Upper Deck Entertainment Forums

Alex, et al,

This is a question all judges face... and I'm certain we've all read through and posted many threads and replies to this or a very closely related topic. However, up until this point I don't recall having a more clearly defined guidance actually "spelled out".

There's reason for that... we need to be able to use judgement and wisdom in regard to the situation and not simply recite regulations. Nonetheless, I appreciate the feedback, guidance, and a forgiving medium to share (these forums).

---

Ken Maness
Pflugerville, Tx
RK 2 YGO, PM2, Specialist 2, TO 1

My personal belief has always been that we're best off not answering hypothetical questions, period.  I'm much more comfortable in allowing a player to make a mistake and then correcting them than to let them know beforehand and prevent the misplay; I feel that the former choice allows for a better reflection of a participant's skill in the game at hand. 

I think that in our duty to maintain the integrity of tournaments our hand should be seen as little as possible in the outcome of each game; if a player would mistakenly reveal a facedown without your input then that mistake should be made, corrected, and allowed to influence the remainder of that game.

That's just my opinion, and I seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from most of you.  Is this something that's discussed in preparing for judging large-scale professional events?

All hypothetical questions are essentially game mechanics questions in disguise.  People don't necessarily know how to use the terminology that we use every day.  Most people don't even know what PPP is let alone what it does.

If the question begins with "Should I" or "How do I" and you answer it... it's probably coaching.
"Can I"  or "Can my opponent" is usually asking if a play would be legal
"If I" or "If my opponent"will typically have some sort of answer in which game mechanics need to be explained.

---

____________
Alex Evans
Unity Entertainment
Event Manager

One problem with this approach is that the player may not want to risk making an illegal move (either fearing a penalty or fearing revealing a card to their opponent) so they decide not to make a perfectly legal and a good move. So by not providing them the mechanics of the situation, you have influenced the game.

If all you are providing is mechanics and whether the play is legal or not, then you are not coaching.

---

WoW RK2
VS RK2
YGO RK2
PM LV2
Specialist LV2 (formerly demo team)
TO LV1

284102:

One problem with this approach is that the player may not want to risk making an illegal move (either fearing a penalty or fearing revealing a card to their opponent) so they decide not to make a perfectly legal and a good move. So by not providing them the mechanics of the situation, you have influenced the game.

If all you are providing is mechanics and whether the play is legal or not, then you are not coaching.

You are correct.  If explaining a game mechanic or how a card on the field works, it is not coaching.  We all must also remember that the players should know how their cards and their effects work.  They constantly expect to pick up a deck they copyed online and play it without knowing its contents.  This is not a Sneak Preview where they are seeing the cards for the first time, it is a sanctioned tournament with contructed decks. 

---

Franklin Debrito
Player Management Lv4 / Yu-Gi-Oh! Lv3
VS System Lv1 / Specialist Lv2
World of Warcraft Lv1 / Tournament Organizer Lv1
UD Forums Moderator

I would like to add that judges who consistently respond with "I refuse to comment until you perform the action" are a detriment to the game.

The majority of the time, players are asking, "is this legal?". By not honestly answering the question, judges jeopardize the integrity of the match.

I'll give an example, at a major event, I have GB Heraklinos and my opponent has Kycoo and Shrink in hand. He asks the judge, "can Heraklinos negate shrink in the damage step?"

The judge refuses to answer until he does it. He appeals, the head judge refuses to answer until he commits to the action. Player and judge argue for quite a while. I myself was quite upset about this and finally say, yes he did it. Judge says that Heraklinos negates in the damage step, judge leaves and I tell him he can save his shrink.

Answering a "is this legal? yes/no" question is not coaching. However, the question must be answered publically and the cards involved must be presented before both parties.

---

Player Management 1
Tournament Organizer 1
Demo Team Certification 1
Yu-Gi-Oh! Rules Test 1

2176346:

I would like to add that judges who consistently respond with "I refuse to comment until you perform the action" are a detriment to the game.

The majority of the time, players are asking, "is this legal?". By not honestly answering the question, judges jeopardize the integrity of the match.

I'll give an example, at a major event, I have GB Heraklinos and my opponent has Kycoo and Shrink in hand. He asks the judge, "can Heraklinos negate shrink in the damage step?"

The judge refuses to answer until he does it. He appeals, the head judge refuses to answer until he commits to the action. Player and judge argue for quite a while. I myself was quite upset about this and finally say, yes he did it. Judge says that Heraklinos negates in the damage step, judge leaves and I tell him he can save his shrink.

Answering a "is this legal? yes/no" question is not coaching. However, the question must be answered publically and the cards involved must be presented before both parties.

Though in that particular question, I do not see any reason why the judge wouldn't answer the question.  You must understand as well that players are not trained to ask the proper questions and will usually ask questions that can be considered coaching.  If the judge feels that he will be giving an unfair advantage because he feels his answer might be coaching, he should avoid answering the question.  It all comes down to a judgment call. 

As we work in the development of the judge program, these are some of the things we cover and I must say that it has gotten much better compares to 2 years ago.  We are more unified as a judge community so information is being spread beyond just a local area.

---

Franklin Debrito
Player Management Lv4 / Yu-Gi-Oh! Lv3
VS System Lv1 / Specialist Lv2
World of Warcraft Lv1 / Tournament Organizer Lv1
UD Forums Moderator

2176346:

Answering a "is this legal? yes/no" question is not coaching. However, the question must be answered publically and the cards involved must be presented before both parties.

Nothing in our tournament policy prohibits a player from asking something of a judge in private. The question doesn't have to be answered publicly and the cards do not have to be presented before both parties.

---

Alex Charsky
Judge Manager
Upper Deck

Thanks everyone for their input!

I will whole-heartedly agree that players are generally unaware of the magic words needed to get a reasonable answer for their question which directly leads to the ones given in my examples. 

It seems like the better approach is to go ahead and discuss game mechanics behind what the player is asking about rather than trying to play the "Please rephrase your question." game.  In the end I think this will provide a better experience for both judges and players.

731819:

2176346:

Answering a "is this legal? yes/no" question is not coaching. However, the question must be answered publically and the cards involved must be presented before both parties.

Nothing in our tournament policy prohibits a player from asking something of a judge in private. The question doesn't have to be answered publicly and the cards do not have to be presented before both parties.

sorry Alex, poor choice of wording on my part

Ideally, I would want the players to discuss an issue like this publically if possible, to avoid a situation where the opponent is accusing the judge of coaching since they have no idea what the judge is or isnt telling the player asking the ruling. I have come across this, with the opponent accusing the judge of favoritism or coaching to the point of protest.  It can disrupt the entire tournament and become a tough situation to defuse

However, every situation has to be considered individually and it is the judge's discretion to decide the best form resolution

---

Player Management 1
Tournament Organizer 1
Demo Team Certification 1
Yu-Gi-Oh! Rules Test 1

2176346:

 

sorry Alex, poor choice of wording on my part

Ideally, I would want the players to discuss an issue like this publically if possible, to avoid a situation where the opponent is accusing the judge of coaching since they have no idea what the judge is or isnt telling the player asking the ruling. I have come across this, with the opponent accusing the judge of favoritism or coaching to the point of protest.  It can disrupt the entire tournament and become a tough situation to defuse

There are a couple of things that can be done to diffuse this situation.

1. Explain that all you were doing was explaining a specific game mechanic and after the situation in question has passed or after the match you will be happy to explain the same mechanic to them. (This usually works for me)

2. If that does not satisfy them and you are not the head judge, remind the player that is upset that they may appeal to the head judge and the Head Judge can decide if you were coaching or not. If you are the HJ you can explain that we are allowed to explain mechanics and answer questions about if a play is legal.

If all of that does not work then the HJ should assert his/her authority and remind the player that his rulings are final for that event. If he still continues to argue then start assessing unsporting conduct penalties as needed (typically a warning that they are pending if the argument continues is enough to end the discussion).  Though I have very seldom seen it get to this point.

---

WoW RK2
VS RK2
YGO RK2
PM LV2
Specialist LV2 (formerly demo team)
TO LV1

Having judged tournaments in Warlord, L5R, and MTG, I've been hit with the "what if" questions more times than I care to count, as well as having to deal with people who use the 'slang' that doesn't match what they intend (both as a judge and a player).

As a judge, I watch for how much they want to ask about. Basically clarifying if something is a valid target or not or a complex chain after it has been played is one thing, answering they hypothetical "what if I do this that and the other thing, what would happen" is more the player seeking some coaching.

As a player, I love (in MTG) when I play a 'spell' and my opponent jumps right on it with "IN RESPONSE I.... (play something)". People don't realize that "in response" is also saying "on the stack/chain before that spell resolves".  That's bad if their card is "target creature" or "target permanent" or something that targets a card AFTER it resolves because it's still a spell.  The proper action is a 'cancel target spell'.  I've caught more people with their pants down on this getting to hear "well I meant after it resolved" and unfortunately enjoy telling them "that's not what you said, and intentions don't count".

Of course, if they have been a very courteous player, I might let them take it back ONCE... but JUST once.

---

AL B. (110-362-351)
USAF (RET), Spokane WA.
PM L1 / WoW Judge L1 / Specialist L1
MSN:aldegamer@hotmail.com / ICQ:2191425 / AIM:AlDeGamer / Yahoo!:awb_gaming1

2176346:

I myself was quite upset about this and finally say, yes he did it. Judge says that Heraklinos negates in the damage step, judge leaves and I tell him he can save his shrink.

It's fine to tell him that Herk can negate Shrink.  However, I don't consider it fine to tell the player that "he can save his Shrink."  That's more than providing the answer to game mechanics.  That's coaching.  Any conclusions that can or should be drawn from game mechanics are for the player to deduce.

---

Jeff Piroozshad
Marketing Events Specialist
Upper Deck

Next Yu-Gi-Oh! Shonen Jump Championship:
SJC DETROIT
December 5-6, 2008
www.yugiohchamps.com

1503087:

2176346:

I myself was quite upset about this and finally say, yes he did it. Judge says that Heraklinos negates in the damage step, judge leaves and I tell him he can save his shrink.

It's fine to tell him that Herk can negate Shrink.  However, I don't consider it fine to tell the player that "he can save his Shrink."  That's more than providing the answer to game mechanics.  That's coaching.  Any conclusions that can or should be drawn from game mechanics are for the player to deduce.

I think you misinterpreted the situation.

I was the opponents player, not a judge during this. I got upset when the judges refused to answer his "is this legal?" question, until he (and I) verified that he is actually doing it.

After the judges left, I told my opponent that it was not fair that the judges forced him to make that play in order to get a ruling and that if he wanted to take it back, I would allow it.

---

Player Management 1
Tournament Organizer 1
Demo Team Certification 1
Yu-Gi-Oh! Rules Test 1