Hi, was helping at a local game store during last weekends prerelease event and we had an issue with tardiness I would like some input on.

The event itself was 6 rounds for 38 players, we decided to have a 40 minute lunch break between round 3 and 4, the specific time that Round 4 would be paired and players expected to be ready to play was announced at the start of Round 3.

At the beginning of Round 4 there were 3 players present who did not have opponents, I started the round and advised those three players that their opponents had 10 minutes to show our they would be considered to have forfit the match. With only 50 seconds of that 10 minutes remaining the three players entered the shop, we quickly got them seated and playing.

The IPG is pretty clear on tardiness penalties: 5 minutes = game loss, 10 minutes = match loss.
However the JAR is not quite as clear, Tardinees falls under General Unwanted Behaviours and specifies a match loss for over 10 min tardiness, but nothing specific on game loss - it is stated that a game loss can be issued ‘should the unwanted behaviour continue’ but as this was a first instance that would seem inappropriate.

I feel the players who where present from the round start had 10 minutes match time taken away through no fault of their own, and had there games gone to time would of had legitimate cause for grievance.

In this circumstance should game losses of been awarded to the tardy players, of is that something that the JAR doesn't clearly support because it's either Match loss or nothing?

No Game Losses. Give the matches 10-minute time extensions.

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for reaching out for advice, and for helping at your local game store! Also, I really like the idea of having a lunch break, as it is more enjoyable and healthy to actually sit down and taste your food than swallow it while declaring bockers.

Some nitpicking: the IPG states that we give a Game Loss after 0 minutes, yet at Grand Prix Public Events we sometimes resort to a 3 minute mark.

You are right that the JAR does not allow us to give Game Losses for Tardiness, only a Match Loss after 10 minutes. So I agree with your ruling to just let them play (and kindly ask them to be in time next time they go for lunch…).

However, I disagree with “the players who where present from the round start had 10 minutes match time taken away” as I would definitely give the players a 10 minute time extension for the round, for the exact reason you just stated.

More questions? Please feel free to ask and discuss!

Greetz, Dustin.

Edited Dustin De Leeuw (July 19, 2016 02:29:39 AM)

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

Some nitpicking: the IPG states that we give a Game Loss after 0 minutes, yet at Grand Prix Public Events we sometimes resort to a 3 minute mark.

Whoops yep, just looking back it looks like it was ‘example A’ in the IPG that caught my eye and stuck with me.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

However, I disagree with “the players who where present from the round start had 10 minutes match time taken away” as I would definitely give the players a 10 minute time extension for the round, for the exact reason you just stated.

Shawn Doherty
No Game Losses. Give the matches 10-minute time extensions.

Cheers both, I did consider a time extension for these tables but as it wasn't mentioned at all in the JAR I didn't think it was a supported option.

Edited Jonathan McCullough (July 19, 2016 03:04:41 AM)

I think that it could be a good idea to include a simple sentence in JAR that would mention the existence of time extensions as a judges' tool. It is often overlooked in Regular events, despite the fact that it is important for some customer experience issues (time for bathroom visits, time for lengthy rulings - both to the ruled table and also for the table where the ruling judge plays on, etc.).

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

I think that it could be a good idea to include a simple sentence in JAR that would mention the existence of time extensions as a judges' tool. It is often overlooked in Regular events, despite the fact that it is important for some customer experience issues (time for bathroom visits, time for lengthy rulings - both to the ruled table and also for the table where the ruling judge plays on, etc.).

Excellent point, and I will discuss this in the JAR group. For lengthy rulings, we already have this covered in the MTR, but not for tardiness. Thanks for bringing this up!

You are right, the time extensions are actually being spoken of in the JAR already. I do not count the MTR mentioning it, because I think that JAR is more likely to be read and followed by any Regular judge (uncertified apprentices, judge helpers and judging TOs). It looks like it has been some time since I have read the document and I forgot a lot of things from it (personal mind note: do it thoroughly after every Magic set release ;-)).

Still, I think it could be useful to encourage the JAR readers to give extensions also in other occasions than long rulings. It literally costs us nothing (sometimes a bit slower end of round) and can go a long way in customer care. Moreover, after the sentence about the time extensions, we could have something like “(more details on handling time extensions can be found in MTR)”.

BTW, if you will be updating JAR, please take care of that one old typo which has been bugging my mind every time I read JAR: "more causal environment". :-D

Thanks!

I absolutely like the suggestion to add time extensions in “tardiness” to JAR. Although being present in MTR is nice, JAR is the longest rules document a lot of TOs and staff read, ever. It is a nice and important thing to have written onto it :)

Edited Joaquín Pérez (July 19, 2016 12:47:05 PM)