We had our final WMCQ held in Central Auckland a few days ago. 75 players showed up for a shot at the last slot to represent New Zealand in the World Magic Cup. The attendance was slightly under what we have expected, as we have planned for 80-100 players. I was the head judge alongside James Stewert (2), Matthew Miles-Watson
(2), and Louis Habberfield-Short
(1).
Photos for the event can be found here, courtesy of our lovely photographer Richard:http://hobbymaster.tumblr.com/post/97552200827/world-magic-cup-qualifers-event-wrapup
It was also I believe the first tournament in New Zealand with live coverage and commentary. It seemed that the streaming was well received, and it is always amazing to see the friends of the winner rushing out of the coverage room to congratulate the newly minted winner.
Encouraging feedback and reviews
I have made it a personal goal to write at least one review for every large (PTQQ+) event I am a judge at, as well as encourage all the other judges to write one, or at least give some sort of feedback. Following discussions I had at GP Sydney with some other judges (Thanks Mackenzie!), I asked each of my judges to come with an answer to the following two questions:
1. One strength you have as a judge
2. One weakness you have as a judge
Thanks to this, we had a productive judge meeting before the tournament started where we listed our strengths and weaknesses to allow us to consciously work on these points throughout the day, and to observe each other in order to give feedback on our observations on their perceived strengths and weaknesses. This is especially helpful if you have less experienced staff (which we had for the day), and he was happy with the level of feedback he received and we look forward to him taking it on board and performing better at his next event.
Unsporting Conduct
In round one, we had an investigation for unsporting conduct/aggressive behaviour. The story is as thus:
Player A had a bye from the grinders, and have been scouting decks to share with teammates.
Player B was playing a deck that he designed himself.
Player A and teammates have been conversing near player B, and when asked what player B was playing, described his deck in a degrading manner.
Player B heard it, felt insulted, and raised the issue, to which player A issued a quick apology and left the area.
Later on, the two players happened to be in the same area again, and the following happened (from both sides of the statements)
Both sides agreed that the phrase “this will be different…” or a variation was said. Player B noted that he was frustrated, but had no intention of threatening player A and did not see his phrase as threatening. Player A also agreed that even though player B wasn’t threatening him, the phrase can be interpreted in such a way, and is therefore not cool.
I therefore decided to give player B a match loss for USC-major, which he understood and accepted. I also gave player A a USC – minor as his words caused a disruption and made a participant uncomfortable, which he took on board and thanked me for the feedback. Player B was not happy at the penalty I gave player A initially, but I felt that my rulings was in line with policy and explained as such.
I also had a discussion with the judge that investigated initially, and was thinking whether it fitted the definition for Aggressive Behaviour. I felt that USC – Major was more appropriate. Player B did end up having a decent time, for which I am thankful.
Luckily, that was the only major drama throughout the day, and the rest of the rounds progressed smoothly.
Interesting rulings and appeals
We had 5 appeals through the day, all of which was upheld. Here were some.
Player A cast read the bones. Player B stated that the player’s 2 cards touched the rest of the player’s hand when scrying. Player A denied, saying that she kept them separate at all times. Floor judge ruled that it was kept separate. I upheld the ruling following a short investigation. I have also seen player A cast the card earlier in the day and the cards were kept separate.
Player A presents his deck, and his opponent shuffles. Later they notice a card that was left on the playmat. Opponent argued that player A may have presented an illegal deck. Floor judge ruled that given the proximity of the card and the actions that have happened, player A should not be penalized as he clearly intended to present a legal deck and it is not fair if a dexterity issue caused a game loss.
Had an incident where both me and a floor judge forgot whether Mutavault could block intimidate. “Was it artifacts or colourless?” Both players laughed as we scrambled to check the comp rules, heh.
“What happens if player A casts Lightning Strike, player B Wild Ricochet it and player A Wild Ricochet the Wild Ricochet?” – had that asked to us between rounds. Short answer: I hope that doesn’t happen. Longer answer (after some discussion): You can make an infinite loop of wild ricochets, but eventually the end result is you’d have 3 copies of Lightning Strike. Thankfully it never happened.
Overall, the event ran smoothly, apart from the hiccup in the first round. Player meeting was at 10am, and the 7 rounds of swiss finished by 5:30pm. Finals were over by 8pm, and I wrapped the day up with pasta and Coup!