I have had very similar situation twice in a few weeks, so I find it may happen quit often.

Let's imagine that you are playing in competitive tournament which is judged by your friend.
Judge have an intervention next to you and you notice that one of players says or does something you think he should be disqualify for. But judge doesn't care about it at all, just give a ruling, fix situation and go away.
What would you do?

Is there any difference in your reaction if the judge intervening has higher/lower level than you, or is he a head judge of this tournament?

Edited Adam Kolipiński (Oct. 24, 2013 05:22:43 PM)

I think you should as always when you witness a judge make a ruling you disagree with; after you have finished your game ask to talk to the judge and talk with them about your concerns with the ruling they made and why they made it.

What the Head Judge of an event says, goes. In theory the Head Judge has the authority to toss out the rulebook completely if (s)he so chooses. Granted that's likely to provoke a (justified) TO revolt and said HJ probably won't be contracted to do events for a while, but they can still do it. Ultimately, what you think a player should and should not be DQed over is irrelevant - the HJ decides what is DQable at their event and not.

As far as what you should do? If this is a floor judge, then it would be entirely reasonable for you to take the issue up with the HJ - I'd advise that you do so politely and discreetly. If it's the HJ, you're going to have to let it go for the event in question, but you can make an inquiry with your relevant Regional Coordinator. If the HJ was in fact in the wrong to an egregious extent, the RC will take whatever educational or disciplinary actions are appropriate.

EDIT: +1 to the above poster. You should maintain professionalism by resolving the issue in private away from the table. I'd also recommend doing as the prior poster says first, before going “over their head” to the HJ, just as a matter of courtesy.

Edited Colleen Nelson (Oct. 24, 2013 05:41:31 PM)

Level doesn't matter; only the Head Judge can disqualify a player.

I would talk with that judge *privately* between rounds, and explain what I heard or saw. Don't tell them “You should have DQd!” - that remains their decision, and that sort of statement is challenging. Instead, maybe “When I heard FOO, I thought you were going to DQ him, but you didn't - what did you think about that?”

d:^D

It's possible they have information you don't. Or indeed that you have information they don't. Either way, the best thing to do is to talk with them and discuss it.

As for level differences, a judge is a judge, and should be treated as such. Don't be afraid if it's a level 3/4/5 judge who made the ruling - ask them, and one or both parties may learn. Don't feel like a L0/L1/L2 is automatically less good - talk with them, and again, both parties may learn :)

I don't think it's a case where the judge doesn't care. It's probably that he or she missed key information during the investigation and it led to awarding a different penalty.

In any case, I would politely ask the judge who gave the ruling about it and see what his or her side of the story is before I make any judgments about the situation. I would especially do this with a higher ranked judge because it would be a good opportunity for an L1 like myself to learn something new from him or her.

I have to also make an extra comment on the judge level thing - don't assume that someone's level is an end-all, be-all metric of a judge's competence in all things. People have their particular level designation for a variety of reasons - I know at least 2 other L1s that are just as competent on the floor as your average L2, possibly more so, the only reason they aren't L2s is that they have trouble with the written test. There's another guy I know who's L1 because he only ever scorekeeps events, and thus lapsed from L2. The idea that L(N) < L(N+1) on all things is simply not true.

Edited Colleen Nelson (Oct. 24, 2013 05:46:46 PM)

Feedback… give it! If you think the head judge did not disqualify a player, and should have, talk to him after the event, or between rounds, or whenever you have a chance, privately. Ask him to talk about the situation, and ask him why or why not. If you think he was wrong, calmly give you idea.

Sometimes we have perceptions that are incorrect about policy. Other times, we as head judges may not have all the facts, or misunderstand something that occurred. Finally as I said above, feedback is important! Write a review, explain the policy, back it up with evidence. Don't treat it like they were wrong, but give them reasons to think about it differently next time. That has helped me immensely in my understanding of policy.

Discussion is key.

I was head judging an event over the summer, and the deck checks team had
given a GL to both players for D/DLP. The winning player came up to me to
turn in his slip and made some statement about rolling dice and winning. I
understood this statement to mean “We rolled dice. I won the roll. We
played a game of Magic. I won that single game. Is this slip right?”

The scorekeeper, who is also a very experienced L2, understood that same
statement as “We rolled dice to determine the outcome of the match
following the D/DLPs. Do I still write 2-1 if my opponent randomly conceded
to me?”

After the player left, she told me what she'd heard. I told her that wasn't
my interpretation, but I called the player back up anyway. Turned out my
understanding was right, but I could just as easily have gotten it wrong
and might never have known if the scorekeeper hadn't spoken up.

So just talk to the head judge about your perspective. Even with all the
same facts, you may have interpreted the situation differently enough to
make the difference between no penalty and a DQ. And, regardless of which
of you is right, you are both likely to learn something from the other's
perspective.

Personally, when I play a competitive event in which my friends and colleagues are judging, I always pick their brain about their rulings that I witness. Iron sharpens iron!

(This is, of course, doubly true if the ruling happened in my match but we have to make it clear that we want a mutual opportunity to learn and that we are arguing the ruling in the context of that tournament.)

No matter who is right, someone always learns something from one of these conversations.