Welcome back to this week's Knowledge Pool! This scenario was first submitted to us by Matt Farney. If you have a scenario you think we should present, feel free to send it to us here. We have a Silver scenario, which means we would like L2+ judges to wait until Friday before adding their contributions to the discussion:

Here's the blog post: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1069

Eight minutes into round five of a PTQ, you are called over to tables 35 and 36.

Albert and Yuval are sitting at table 35. Albert has just won a game, and they are just presenting their decks after sideboarding.

Bob and Zachary are sitting at table 36. They are in the middle of game one.

They called you when their results slips arrived. Upon looking at the slips, they realized Albert and Bob should have been playing at 35, and Yuval and Zachary should have been playing at 36.

They realize things aren't what they should be, but they start arguing that they couldn't know earlier that they were at the wrong table since it took sooo long until the result slips finally arrived. What do you do? What are the relevant infractions, penalties, and fixes, if any?

Edited Josh Stansfield (May 21, 2014 05:58:53 PM)

This falls into TE-Tardiness. The IPG doesn't say that people need to have results slips to check. They are expected to be in the right seat. Most tournaments I've been in use 0/10 so being in the wrong seat is the same as not being in your seat. Unless there was confusion with the placing of table numbers the appropriate fix is Game loss for Bob and Youval (with head judge's approval). “A player sits at an incorrect table and plays the wrong opponent.” IPG 3.1 Example D.

The more difficult question here is what to do next. We have the options of reseating the players against their appropriate opponents or having them complete their matches against the wrong opponent. I feel that because we are within the 10 minute cutoff for a match loss it is best to treat it as each player arriving 8 minutes late to the match. Albert will still be up a game however, it will be against Bob. Yuval will be down a game against Zachary. Each table gets an extension equal to the time lost in the round.

Let's start with the easy stuff. All four players are going to be reminded to note down their table number and opponent's name from the pairings sheet and to verify that when they sit down at their table.

We are 8 minutes into the round and neither Bob nor Yuval is at their table. Both players will receive a penalty for TE-Tardiness, which will come with a penalty consistent with the announced time limits, probably a Game Loss. We will move these players to the correct tables and both tables will begin game 1. Albert and Yuval will be reminded that as they are starting the first game of their match, they must de-sideboard and present their decks as registered.

In response to the players' arguments, I will remind them that the posted pairings contain table numbers, opponent's names, and both players' current match points. That information is there so that players can ensure it is correct before starting the match. If we fail to enforce this penalty, we force the entire tournament to wait for an error that could easily have been averted. If they wish to follow up, they should find us after the match, but they must begin play now.

Both tables will receive a time extension of 8 minutes.

I am declining to apply the broad downgrade “If a player commits an offense, realizes it, and calls a judge over immediately and before he or she could potentially benefit from the offense…”. The player committed an offense when they were not seated in the correct seat at the beginning of the round, however they did not call a judge until 8 minutes later. While they called immediately upon realizing the error, they did not realize immediately upon committing the error. Further, there is an opportunity for all four players to gain an advantage by seeing their neighbor's decks.

Albert and Zachary were at the correct tables on time, so no infractions there.

Bob and Yuval were at the wrong table, so TE-Tardiness for them.

From the examples in the IPG (noting that the “and” is what absolves Albert and Zachary)
>D. A player sits at an incorrect table and plays the wrong opponent.

It is unfortunate that the slips arrived late, but as long as the posted pairings were correct, they should have been at the appropriate seat at the start of the round. At most PTQs, you're not getting your slips on all the tables before the round starts, so even if they were there 30 seconds after round start and they realized the issue, a tardiness penalty would still be warranted (assuming the default 0/10 tardiness policy). I'd explain this to the players diplomatically.

So the penalty is a Game Loss. I don't see any of the generic downgrade paths applicable here. (it wasn't judge error, and I don't think self-calling fits here in context)

Remedy? Bob and Zachary's game stops, and people move over to play the correct opponents. Assign a time extension to cover the 8 minute tardiness and whatever time the call required. (Odds are it won't be needed)

I don't agree with the time extension here, as the game losses being issued
should alleviate the need for extra time.
On May 21, 2014 3:18 PM, “Chris Nowak” <

Originally posted by Sam Sherman:

I don't agree with the time extension here, as the game losses being issued should alleviate the need for extra time.

Not to give a time extension would be a deviation from the IPG.

IPG - 3.1 Tardiness - Additional remedy: (…) The players are given a time extension corresponding to the length of the tardiness.
Annotated IPG (ibidem): (…) give the match an extension, even if there is a Game Loss. The players still get the 50 minute match that they paid for. They probably won't need it, but they still get it.

Edited Loïc Hervier (May 22, 2014 02:41:22 AM)

The IPG is quite clear here. Both Albert and Zachary have gone to correct seat - no infraction. Bob and Yuval have gone to incorrect seats - TE - Tardiness. Both Bob and Yuval will be given a game loss, and players will be paired correctly. (“Players are responsible for being on time and the correct seat for their matches.”)

Players will need to de-sideboard if they already had proceeded to game two, and present for game one as per their registered decklist. 8 additional minutes will be given to both tables as an extension as per the Aditional Remedy in the IPG (They may not need it, but 8 minutes is a long time in a match, so it should be given. To not give addition time would be a deviation from the IPG).

Players will be reminded to be more careful in the future, as well as be reminded that posted round pairings display table number, opponent, and current points standings, and in no way are results slips needed to ensure that you are playing the correct player.

Edited Matt Baird (May 22, 2014 02:58:14 AM)

yep, you are right on the extension, my mistake.

We have two players (Yuval and Bob) sitting at the wrong table when the round startet, while the other two (Albert and Zachery) are in theyr seats ready to play the match. The IPG clearly says that a player needs to be on time and in the correct seat for theyr match (and of course with all the other things like deck, sideboard, a method to track your life etc.)

So Yuval and Bob did commited a TE-Tardiness. Both players will recieve a Game Loss. Albert and Zachery didnt commit any infraction, therefore no Penalty.The argumentation that the result slips were given to the table late is no excuse. The pairings for the match will be posted (or exclaimed) and ist in the responsibility of the player to make sure they find theyr right seat and opponent.

Fir the fixing part: Yuval and Bob will switch places so the pairings does fit. The match will then start with Game 1 for both tables. Alberts and Yuval also need to take care that theyr deck will match with the deck list for the first game, so it might be necessary to de-sideboard before Game 1 starts asuming they changed the composition of the deck. Both tables will get a time extension equal to the already elapsed round time plus the time needet for the ruling (in the end both tables will have 50 minutes for the match).

I would also remind them to be more careful in the future. One advice i would give to all four players is to remember not only the table number, but also the name of the opponent written on the pairing board. Upon introduction you usually catch the name of your opponent, making it easy for you to confirm that you play against the right opponent.

All players should be reminded to note their table numbers and opponents from match pairings and do their best to verify.

That being said, Yuval and Bob failed to sit at their correct tables, falling under 3.1 TE- Tardiness. Since it was caught within the first 10 minutes of the match I would instruct these two to move to their correct locations. Both players will receive a game loss, and a time extension would be given to each match to equal to the ellapsed time after ruling was made and positions corrected. I would also remind Albert and Yuval that they must desideboard and present decks since it is now game 1.

This situation is pretty clear and, as experience will tell you, unfortunately common at larger events.

Players are responsible for getting to the correct table and playing the correct opponent. These are clearly listed on the pairings sheets, and at some events may even be available via twitter.

Issue the appropriate penalty for TE-Tardiness to the two players sitting at the incorrect tables (usually game loss for Comp-REL, depending on announcement), award a time extension equal to the elapsed time in the round, and have players desideboard if they have sideboarded. The players should switch seats in order to play the correct opponent. Then the players begin their matches to the best-of-two result.

Thank you to everyone who took part in this week's Knowledge Pool scenario!

As many of you pointed out, playing the wrong opponent is an explicit example of IPG 3.1 Tardiness. Since this was discovered before the 10 minutes limit announced for Tardiness (as it usually is 0/10 for PTQs), Bob and Yuval are each going to receive a Game Loss. The existing games/matches are not part of the tournament and thus do not count so both matches are immediatedly stopped and any result is voided.
Since no official games have been completed (or even started), the Game Losses are applied immediately and Bob and Yuval go to play their own matches at the appropriate tables.

To fix the situation, seat the players correctly at 35/36. Bob and Yuval are both down one game, but will have the choice to play or draw for game 2. None of the players may sideboard for game 2 (so Albert and Yuval have to de-sideboard their decks). Give each table a time extension equal to the elapsed time in the round, which means 8 minutes in this case plus your ruling time so that they have the same 50 minutes for their matches as all the other players have.

See you tomorrow for our next Knowledge Pool.

Before reading other responses:

While it occurred for an understandable reason, this is a pretty textbook case of Tournament Error - Tardiness on the part of Yuval and Bob. It's the responsibility of the players to ensure that they're sitting in the correct seats, and playing the correct opponents. Alex and Zachary are playing the wrong opponents, but they're at least where they should be.

Bob and Yuval both get a Tournament Error - Tardiness, and a game loss. Put the players in their correct seats, both matches have a game 1 loss for the appropriate players, no sideboarding for game 2. Give both matches an 8 minute extension, plus whatever time was necessary to resolve the judge call.

This is definitely a feel-bad situation, and so it would be important to handle this diplomatically. It will probably feel unfair to players that Bob and Yuval get a game loss, but Alex and Zachary did not, even though all four players were involved in the error and had the capability to prevent it. That said, Bob and Yuval actually made the error, Alex and Zachary merely didn't notice it.


After reading other responses:

Apparently the scenario's already over. A bit late this week :)

I would be interested in discussing (in this thread or elsewhere) diplomatic ways of handling the situation, since it seems like one that will particularly raise emotions.

I'm glad to hear you'd like to handle the situation diplomatically, it's a great thought to have any time you encounter a potentially awkward ruling.

That said, this isn't the place for such discussions. I recommend discussing it with a mentor of yours or other judges in your local area.