As with all Silver scenarios, L2+ judges should wait until Friday to respond.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1088

You have called time in round 6 of a GPT for which you are the head judge. You are overseeing the extra turns of the last match when you overhear Nate talking to his friend about how he played three really good games but since he lost and is dead in the event he gave the opponent 2-0, in case it mattered. You double check with the score keeper that the result was reported as 2-0 (it was). You then call Nate's opponent Andy to the judge area. Andy tells you “I asked for 2-0, to help with breakers … I mean, it's not mentioned in the penalty guide, so it must be OK, right?”

How do you handle the situation from there?

Hm. In general, matches should be reported as they occurred. But, once a match slip is signed and turned in, that's the official result. Since this match result was not arrived at in agreement for prizes, or as a result of a random method, I'm inclined to just let it stand, no penalty.

MTR 2.4 states “if the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1”

While this is generally undesirable behavior, It doesn't seem no be specifically against any rule. (The most applicable rule is MTR 2.4, but it could be argued that Nate didn't concede, he just lost the match). On the other hand, I think it's expected that the match slip reflects the actual results of playing Magic games. Of course, there's the fairly common exceptions of intentional draws or concessions, where the results are a fiction consistent with the agreed upon match outcome.

Edited Talin Salway (June 19, 2014 09:27:20 AM)

First, both violate the tournament rules on conceding matches (2.4) :

…Until that point, either player may concede to or draw with the other, though if the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1.

I didn't find at first the infraction on IPG, but i found something on UC-Cheating :

A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents

Which is the case here. But two lines below are explained extra requirements needed to apply such a penalty :

• The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
• The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.

Let's consider both players :

-Nate didn't attempt to gain advantage for his action (he admitted to be dead in the event). So he doesn't follow the first extra requirement.
-Andy did gain advantage for this (“to help with breakers”) but doesn't seem to know what he does is illegal. Thus, it's not cheating again although a thorough investigation on this case is necessary (the “it's not mentioned in the penalty guide so it must be ok, right?” part could be an act, in which case this would be Cheating indeed).

I think this case is one of the 5% of case who doesn't fit in any specific IPG section (the only section who seem to relate to this is UC-Minor as the action indeed is disruptive for the tournament). But for me it's clearly a Tournament error as the definition of tournament errors state :

Tournament errors are violations of the Magic Tournament Rules.

So i'd say it's an uncategorized Tournament Error.
As of the gravity of this, it's an infraction with a high probability to gain advantage (Andy could get past a cut or not based on this result). That's why i'd give both of them a Game Loss, which will be postponed to the TOP 8 for Andy if he is qualified. Then i will explain (remind?) both of them the Magic Tournament Rules, section 2.4 thoroughly so they don't commit the same infraction later. I will mention in the report that both players were educated on this section so that if something similar happens in a later tournament, HJ would know that both players know how to handle match concessions.

Originally posted by Olivier Besnard:

So i'd say it's an uncategorized Tournament Error.

With you so far…

Originally posted by Olivier Besnard:

That's why i'd give both of them a Game Loss, which will be postponed to the TOP 8 for Andy if he is qualified. Then i will explain (remind?) both of them the Magic Tournament Rules, section 2.4 thoroughly so they don't commit the same infraction later. I will mention in the report that both players were educated on this section so that if something similar happens in a later tournament, HJ would know that both players know how to handle match concessions.

What infraction are we issuing that has a Game Loss as a penalty?

MTR 2.4's mention of “… the match must be reported as 2-1” is alluring, but since that section is as regards concessions I find it inapplicable. Note that the spirit of MTR 2.4 should be considered relevant, though, since it seems that generally we don't want to “forget” played games.

MTR 1.10 Players (Responsibilities) is what I first find relevant:

The individual members of a team are considered players, and are equally responsible for required tournament procedures, such as accurately filling out their match result slips.

, as well as MTR 5.2:

Originally posted by Collusion and Bribery:

… 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. …

My problem with the applicability of 1.10 is that accidents can and do happen.
My problem with the applicability of 5.2 is that this was not random nor arbitrary.

IPG 4.8 UC – Cheating is also alluring, but we fail the two-pronged test since while Andy was trying to gain an advantage, Andy does not at face value believe this is illegal. And we still have our own question as to whether or not it is illegal.

It is most tempting to find Andy and Nate guilty of IPG 4.3 UC – Improperly Determining a Winner:

IPG 4.3
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.

I believe that they made and taken specific steps to use a method outside of the current game to determine the outcome of their match. I would assign them both disqualifications. While I am hesitant to arrive at this conclusion since it does seem a bit of an interpretative ruling, I find it backed by MTR 2.4.

edit: A counterpoint would be that the signed result slip is the official match result, and that we should leave it at that. If the match slip had been accidentally filled out incorrectly then I would not be concerned. But this was a deliberate manipulation of the match results and the MTR seems to indicate that this is bad as per section 5.2.

Edited Zach Robinson (June 19, 2014 11:09:06 AM)

This seems to fall into the category of “generally undesirable behaviour for which there is no actual penalty in IPG”, so I would not intervene at all, or if I did, I would Sternly Give Instruction (TM) to Nate to Not Do That Again, Or Else (TM).

Here are the possible penalties that could be given, if you tried really hard:

TE - General, for an undocumented error in tournament policy. Unfortunately, such an infraction does not actually exist, so we can't give it.

UC - IDaW. But the winner was not improperly determined; Nate conceded to his opponent, fair and square. We allow concession for any reason, unless Bribery (and in EDH, we also allow concession to Bribery =D), and there is no evidence of Bribery, so this is not UC - IDaW.

UC - Bribery. No supporting evidence.

Since the match isn't yet over, I might ask the scorekeeper to put in a 2-1 against Nate's opponent after talking it over with Nate and his opponent, for the purpose of tournament integrity.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

What infraction are we issuing that has a Game Loss as a penalty?

The infraction is altering the result of a match. It's an example of UC-Cheating, but probably irrelevant here as not intentionally illegal (my belief is if they knew it was illegal, they wouldn't have done it), but it still disrupt the tournament integrity. For the penalty gravity i referred to penalties definition at the start of the Ipg (IPG 1.2).

I forgot the fix yesterday. I'd correct the result to 2-1-0 as the round wasn't over yet (the ruling of this case will probably delay the subsequent matches).

Originally posted by Olivier Besnard:

Andy did gain advantage for this (“to help with breakers”) but doesn't seem to know what he does is illegal. Thus, it's not cheating again although a thorough investigation on this case is necessary (the “it's not mentioned in the penalty guide so it must be ok, right?” part could be an act, in which case this would be Cheating indeed).

I'm not sure that Andy didn't know it was illegal to report the result as 2:0. At the moment he said ‘ I mean, it’s not mentioned in the penalty guide, so it must be OK, right?' I would become careful. Does he know about the relevant part of the MTR, but didn't find a fitting part in the IPG for breaking the MTR? In this case he knew about the rule and thought he could break it without getting a penalty. UC-Cheating suddenly seems to fit.

One of my concerns is that are we now going to go back and check the veracity of all match slips?

I see this more akin to players who ID into top 8 or into prizes, etc. As long as was no offer of prizes, or any other concession, then it shouldn't be too big of a problem.

NOTE: I would definitely caution Andy that it does look really bad and this isn't typical behavior that is desired when in tournament play.

TBH: I've seen this in actual competitive play, where two friends discussed who was going to get the win, based off of who they thought was going into TOP 8. The judges there didn't say anything, so I'm inclined to follow my above statements and say that as long as everything was on the up and up - just educate and move on. Trust the veracity of the match slips.

Edited Darren Horve (June 20, 2014 08:38:01 PM)

To determine a penalty, we first look at the infraction.
What's been violated here is MTR 2.4 . Violation of this does not carry a penalty. Therefor, we do not issue a penalty.
Results are official once the match slip is filled out and turned in. It's been filled out and turned in, and therefor is official.
An advantaged was attempted to be gained, but neither player knew it was against the rules. This rules out cheating.
There is potential for a UC-Minor infraction here. Their action has minorly disturbed the tournament. I'm not sure I would issue it though.

I'd educate the players that it was wrong and why, then given both players direct instructions not to do it again. It's a GPT, it's a relatively smaller event, and I'd considered the additional action of making an announcement to players about this.

Originally posted by Olivier Jansen:

There is potential for a UC-Minor infraction here. Their action has minorly disturbed the tournament. I'm not sure I would issue it though.

Unsporting conduct infraction are issued for actions that negatively impact the safety, enjoyment, or comfort level of other people in the event; and not for doing something because of a misunderstanding of the rules. UC penalties are issued to encourage offenders to correct their “bad” behavior.

Filling out a result slip as 2-0 when the actual match result was 2-1 and both players thinking it's okay would not really be grounds for UC because there is really no “bad” behavior to correct in this situation.

Looks like we've got a few good answers here. I'll add what I wrote before reading other responses:

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Have we Improperly Determined a Winner? The winner of the match was reported based on the outcome of a match of Magic: The Gathering, which is acceptable.

Have we Bribed our opponent? No offer of prizes or other incentive was made in exchange for this request, so no.

Those the the two situations where we would be issuing a symmetrical DQ, for making an offer and accepting it, respectively, so it seems that at least Nate is in the clear. That leaves us with Cheating.

Cheating gives us a three-point test.

• Has Andy broken a rule? Yes. MTR 2.4 states that if the conceding player has lost a game in the match, it must be reported as 2-1. By incorrectly reporting match results, he has broken a rule in the MTR.
  
• Was Andy attempting to gain advantage from this situation? Yes, he has admitted as much to us.
  
• Was Andy aware that he was doing something illegal? Further investigation is required, but it would appear that he thought this was OK.
  

Since we (probably) don't meet our criteria for Cheating, we aren't going to Disqualify anyone today. Of course, we can fix the match result with the Scorekeeper, and we can have a sit-down with each player explaining that this is illegal and why. This would amount to an informal caution for violating a part of the MTR that is not covered by any specific penalty. Of course, this action is disruptive to the tournament, requiring results to be updated and a potentially lengthy investigation, so we can also issue Unsporting Conduct - Minor to each player for incorrectly reporting their match result, which will come with a Warning and will be officially reported with the event for tracking purposes.

And after reading other responses - I would certainly understand issuing the USC - Minor here. I still feel that Andy's statement indicates that he probably wasn't Cheating, but I will accept what some others have said - there is a difference between being aware that it is punishable and being aware that it is illegal, so let's find out 1) if he thought his opponent was conceding or if he thought his opponent was offering to report the match result incorrectly, and 2) if he was aware that it was illegal. I'd probably word this something like “do you know how you're supposed to report the match result in this situation?”

To Olivier (the one from France): That was a trick question on my part ;) While the IPG does describe the reasoning behind issuing each type of penalty for each type of infraction, the only time we can issue a Game Loss is if we are issuing an infraction that has a Game Loss as its penalty. The alternative is described as “reverse-engineering” penalties - deciding that we “want” to issue a Game Loss before we decide on an infraction - and it comes with a very high risk of penalties being applied inconsistently. The best way to avoid falling into that very common trap is to interpret the IPG very strictly: decide what infraction fits, then start with the “default” penalty, then see if any of the standard upgrades or downgrades apply. The alternative is referred to as a “deviation”, and should only be done in highly unusual circumstances - the kinds of situations that our policy simply isn't prepared for.

Edited Dan Collins (June 21, 2014 01:58:14 AM)

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

To Olivier (the one from France): That was a trick question on my part ;) While the IPG does describe the reasoning behind issuing each type of penalty for each type of infraction, the only time we can issue a Game Loss is if we are issuing an infraction that has a Game Loss as its penalty. The alternative is described as “reverse-engineering” penalties - deciding that we “want” to issue a Game Loss before we decide on an infraction - and it comes with a very high risk of penalties being applied inconsistently. The best way to avoid falling into that very common trap is to interpret the IPG very strictly: decide what infraction fits, then start with the “default” penalty, then see if any of the standard upgrades or downgrades apply. The alternative is referred to as a “deviation”, and should only be done in highly unusual circumstances - the kinds of situations that our policy simply isn't prepared for.

Agreed (next time, i won't write answers after 2 AM :/).

Uc-minor works fine as it is indeed disruptive to the tournament. Then fill he right result (2-1-0) and mention in the infraction report that both players were educated on that infraction, so subsequent errors should be easily investigated.

If the decision to ‘update’ the match slip is made, to what end? Lets say that another player sees this and starts wondering why you are updating it? Doesnt it give the impression of judge impropriety or something?

I think re-doing the slip is a … slippery slope.:cool:

I'm going to say, its filled out and submitted - its official.

In fairness, we have heard that three games were played, but we are not aware what the results of those three games are. The first question thus seems to be … what was the actual result? This does matter per MTR 2.4:

Originally posted by Conceding or Intentionally Drawing Games or Matches:

If a game or match is not completed, players may concede or mutually agree to a draw in that game or match. A match is considered complete once the result slip is filled out or, if match slips are not being used, a player leaves the table after game play is finished. Until that point, either player may concede to or draw with the other, though if the conceding player won a game in the match, the match must be reported as 2-1.

As such, if the player actually won a match… it seems like this needs to be a 2-1 victory. If it's a draw… that seems to be fine, even if odd and unsatisfying from the perspective of having the most coherent possible rules.

Lyle Waldman
UC - IDaW. But the winner was not improperly determined; Nate conceded to his opponent, fair and square. We allow concession for any reason, unless Bribery (and in EDH, we also allow concession to Bribery =D), and there is no evidence of Bribery, so this is not UC - IDaW.

I follow “concessions are legal”, but I stop at “the match results can be manipulated if someone is a likable person that deserves a better tournament record than other players.” Perhaps the best challenge to a finding of IDaW is “… but the winner did not change”?

I've felt UC - IDaW to be the right infraction here, and have been looking into philosophy in this area. There's mention of "zero tolerance" for doing anything other than game results or intentional and immediate conclusion of the game (intentional draw or concession). While this case is not currently directly addressed in MTR or IPG that I can see, I feel that having match results be popularity contests would greatly compromise the integrity of the tournament. Consider that Andy's gain comes at someone else's expense.

We also have the April 2014 Judge blog discussion:

2. Player A wins 2 games in a match, but then he wants to leave. In order to allow Player B to have a chance in the tourney, player A chooses to let Player B win the match, and the players fill out the match slip 1-2 in B's favor. There is no bribery of any sort, no deal making, just that Player A wants to go home. Is this allowed

We’ve always allowed a player to concede a match at any point before submitting the result or leaving the table, so the only way for that to happen in certain situations – like this one – is to allow a retroactive concession of game 2.
We don’t want that match reported 2-0, but 2-1 is legal.
Approved by Scott Marshall, L5, Lakewood, CO, USA

I don't know how to properly decode that last sentence (I suspect that this KP scenario answer will present the missing pieces), but it does seem to indicate that at the very very least this is Unwanted Behavior.