I saw this question asked in the Northeast Judge group on Facebook and figured it could be a good discussion topic :

“If a player receives a game loss for DDE between rounds, then receives a bye, how do you apply the penalty (IPG doesn't say)”

Would it really be considered a penalty of administered during a bye round (and even possible to accomplish administering the penalty in WER) or carry over to the nplayer's next match with an actual opponent?

How did they get a D/DLP between rounds? Most problems with deck lists are verified with a deck check and since you don't do those between rounds I'm confused on why a judge decided to issue a penalty between rounds. What's the fact pattern behind the situation?

Originally posted by Brock Ullom:

How did they get a D/DLP between rounds? Most problems with deck lists are verified with a deck check and since you don't do those between rounds I'm confused on why a judge decided to issue a penalty between rounds. What's the fact pattern behind the situation?

I don't think it's difficult to find scenarios where you run into D/DLP between rounds. On Sunday morning of GP NY (so… 38 hours ago?), I had a player from my area approach me and tell me, “Judge, I registered 7 Declaration in Stone on my list, instead of 3 Declaration and 4 Draconic Roar. I discovered this when I was sending my phone photo of the list to a friend last night.” After investigating and checking in with the HJ, I corrected the list and let the player know that he'd be receiving a Game Loss, so I'd see him in a few minutes once he and his opponent were shuffling up.

In a more frequent scenario, the judge is counting lists at the beginning of the day, despite the repeated (O)fficial advice not to.

But as to James's question, I think we need to look at why we issue a Game Loss for a D/DLP. Or really for anything. While it's sometimes about tournament logistics (especially Tardiness), a bigger reason is player education. If someone earns a game loss because their decklist is wrong, that's going to teach them to be more careful in the future. What's more, if they lose the match, their “bad beats” story to their friends is going to remind the friends to be more careful too.

If that game loss is negated, that education is blunted - it loses some of the educational impact. So even if WER allowed it, I wouldn't issue a game loss to a player who was assigned a bye.

Edited John Brian McCarthy (May 9, 2016 11:33:11 PM)

John Brian,

I just want to make sure there wasn't a typo, you would not issue a game
loss to the player who was assigned a bye?
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:33 PM John Brian McCarthy <

Typically if some sort of issue is discovered between checks, in my area at least, we simply check that player's deck whenever is next possible.

This eliminates such issues, and lets us resolve any issues when it's easiest to do so.

While not officially supported by the IPG, I think the best solution would be to wait until the round after the bye and issue it then. Issuing a game loss to a player with a bye doesn't make any sense, as they would still get a guaranteed match win. Waiting until the next round provides the most consistency with how it would be resolved normally.

The main problem with this approach is that if this occurred before the last round, then the player wouldn't receive any penalty. However I don't see a better option. And if the player is receiving a bye in the last round on a tournament, they are probably out of contention for prizes anyway.

Originally posted by Isaac King:

While not officially supported by the IPG,

… Why should we go outside of the IPG?
A game loss is a penalty you apply for an infraction. While it usually carries a geater likelyhood of loosing the (next) match with it, since the opponent now only has to win one instead of two games, it seems unreasonable for me to track if a player has a bye in the next round if I give out this penalty between rounds.
We, also, have a precedence where we do give out the penalty but we do not let it affect the match score, simultaneous gamle losses.
Furthermore, the IPG tells us to give out game losses if players are going to drop or have dropped already.
I do not see why we can not use the same logic here. Apply the game loss, congratulate the player for the bye and move on. Will this “dilute” the message of the penalty? Maybe, but probably not. The story is still there: “I did xyz and got a game loss but luckily it did not matter because I had a bye in that round.” Will it simplify my work? Definetely because I do not have to track a player to give him a game loss to punish him properly by starting at a 0:1 disadvantage in his next match.
Also, if you do not give out the penalty right away you open up avenues for players to get out of penalties.

I had a question on this that I thought was relevant when applying the penalty to the next round.

Philosophy - “…issues at the start of the next round to minimize the disruption of the match currently being played and provide consistency in case some players finished playing their match before the penalty can be administered.”

Technically isn't a bye match finished at 2-0 automatically? This would mean you are applying the penalty after a result has been put in, and the penalty should carry over to the next round? The specific application during a bye isn't mentioned but since I've been reading through the forms, I feel like the biggest point stressed is consistency in application, and changing the results of a match (2-0 because of bye) is not consistent.

If Player A was receiving a D/DP loss and Player B conceded for whatever reason prior to judge administering the loss would we then edit the results of the match?

Originally posted by Isaac King:

While not officially supported by the IPG, I think the best solution would be to wait until the round after the bye and issue it then

Actually, that's exactly what the IPG tells us to do:

Game Losses are applied to the game in which the offense occurred unless the players have begun a new game or the tournament is between rounds, in which case the loss is applied to the player’s next game.
…
If a player receives a Game Loss at the same time his or her opponent receives a Match Loss, the Game Loss is carried over into the next round.

That second sentence works just fine for this situation (a bye); wait until the next game that player would play, and assess the Game Loss then.

d:^D