Alan Peng, L2, New Zealand<\/p><\/div>Reproduced with permission from the\u00a0Tournament Reports Forum<\/a>.<\/em> 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<\/a> 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<\/a><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Encouraging feedback and reviews<\/strong><\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n 1. One strength 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.<\/p>\n Unsporting Conduct<\/strong><\/p>\n In round one, we had an investigation for unsporting conduct\/aggressive behaviour. The story is as thus:<\/p>\n Player A had a bye from the grinders, and have been scouting decks to share with teammates. Later on, the two players happened to be in the same area again, and the following happened (from both sides of the statements)<\/p>\n Both sides agreed that the phrase \u201cthis will be different\u2026\u201d 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Luckily, that was the only major drama throughout the day, and the rest of the rounds progressed smoothly.<\/p>\n Interesting rulings and appeals<\/strong><\/p>\n We had 5 appeals through the day, all of which was upheld. Here were some.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Had an incident where both me and a floor judge forgot whether Mutavault<\/a> could block intimidate. \u201cWas it artifacts or colourless?\u201d Both players laughed as we scrambled to check the comp rules, heh.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat happens if player A casts Lightning Strike<\/a>, player B Wild Ricochet<\/a> it and player A Wild Ricochet the Wild Ricochet?\u201d – 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.<\/p>\n 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!<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n<\/span><\/span> (2), Matthew Miles-Watson<\/a>
<\/span><\/span> (2), and Louis Habberfield-Short<\/a>
<\/span><\/span> (1).<\/p>\n
![\"tumblr_inline_nbxens97Wt1t17x4t\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/reports\/files\/2014\/09\/tumblr_inline_nbxens97Wt1t17x4t.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. One weakness you have as a judge<\/p>\n
\nPlayer B was playing a deck that he designed himself.
\nPlayer A and teammates have been conversing near player B, and when asked what player B was playing, described his deck in a degrading manner.
\nPlayer B heard it, felt insulted, and raised the issue, to which player A issued a quick apology and left the area.<\/p>\n<\/p>They were in the same general area, so player A apologized again (note that play B said that player A approached him, and his apology was passive-agressive). They also mentioned something about the deck player B was playing. Player A said \u201cyou can prove me wrong\u201d with regards to the deck whilst player B thought he said \u201cwell, prove it\u201d which to him was a further insult. The situation escalated to the point where player B said something along the lines of \u201cthis will be different if it was a different time and place\u201d. At this point someone had fetched a judge to intervene and an investigation happened.<\/p>\n
<\/p>Player A resolved the Garruk, Caller of Beasts<\/a>‘ first ability, revealing Genesis Hydra<\/a> and another creature. He then thought he was resolving Genesis Hydra<\/a>‘s ability and started to shuffle the library. No cheating has occurred (legit brainfart). The known portions of the deck were 3 forests and a Polukranos, World Eater<\/a> from an earlier scry with courser out. Floor judge ruled that the game state should not be fixed, player B appealed. Upheld. Whilst it is tempting to pull out 3 Forests and the Polukranos, World Eater<\/a> then reshuffle the rest, we both thought that it’ll still cause too much disruption to the game so we left it. Player B later came and said \u201cwhat if he redrew his Polukranos, World Eater<\/a> and won\u201d to which I replied \u201cwhat if he didn’t and you won?\u201d. Judges merely try and fix the game, players gaining advantages or disadvantages as a result of the attempt is an unintended consequence.<\/p>\n