Originally posted by Chris Lansdell:

But hasn't the floor judge given his ruling? He's said that Amita only takes two.

Well, to be the best kind of correct, Jay has only said “Well, no, she doesn’t. You see, the Guttersnipe is–."

Originally posted by Chris Lansdell:

But hasn't the floor judge given his ruling? He's said that Amita only takes two.

Bryan Spellman
Judge Jay walks over, “How may I help you two?” He takes a seat by the players and listens as both players explain the situation.

Norm: “…so Amita takes four damage, right?”

Jay responds, “Well, no, she doesn’t. You see, the Guttersnipe is–”

If we take what's described as the full picture, the FJ definitely did not give his ruling yet, but rather was in the process of doing so when he was interrupted by Norm.

Isn't the ruling, “Well, no, she doesn’t”?

I would think that cutting Jay off in mid-sentence doesn't allow him to finish giving his ruling, as part of the ruling would also be a concise explanation. Norm should receive a warning for USC-Minor for not allowing Jay to finish his ruling before requesting an appeal. In this situation, I also agree that while Jay should politely and firmly remind Norm he needs to finish his ruling before asking for an appeal, and that the HJ should be the one to give the USC-Minor warning.

Also, the fact that Jay is a ‘DCI-Certified Judge’ is irrelevant. A judge candidate that is on staff is still a judge, and a tournament official.

Whether or not Jay has “delivered his ruling” doesn't really matter. The behavior doesn't have to exactly match one of the listed examples in order to be considered USC-Minor. They are there to provide examples of the kind of behavior that can be “disruptive to the tournament or its participants”, not to serve as an exhaustive list. (Compare with USC-Major, which lists as its definition those behaviors which can be considered.)

It seems to me that Norm's behavior in this case is a behavior we would want to dissuade. It can be harmful to the integrity of the tournament by undermining the authority of the judge staff, and so it fits the philosophy of USC-Minor.

I guess everyone beat me to the punch already, but I have a slightly different opinion on who should handle the penalty.

This is definitely a case of USC - Minor. Norm did not let Jay finish his ruling before appealing, (though I would hardly call his outburst an appeal) and is insulting a tournament official and making those around him clearly uncomfortable.

Originally posted by Byron Calver:

However, with Norm already questioning his legitimacy, there is the risk that Jay immediately issuing the UC-Minor himself might lead Norm to believe that Jay is a rogue judge on a power trip, and that's a perception we would prefer to avoid where possible. As a result, Jay may consider calling over a second judge strictly to handle the USC-Minor.

I disagree with this point. I feel as though Jay should do his best to keep a level head, finish his ruling, and then issue the USC Minor penalty to Norm. Norm does need to be reminded of his right to an appeal, and it is at that time where the Head Judge can clear any doubts on the legitimacy of Jay's ruling to Norm. Getting another judge to assist or observe the situation is useful, but I don't think this situation requires another judge to issue the penalty.

Originally posted by Jonathan Reasoner:

Also, the fact that Jay is a 'DCI-Certified Judge' is irrelevant. A judge candidate that is on staff is still a judge, and a tournament official.

Under this very nice observation, I would like to propose a spiritual edit, if those who run this Pool of Knowledge will permit it. My “addition” is to change the ‘I’m a Level One J-' to: ‘I’m testing for Level One to…'

Does this change anything? The reason I point this out is because Jonathan brings up an excellent point about whether your level truly matters or not.

Edited Peter Richmond (April 4, 2013 06:44:26 PM)

Thanks, Peter. That potential change was actually discussed before we posted the scenario, with that in mind. We just left it as Level One because… well, because we did. :)

Feel free to discuss it either way, with Jay as Level 1 or as a candidate who will be testing for Level 1.

Edited Josh Stansfield (April 4, 2013 07:17:55 PM)

Judges, thanks for the great discussions! It looks like everyone spotted the USC-Minor right off the bat, with a few different ideas as to how to deal with it.

Of course, Jay is correct: Amita will lose two life. Abilities that trigger when a spell is cast don't trigger until after all costs are paid, including the cost of sacrificing the Guttersnipe (See 601.2, specifically 601.2g and 601.2h). Therefore, when Launch Party is cast, Guttersnipe is no longer on the battlefield and will not trigger.

Norm's behavior is a textbook case of USC-Minor. Norm's actions are disruptive to the tournament and may affect the comfort level of those around him (though determining the latter is not a requirement). Norm has essentially asked for an appeal before waiting for Jay to issue the ruling. Norm needs to be aware that his behavior is unacceptable.

Jay should, calmly, but firmly, resolve the rules situation, including the inevitable appeal. “Judges should focus first on calming a situation, and deal with infractions and penalties afterwards.” (IPG, Section 4). In his side talk with Head Judge Harry, they should discuss how to apply the USC-Minor penalty. It may be best for the Head Judge to give the warning in this situation. If Jay gives the penalty, Harry will likely have a 2nd appeal to deal with, and Norm may escalate things to an unfortunate level. It's a wise idea to get a read on the situation and act accordingly. In extreme cases, the judge may want to wait until the match is over and then sit down with Norm to explain the infraction and talk about how his behavior must be corrected.

The judges should use this opportunity to remind players that Judges of all levels should be granted the same basic level of respect as higher level Judges. In fact, players are expected to treat all tournament officials with a basic level of decency, whether they are certified or not. Allowing a player to treat a tournament official with disrespect sets a bad precedent and is unwarranted. The judges and other officials are there for the player's benefit; treating them poorly is unsporting. If any player has an issue with a ruling that any judge has completed delivering, they may use the appeals process to resolve that. Browbeating, insulting, or otherwise hassling the judge as they attempt to make a ruling is not an acceptable course of action.