Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool. This week we have another Silver scenario, so L2s should wait until Friday to jump in.

You are the head judge of a PPTQ and entering into the final round when floor judge Emily approaches you with an appeal. Emily has issued a game loss for Tardiness to Harley. Harley says that they was not in their seat at the start of the round, as they had gone off site with friends for breakfast. Harley protests, “but you announced the last round would end at 5:05, and I was back before that!”

What do you do?

In addition to the giving your answer, I think this is a good scenario to talk about how you can deliver this ruling so that everyone involved (yourself, Emily, Harley and Harley's opponent) is happy about the result.

Edited Joe Klopchic (Feb. 1, 2018 07:29:22 AM)

Ask Emily if she took the Tardiness call before 5:05, and if she did, let her know that because the round started early, normal Tardiness penalties do not apply until the original start of round time.

Since the call was appealed, as the HJ, you will deliver the new ruling to Harley, explaining to both them and their opponent that tardiness will not apply as Harley was not later than the original round time. Have Emily give them an appropriate time extension and have them start their match.

In this scenario, Harley's opponent may be unhappy that they missed out on their opponent receiving a game loss, but if you deliver the ruling calming and explain the reasoning, most people will accept it, as Harley had a legitimate reason to be late. Harley may be a bit upset that they nearly received a GL, so reassure them that they have not broken any rules and will not receive a penalty.

Afterwards, double check with Emily that she knows why the ruling was overturned, and try to make sure she understands that it is not a reflection on her judging, and that everyone makes mistakes. Newer judges (like me, for example) can be nervous that they may give an incorrect ruling and subsequently be overturned in an appeal.

When was the beginning of the new round?
That information is kinda needed for an answer…

Callum's answer is right on the nose, assuming Harley's protest are correct. (and since this is a KP scenario, we usually always assume the statements are correct)

I would add that I would make a mental note of keeping an eye on this match subtly as the mood of match might sour quickly. Once the match is complete (because it is important to get them playing) I, as the head judge, would make sure to go back to both Harley and Harley's opponent, preferably individually, to further explain why the ruling was overturn and answer any of their question / appease any of their latent feeling. I found out that usually following up after the match is done (and at least 2 minute after the match is done) helps really put the mind of the player at ease. The minimum of 2 minutes is something I started doing after reading a research that outlined the fact that intense emotions sharply downgrade after a period of 90 seconds.

Originally posted by Callum McFadyen:

Afterwards, double check with Emily that she knows why the ruling was overturned, and try to make sure she understands that it is not a reflection on her judging, and that everyone makes mistakes. Newer judges (like me, for example) can be nervous that they may give an incorrect ruling and subsequently be overturned in an appeal.

This. This is most important. If you have stories that relates to you missing a judge call, don't be afraid to share it with your floor judge. Especially if it pertains to when you were in a similar position as her. It reinforces the fact that every one makes mistakes, and that One mistake in a judge call is not a description of your judging abilities. Talking about a judge call you missed, and the fact you are the head judge, usually appease the mind of your floor judge.

Originally posted by Maxime Emond:

I found out that usually following up after the match is done (and at least 2 minute after the match is done) helps really put the mind of the player at ease.

Hi Maxime,

as there were two judges involved in the ruling, what do you think about having this judge-player conversation in three: you, your floor judge and the player together. Or optionally encourage the floor judge to have that conversation instead. If you remove the floor judge from such conversation, it looks strange. Almost as undermining the authority of that floor judge.

Or am I being too sensitive here?

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Originally posted by Maxime Emond:

I found out that usually following up after the match is done (and at least 2 minute after the match is done) helps really put the mind of the player at ease.

Hi Maxime,

as there were two judges involved in the ruling, what do you think about having this judge-player conversation in three: you, your floor judge and the player together. Or optionally encourage the floor judge to have that conversation instead. If you remove the floor judge from such conversation, it looks strange. Almost as undermining the authority of that floor judge.

Or am I being too sensitive here?

That is one area I really have to work on. That area is : the subtlety of the human interactions.

Things like that just seems to fly right above my head, and i sort of assume that since I have this thought process my floor judge would have the same thought process. Which is horribly wrong to assume.

Thank you for pointing that out Milan. Yes I would definitively include the floor judge's in the discussion now that you brought it to light. This one goes straight into the Judge notebook!

Edited Maxime Emond (Feb. 2, 2018 08:53:43 AM)

No worries, Maxime.

Just always bear in mind that as a Magic Judge, especially in the HJ or a team lead role, you are somehow the ultimate person responsible for customer service. And by that I mean to think and act to make your event as good as possible for every participant: being it a player, a floor judge, the organizer or yourself.

Such situations are really tricky.

Edited Milan Majerčík (Feb. 2, 2018 04:34:33 PM)

Thanks everyone for the responses this week.

Callum got to the correct answer quickly.

IPG 3.1 Tardiness says:

Originally posted by IPG 3.1 Description, in part:

If a round begins before the previous round would have ended (due to all players finishing early), tardiness does not apply until the scheduled end of the previous round.

So we don't issue any penalty. Starting a round early is great, and will move the tournament along quicker. It’s unrealistic to expect a player who finished early and ran to get some food to know that the round is starting early, so we don't apply the penalty.

Some thoughts about how to execute giving this ruling so everyone is happy.

First, I would talk to Emily away from the players and explain that I'm going to overturn her ruling. Something like “Harley is correct, they were late, but the last round's end time hasn't passed. I'm going to overturn this game loss since we don't give the penalty in this situation”.

I want to make sure that Emily understands what's going to happen, so she isn't surprised by the ruling when we head back to the table.

Then, I would return to the table and explain to Harley and their opponent… “… I'm overturning the floor judge's ruling because while Harley was late for the beginning of the round, we don't give game losses so long as you're at your table before the previous round should have ended. It looks like we're still well ahead of schedule, so let's get y'all on your way, and get you a time extension so you get the full 50 minutes for the round”

My emphasis here is to both explain the ruling, and hope that Harley's opponent also understands they benefit from the same protection this clause gives. Additionally making sure I call out the time extension and the intent to ensure that the table still gets the full 50 minute round to play also eases the player's minds that they aren't getting an unfair ruling.