I had a situation come up at a recent PPTQ. We were in the final round of swiss.

Player A and B were playing at table 1.
Player C and D were playing at table 2.

If Player C loses to D then Player A and B can intentionally draw and lock themselves into 1st and 2nd place but if one of them wins then the other person is in contention of missing top cut.

Player A and B started their match at the same time as everyone else. Player A won game 1, Player B won game 2.

This is where it gets interested. They start playing game 3 (Player C and D were still in game 2). As player A is about to attack for lethal play B asks his opponent if he would like to draw this game and go to a game 4 (as their record would be 1-1-1 with time still in the round). He agrees. They go into game 4 (at this point C and D are now in game 3). They continue playing at a reasonable pace, as player B this time is about to attack for lethal player A asks if he would like to draw this game and go to game 5. They agree. They go into game 5. Halfway through this game play C loses so they pick up their cards and report their match 1-1-3.

So here is the debate. Is this stalling? They technically were playing games of magic the entire time, playing at a reasonable pace, etc.

Any insight would be great! Thanks

I'd say it is not stalling because stalling is defined as playing slow in order to take advantage of the time limit which neither player did here.

As players may draw their game anytime it isn't completed, neither player has done anything wrong by offering a draw.

The only thing that went wrong here is reporting 1-1-3 as IDs are always reported 0-0-3.

Although it's a technicality, I believe here the correct action is to report 1-1-3, as that is the actual game score: they drew 3 games and they both won a game.
You can't report an ID as 0-0-0 because WER will process that as a double Match Loss, so we needed a standard. It could have been 0-0-1, but the Powers That Be set it at 0-0-3. However, I think that doesn't apply here.

For more important: yes, I totally agree that this is not stalling. I also think this is one of the reasons why it's a good idea to make pairings for the final round of Swiss in events with a cut to Top 8 not by standing but random.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

I believe here the correct action is to report 1-1-3, as that is the actual game score: they drew 3 games and they both won a game. You can't report an ID as 0-0-0 because WER will process that as a double Match Loss, so we needed a standard. It could have been 0-0-1, but the Powers
That Be set it at 0-0-3. However, I think that doesn't apply here.

I think if I discuss this further i might some kind of kill the thread, but: Assuming there is time left, why didn't they play a 6th game? 1-1-3 means there is still no winner. The only possibility for them to play 1-1-3 is time being called during the 5th game with no winner after extra turns.
The players agreed to draw not only the game 5 but also the match. So they agreed to an intentional draw, which, by MTR, is always reported as 0-0-3. Because of the agreement made by the players i would consider this as an ID and therefore i think it does apply.

The MTR expicitly states that any intentional draw be reported as 0-0-3.
(MTR 2.4)

Back on the actual topic, the players didn't break any rules, and were not
stalling.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015, 7:07 AM Dennis Nolting <

I see this scenario as a way to try to “Game” stalling penalty. Lets see:

A player *intentionally* plays slowly *in order to take advantage of the
time limit*. If the slow play is not intentional, please refer to
Tournament Error — Slow Play instead.

This is: Intencional, and In order to take advantage of the time limit,

They are not playing slowly, but they are making something that works the
same way than playing slow, and I think this shouldn't be allowed, because
it damages the tournament integrity in the same way than stalling.

2015-09-22 13:12 GMT+02:00 Dennis Nolting <
forum-21416-b6cb@apps.magicjudges.org>:

> *Dustin De Leeuw*
> I believe here the correct action is to report 1-1-3, as that is the
> actual game score: they drew 3 games and they both won a game. You can't
> report an ID as 0-0-0 because WER will process that as a double Match Loss,
> so we needed a standard. It could have been 0-0-1, but the Powers
> That Be set it at 0-0-3. *However, I think that doesn't apply here.*
>
> I think if I discuss this further i might some kind of kill the thread,
> but: Assuming there is time left, why didn't they play a 6th game? 1-1-3
> means there is still no winner. The only possibility for them to play 1-1-3
> is time being called during the 5th game with no winner after extra turns.
> The players agreed to draw not only the game 5 but also the match. So they
> agreed to an intentional draw, which, by MTR, is always reported as 0-0-3.
> Because of the agreement made by the players i would consider this as an ID
> and therefore i think it *does* apply.
>
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/138872/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/21416/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/21416/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>
>


–

*Sergio García**L3, Magic Judge, Madrid PPTQ
Coordinator, www.arcanisproject.com <http://www.arcanisproject.com>** (Event
Manager)*

Originally posted by Sergio García:

A player *intentionally* plays slowly *in order to take advantage of the
time limit

This is intentionally, but is it in order to take advantage of the time limit? Couldn't they have done exactly the same if the matches were untimed?

One can argue that they took advantage of the tournament structure, the fact that they are allowed to draw any games they want (MTR 2.4) and the fact that they can make use of information regarding game scores of other tables (MTR 5.2), but all of this are allowed.

This is just one of the cases were knowing the tournament rules might give you an advantage, but I don't think it is that is problematic in itself. This isn't that different from just IDing into top 8 after checking out the other pairings and matchups, even if this looks shadier.

And over to the score-technicalities - I think I'm with Dennis here. 1-1-3 is only a possible score if time is called, if not, the match wasn't finished when they drawed, so they IDed the whole match, and the score should then be reported as 0-0-3.

Is it not atenpting to arrange a result?

No dia terça-feira, 22 de setembro de 2015, Dustin De Leeuw <
forum-21416-cfb7@apps.magicjudges.org> escreveu:

> Although it's a technicality, I believe here the correct action is to
> report 1-1-3, as that is the actual game score: they drew 3 games and they
> both won a game.
> You can't report an ID as 0-0-0 because WER will process that as a double
> Match Loss, so we needed a standard. It could have been 0-0-1, but the
> Powers That Be set it at 0-0-3. However, I think that doesn't apply here.
>
> For more important: yes, I totally agree that this is not stalling. I also
> think this is one of the reasons why it's a good idea to make pairings for
> the final round of Swiss in events with a cut to Top 8 not by standing but
> random.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/138845/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/21416/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/21416/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>


–
José Moreira,
using gmail mobile

I don't agree that this should be stalling. In my opinion stalling is intended to penalize a player who plays slowly to take the chance of winning from his opponent. This is not happening here. Neither is anyone playing slowly nor is one taking any winning chances from the other.

Edit@arranging results: Isn't any ID to get both players anywhere (e.g. top8) an arranged result? I know no rule that forbids that if no bribery is done

Edited Markus Dietrich (Sept. 22, 2015 12:59:11 PM)

A prerequisite for Stalling is Slow Play. So that's out the window.

However, I think the more relevant question is whether this is Improperly
Determining a Winner. MTR 5.2: "Players can make use of information
regarding match or game scores of other tables. However, players are not
allowed to go to great lengths to obtain this information."

Are they going to great lengths by playing two games out to their natural
conclusions, then starting over *so that* they can make use of information
regarding match scores on another table?

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

A prerequisite for Stalling is Slow Play. So that's out the window.

That's wrong. A player can commit stalling without playing slow. Slow Play and Stalling actual have very little interaction.

Edit: Quick example: GP Bochum 2012
In round nine yesterday, R. J. was disqualified for stalling. Being 1-0 ahead, Jurkovic had no winning option left in his deck in the second game, but he did have an Emblem from Tamiyo, the Moon Sage. He used the ability to repeatedly cast spells without any influence on the game, even going so far as to countering his own spells. He performed all his actions in a timely manner, apparently working under the assumption that physical lack of speed was the only mark of stalling. Head judge Frank Wareman clarified, however, “Players are expected to advance the game state. Playing just to advance the clock is most definitely not okay.”

Edited Juergen Wierz (Sept. 22, 2015 01:58:51 PM)

Originally posted by Juergen Wierz:

Joshua Feingold
A prerequisite for Stalling is Slow Play. So that's out the window.

That's wrong. A player can commit stalling without playing slow. Slow Play and Stalling actual have very little interaction.

Edit: Quick example: GP Bochum 2012
In round nine yesterday, R. J. was disqualified for stalling. Being 1-0 ahead, Jurkovic had no winning option left in his deck in the second game, but he did have an Emblem from Tamiyo, the Moon Sage. He used the ability to repeatedly cast spells without any influence on the game, even going so far as to countering his own spells. He performed all his actions in a timely manner, apparently working under the assumption that physical lack of speed was the only mark of stalling. Head judge Frank Wareman clarified, however, “Players are expected to advance the game state. Playing just to advance the clock is most definitely not okay.”

1. Please refer to the IPG:

“4.7. Unsporting Conduct — Stalling
Definition
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit. If the slow play is not intentional,
please refer to Tournament Error — Slow Play instead.”

Slow Play indeed is a prerequisite for Stalling.


2. We usually don't use a case law system when judging for Magic: The Gathering. Just because Frank Wareman decided this way back then, it doesn't mean it's correct today. Also, I'm not sure if that part of the IPG remained unchanged in the last three years.

Edited Jasper König (Sept. 22, 2015 03:39:12 PM)

Originally posted by Jasper König:

Slow Play indeed is a prerequisite for Stalling.

…and Slow Play includes the example cited by Juergen, where you continue to make plays that don't progress the game state - no matter how quickly you make them. That's an unusual circumstance, where you can make a lot of useless plays to abuse the time limit.

The original example is not Stalling, and there's nothing wrong with what they did.

Since they actually played those games, the match should be reported as 1-1-3. The MTR specifies 0-0-3 for an Intentional Draw (ID) because people kept insisting on an ‘O’fficial answer. Having that in place does help create consistency - everyone who chooses to ID gets the same effect on their tiebreakers as every other ID. It also gives us a policy we can quote, when players want to report their ID as 0-0-99.

However, we've always held that the results reported must reflect the games actually played; for this reason, if A is ahead 1-0, and is about to win game 2, when the players agree to a draw, it should be reported 1-1, not 0-0-3. Given that, this match should reflect the games actually played - so 1-1-3 is correct.

d:^D

About Stalling vs Slow Play, some of you might be interested in watching this seminar on You Tube by Kevin Desprez.

Originally posted by Loïc Hervier:

and Slow Play includes the example cited by Juergen, where you continue to make plays that don't progress the game state

How would you define “progressing the game state”? I suppose in that example he was passing the turn and priority several times. Cards were being played even if with little impact in the game, turns were passing, libraries were getting smaller.