I have got a question regarding slow play and outside assistance. Especially example D for slow play.

A player gets up from his seat to look at standings or goes to the bathroom without permission of an official.

Why is the highlighted part slow play and not outside assistance?

Let's consider this example:
AP and NAP are in the 5th extra turn of the last match before the cut to top 8, with neither of them able to win. They start considering that the one with the lower opp score should concede and to determine who has the better opponent score they jget up and go to the standings that where hung up at the beginning of the round.

Well, what are the criteria for OA? I'm on mobile so formatting's tougher to do, but here's what I'm seeing:

• Seeks play advice or hidden information about his or her match from others once he or she has sat for his or her match.
Standings don't tell you whether to concede and aren't information about the match in progress.

• Gives play advice or reveals hidden information to players who have sat for their match.
No spectators involved here.

• During a game, refers to notes (other than Oracle™ pages) made before the official beginning of the current match.
Neither player took these notes, they're just sitting there taped to the wall.

None of those 3 seem to apply. However, this sort of thing is why it's suggested to only post standings for a few minutes, then take them down before pairings are posted.

Originally posted by Matt Marheine:

• During a game, refers to notes (other than Oracle™ pages) made before the official beginning of the current match.
Neither player took these notes, they're just sitting there taped to the wall.

I don't see why this does exclude OA. It's nowhere written that the players himself has to have written those notes.
Otherwise people could use OA pretty easily because Player A writes a guide “how to play Deck X” and hands it to Player B.
(“Notes” isn't a good description for what is allowed and what is not)


On a side note: I don't understand why it's ok to use sideboarding guides.

PS: Yes, standings should be removed when the pairings go up.

Edited Johannes Wagner (Oct. 27, 2015 11:47:29 PM)

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

Player A writes a guide “how to play Deck X” and hands it to Player B.

Wouldn't that be covered by the first two OA bullet points?

I guess the way I'm looking at this is that Notes provide play tips or similar information (deck lists, “hold priority after you cast Chain Lightning!”, etc). Your knowing or not knowing standings doesn't impact your ability to play optimally, just your desire to.

The problem I have is that I can see why a player getting up to go to the bathroom is commiting slow play but I do not see why getting up to look for informations to reevaluate the decision to play/draw/concede falls into the same category. The MTR/IPG says you are not allowed to find out how other matches played out as long as you are still playing your match unless they are close to you. How is knowing the results of the tables around you and rechecking the standings to make a decision about the result of your match different?

My gut feeling is that I would give the players in the example OA for trying to look at notes that were made before the round began. Regardless if they saw the standings or not and regardless if the standings where still where the players expected them to be. The only thing stoping me is example D in slow play.

Originally posted by Simon Ahrens:

The problem I have is that I can see why a player getting up to go to the bathroom is commiting slow play but I do not see why getting up to look for informations to reevaluate the decision to play/draw/concede falls into the same category.

Basically because it takes time to get up, go to the standings, review them, and return to your seat. Time that's supposed to be spent playing your match.

Magic is a social game. Players routinely ask their friends how they did in the rounds. If we were to say that you can't find out other results, asking a friend if he won the round or just getting that info from your friend without you asking, would be OA. That would be quite a bad thing.
You could say that knowing other results and standings provides tournament-related strategy knowledge, but we don't really want to go down the path of investigating every small social interaction. So, we only care about advice that could actually help someone play his or her match, or affect his or her deck construction.
We do care about players playing their matches on a timely manner, so players getting up to look for other results (hence those who aren't close by) or to look at standings falls into Slow Play, as it delays their matches.
Please don't try to find a way to make a penalty fit into an infraction because you dislike that infraction. That's reverse engineering, and you shouldn't approach the MIPG that way.

Originally posted by Simon Ahrens:

the one with the lower opp score should concede

After reading through the IPG 4.3 again, I'm still not sure if this is Improperly Determining a Winner.
Is the opp score “part of the current game”? The annotated IPG also say “they must make a decision based on what they see” (referring to the current game). Am I missing something?