:30.
Player goes “do stuff”.
Player returns at 13:55.
Judge: “Surprise! We started at 13:40, so you're 15 minutes tardy. Here's a match loss.”
Player: “…!?”

Maybe they took a 25 minute smoking break or maybe they have a medical condition that necessitated a 25-minute bathroom session. Not really the judge's business. Either way, were I that player, I would be upset. This is a very extreme example, of course, but the “give no penalty” remedy seems to be there specifically for this type of situation.

Players intentionally delaying the start of their match is a whole other beast. That's colloquially called “stalling”. However, the IPG gets a bit technical with its definitions. So, is it…

1. Slow Play? “A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions.” They're not taking any game actions. One could argue that they're “not playing”.
   
2. Stalling? “A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit.” Again, one could argue they're “not playing”.
   
3. USC - Minor? “A player takes action that is disruptive to the tournament or its participants.” It's disruptive if they cause the round to take longer than the expected 50 minutes. You don't know that in advance, though. Maybe they ID after 5 minutes, maybe they decide to play it out, go to time and delay the round by their extra turns plus whatever time extension they got.
   
4. Failure to Follow Official Announcements? “A player fails to follow an instruction given to a broad audience he or she is included in.” Technically the case, but depending on when the announcement is made, you can't really blame players for not being there to here it.
   
5. USC - Major? “A player does one or more of the following: • Fails to follow a direct instruction from a tournament official.” A bit of a catch-all, but also rather heavy-handed and likely to foster resentment of judges if misused.
   

Don't get lost in semantics; Slow Play is about player(s) not playing at a pace that will allow completion of a match (under normal circumstances, of course). And not playing at all certainly doesn't allow the match to finish.

Take another look at the very first sentence under 3.3 TE-Slow Play:

A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions.

Nothing in there about actually playing being a prerequisite; it's just about taking too long to play.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Failure to Follow Official Announcements?
…
USC - Major? “A player does one or more of the following: • Fails to follow a direct instruction from a tournament official.” A bit of a catch-all, but also rather heavy-handed and likely to foster resentment of judges if misused.

Whoops - someone missed the latest IPG update. :)
You are correct, that is a bit heavy-handed; that's just one reason we made changes.

d:^D