Let There Be Dragons… and Judges on Camera
CIAO to everybody,
I would have wanted to write an article about the change of the PTQ structure and also an article about a very enjoyable Grand Prix Miami, but it looks like Pro Tour Dragons of Tarkir gave us some very interesting situations to discuss.
This article will be a little longer and with fewer photos than usual.
It will be mainly about the “Round 6 situation” that you might have read about in the last few days, and I will do my best to explain how I saw it, and why I believe that it was a very good example of judging and also a good image of the game.
Happy reading.
Pro Tour Brussels 2015
Brussels is the capital of Belgium, a small country in western Europe… small but important for arts, culture and food.
Brussels had hosted the World Championships in 2000 and three GPs (2003, 2008 and 2010) and will host its fourth one at the end of this year.
Let’s take a look at the Top 8 decks, at some rules and policy situations, and at my view of the now “famous” conversation with Patrick Chapin.
Let There Be Dragons
The European Pro Tour of 2015 was officially called “Pro Tour Dragons”.
Did you check out the Top 8 decklists?
Did you see how many dragons were in the Top 8?
Three dragonlords!
Atarka, Silumgar and Ojutai!
… and some minor, less “elder” like Stormbreath Dragon, Thunderbreak Regent and Icefall Regent.
Of course, Ugin was there too!
It appears that a red deck defeated all the dragons and won… how can a humble Bellstriker and a horde of inferior creatures defeat the mighty dragons?
If I had to build my Standard deck, it would be full of removal spells and Dragons, rest assured.
Rules: Sidisi and Illusory Gains
I cast Sidisi, which has the exploit ability and a second ability that provides a “tutor effect” when the exploit ability is used.
My opponent controls Illusory Gains, which is an Aura that allows him to take control of the last creature that entered the battlefield under my control.
As soon as my Sidisi enters the battlefield, two abilities trigger: the exploit ability of Sidisi and the ability of Illusory Gains.
As it’s my turn, my opponent’s ability will resolve first, and he will gain control of my Sidisi before I sacrifice a creature for exploit.
Then, when the exploit ability resolves, I choose to sacrifice a second creature.
Does Sidisi’s second ability trigger? If yes, who gets the “tutor effect”?
Sidisi’s second ability says “When Sidisi, Undead Vizier exploits a creature, you may search your library for a card, put it into your hand, then shuffle your library”. This ability doesn’t check if Sidisi’s controller sacrificed a creature; it checks if a creature was sacrificed for the exploit ability.
Even if Sidisi changed controllers, she will know that the exploit ability was used, and the second ability will trigger.
When it resolves, its effect will be applied to the person controlling her at the moment of the resolution: my opponent will get to tutor a card from his deck!
Rules: Soulfire Grand Master and Rebound (Part 1)
Soulfire Grand Master has an ability that says “The next time you cast an instant or sorcery spell from your hand this turn, put that card into your hand instead of into your graveyard as it resolves”.
Rebound says “If this spell was cast from your hand, instead of putting it into your graveyard as it resolves, exile it and, at the beginning of your next upkeep, you may cast this card from exile without paying its mana cost”.
If I cast a spell with rebound and, before casting it a second time, I activate the ability of Soulfire Grand Master, the card with rebound is not returned to the hand, as rebound states that the card is cast from the exile zone, and Soulfire Grand Master specifically mentions that its effect applies to cards cast from the hand.
Tournament Situation: Soulfire Grand Master and Rebound (Part 2)
Before activating the ability of Soulfire Grand Master to get the spell with rebound back into the hand, I had asked a judge if that would work.
The judge told me that I would have the spell returned to my hand, so I chose to activate the ability.
When I said “and I get it back”, my opponent corrected me and said that it didn’t work; the judge checked and confirmed that it didn’t work.
As my choice of activating the ability was made because the judge told me that it worked, I wonder if I can untap the lands I used to activate Soulfire Grand Master’s ability.
In this case, there was no infraction committed; allowing me to untap my lands would be a deviation from normal procedures, which is justified by the fact that my choice was influenced by a judge’s mistake; I should not be disadvantaged if a judge has even a small responsibility for my action (both for a correct play and also for an illegal play).
Tournament Situation and Customer Service: The Conversation with Patrick
Yes, after these “simple” situations, it’s time to give you my version of what happend in the “famous round 6” and my conversation with Patrick Chapin.
I will do my best to describe the situation, to inform you about what the rules say and the reasons for our rules, and also my opinion about several aspects of this situation. Please remember that I’m not a native English speaker, therefore I might use simpler words and I might be unaware of the nuances of some of my words and expressions; I count on you that you will be able to derive the appropriate meaning of my statement. ^___^
1) The situation in the game:
Patrick activates the second ability of Ajani, Mentor of Heroes, which says “Look at the top four cards of your library. You may reveal an Aura, creature, or planeswalker card from among them and put it into your hand”. He puts his hand face down on the table, chooses a creature card and puts it on top of his hand. The opponent calls a judge, as Patrick didn’t resolve the ability correctly, as he didn’t reveal the chosen card.
2) The ruling:
When a spell or an ability isn’t correctly resolved, it’s an infraction, which is called Game Rule Violation. The associated penalty is a Warning, the game state is usually fixed and the game continues. In a few specific cases, the penalty is upgraded to a Game Loss according to the following paragraph of the Infraction Procedure Guide: “An error that an opponent has no opportunity to verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one”.
3) The possibility of deviating from the ruling:
There is another paragraph in the Infraction Procedure Guide that gives information about the possibility to avoid the upgrade of the penalty: “If the information was ever in a position where opponents had the opportunity to verify the legality (such as on top of the library, as the only card in hand, or on the battlefield), do not upgrade the penalty and reveal the information if possible”.
There are a few other mentions of downgrade options in the official policy document: “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 Head Judge has the option to downgrade the penalty without it being considered a deviation” and “If the judge gives a player erroneous information that causes them to commit a violation, the Head Judge is authorized to downgrade the penalty”.
A very important sentence of the policy document is about deviating from standard procedure: “The Head Judge may not deviate from this guide’s procedures except in significant and exceptional circumstances or a situation that has no applicable philosophy for guidance”.
The importance of consistency is explained by the following paragraph: “These procedures exist to protect officials from accusations of unfairness, bias, or favoritism. If a judge makes a ruling that is consistent with quoted text, then the complaints of a player shift from accusation of unfairness by the judge to accusations of unfair policy. Deviations from these procedures may raise accusations against the judge from the player(s) involved, or from those who hear about it”.
4) The appeal process:
The first ruling is always given by a floor judge (one of the judges with the black shirts at Grand Prix and Pro Tour events), and there is always the possibility of appealing to the head judge (one of the judges with the red shirts at Grand Prix and Pro Tour events); there is only one level of appeal, and the decision of the head judge of the tournament is final.
The appeal process exists to make sure that all situations and all players are given the correct rulings, are treated fairly and consistently, and that they feel that they are listened to and taken care of.
All judges with the red shirt (five L5s and nine L4s at this moment) have years of experience, are among the most skilled and smart people I have met, and have my full trust.
5) The follow up conversation:
The initial ruling was given by L5 Kevin Desprez of France, one of the best judges in the world, and was confirmed by me.
Patrick correctly expressed his opinions and brought forward many interesting points, trying to give me all the elements to help me make the best decision.
All his elements were correct and, if it wasn’t a conversation with thousands of viewers watching, it would have been a very enjoyable and interesting conversation; Patrick’s arguments were challenging, as he’s a very smart person, and you can imagine that I didn’t feel as comfortable as I would have been in a friendly conversation around a table (Patrick and I actually agreed on continuing having good conversations in a bar, enjoying a drink together); the cameras, the expectations of the people involved and the need of explaining difficult concepts in a language that is not my first, were quite stressful… but I’m confident that it didn’t show too much in the video, right? ^__^
Here you have some of the elements that Patrick correctly brought to my attention, with the reasons for my decision (see below for my opinion about them):
- a) The legality of the action might have been verified, and the game might have continued.
There were staff members behind him, recording the hand and relaying information to the studio commentators, and there was a video recording of his actions; the card he chose was surely visible to the staff members and also to the spectators at home.
In our policy document, there is the following paragraph about videos: “Because of the delays inherent in using video replay, judges are not permitted to use it to assist in making rulings during a match”. In addition to the delay, a very important reason for not being allowed to use video replays is that matches with video coverage should abide to the same rules as all other matches.
- b) The position of the card was clear
A card is considered to be drawn when it touches the other cards in hand; the reference of this in our policy documents is “Players are considered to have looked at a card when they have been able to observe the face of a hidden card, or when a card is moved any significant amount from a deck, but before it touches the other cards in their hand”. This rule exists to define a clear line between “not drawn” (the infraction is called “Looking at extra cards” and the penalty is a Warning) and “drawn” (the infraction is called “Drawing extra cards” and the penalty is a Game Loss); between the moment the card is on top of the library and the moment the card is shuffled into the hand, there are many intermediate states; the easiest state/moment/event that we identified is the moment the card touches the other cards in the hand, and it has been chosen as the line that defines “drawing”. There is no difference between the cards being face down on the table in a horizontal position and being in the hand of the player in a vertical position (otherwise we would need to define another line that should be used to differentiate between “drawn” and “not drawn”).
6) The comments online and my opinion about the entire situation
In the last days, I received comments from players, judges and Wizards employees, and I read many comments and a few articles on the Internet.
Let’s start with what I have been noticing for decades: positive comments tend to be private, negative comments tend to be public. It’s human nature.
My personal opinion about the situation is VERY positive!
After an initial state of tension (I know it doesn’t look like it, but I’m a shy and reserved person!), I thought about the situation and how it might have been seen by the audience, and I am actually very satisfied.
The judges involved:
The initial ruling was correct and according to the rules; my decision of confirming it was correct.
I believe I am the high level judge who is the most…. let’s call it “creative”, in the sense that I tend to see the policy documents as guidelines, and the judge decisions should be based on them, but also be the ones that keep the game fair… which means that I am very likely the easiest to be convinced by good arguments. ^__^
Some people said that it took too long, and they are right in thinking that I should have cut the conversation earlier, and also that other judges would have been quicker, but I believe that it’s extremely important to dedicate time to players who are losing an important match and who may believe that they received an unfair ruling and, even more important, it’s fundamental for me to explain my decisions and our rules to all the spectators. Transparency in rulings is fundamental and customer service (that means also “listening to people”) is fundamental too. I believe those ten minutes have been among the most important minutes I dedicated to all the fans of Magic, both players and judges. It’s my style of judging and I am very proud of it.
The players involved:
Patrick was polite all the time, explained his opinion clearly, didn’t insist too much (if you believe that he was rude or oppressive, well, I believe that you are used to very polite and reserved people ^__^), accepted the decision, showed a very good understanding of our policy and was correct to his opponent.
His opponent was correct in calling a judge; high level tournaments are competitions and I will never blame anyone for wanting the rules to be applied. He was just competitive, not unsporting (if you believe he should have been “more sporting”, I need to remind you that, at this level, it’s a competition where “fouls” exist and waiving them might look “honorable” but would create significant impressions of unfairness).
As an extra, in all my interactions with both these two players, all conversations have been enjoyable and there have never been any problems. If all people who play Magic were as polite and friendly as Patrick and his opponent, I am sure that we would all enjoy the tournaments even more.
The online commentary:
I read some comments saying that the cameras should have been cut off and that this situation gave a bad image of the game.
Actually, I believe it’s the opposite.
I am happy that the audience at home was able to see the entire situation, as I am a huge fan of transparency and of diffusion of information.
All spectators could see that infractions exist (we are human and we make mistakes), that there are penalties associated to infractions (learning the connection between causes and effects is very useful in life), that there is good communication between players and judges (I believe that we are at a moment in time where the players have great trust in the judges and our relationship is excellent), that judges are professional and their decisions are based on huge experience and deep thoughts (much more than I will ever be able to explain to you in these articles), that in the interest of fairness, all players are treated equally, that there is an appeal process and, important to me, there is nothing to keep hidden.
7) My personal opinion about the rules
The short version is, “I believe that what Patrick says has some merits.”
The longer version is that I believe that it might be possible that, at some point in the future, Wizards will choose that matches with video coverage will have slightly different rules about penalties, eventually using video replays to fix some games, and have more games won thanks to strategy choices and even less games lost because of penalties.
Am I going to apply “customized rules” in tournaments? No, absolutely not, because I would give a disservice to both my judge-colleagues (who would be hearing “but at that Pro Tour, the judge chose to rule differently, and the situation is the same, why don’t you do the same?”) and also to the players (who would feel uncomfortable because they wouldn’t know what they can expect).
Do I believe that the rules should change? No; I am only expressing the opinion that a different approach might be considered; then, independently of individual opinion, it’s important that we take a decision as a group and also that we follow the requests from Wizards. Judges are a team, and they are capable of putting the needs of many (the decision of the group and the needs of the company running the game and organized play) above the needs of a few (the eventually individual different opinions).
Do I believe that a different opinion about video replay and creative solutions is the best one? I joke a lot about “deviating” (it means “choosing a different solution from what the official policy documents say”), but I actually believe that having different rules in different situations would not be the best.
Consistency in applying the rules leads to a higher trust in the system (from both judges’ and players’ points of view), while excessive creativity has a much higher risk of causing impressions of unfairness and favoritism.
An official short message to the judges: do not deviate.
A longer message to the judges: when you think about deviating, you really need to think about all the possible consequences; even when you believe that your choice affects only one match, it has the potential of affecting many other matches (as players and spectators will remember it, and use it as a future reference); be wise, and think about long term effects.
In conclusion, from my point of view as a judge, this situation was an important moment, as it was able to show to a wide audience a facet of the tournaments that is shown very rarely, with a high level of professionalism and customer service. Of course, there is always room for improvement, but the more I think about it, the more I am proud of it.
Hidden Treasures
There are many ways to be a tourist.
You can go to luxury hotels, or you can go to hostels.
You can eat at the most prestigious restaurants, or you can try the university cafeteria.
You can visit the most famous locations for tourists, or you can adventure and discover fascinating details.
When it comes to sightseeing, I like the two opposites: the places for all the tourists and also the small details that I discover going around the city “at random”.
One of the most famous places in Brussels is the “grand place”, the town square in the city center. The town hall is wonderful, both with the sun and also with the artificial lighting in the evening, and the architecture of all the palaces around the square is marvelous.
A special fact about this square is that, every two years, it gets covered with a carpet of flowers (24 meters wide and 77 meters long!!!); here you have an example of how it looks:
Another famous landscape of the city is a bizarre building in the northern part of the city, next to the football stadium and the expo; it’s called “Atomium” and has a quite special shape:
Then, every city has hidden treasures, and below you can see what I found in a metro station:
Goodbye Brussels
It has been a very enjoyable weekend, with old friends from Europe and new friends from Australia.
It’s now time to fly back home and, after only 36 hours, there is another flight to Japan… but first, let’s have another look at the beautiful town square!
I hope you enjoyed this article, and I’m looking forward to reading your comments.
Contact Riccardo 
If you want to add a comment and discuss this article in the Judge forums, click HERE.
All comments, feedback and advice are very welcome 🙂