Albert and Nick are playing in a Pro Tour Qualifier. Albert lends a deck to Nick. They're both doing well in the tournament, and they happen to be paired against each other in the finals. In the third game of their match, Albert notices he'll most likely lose the game. Albert wants to go to the Pro Tour so badly, so he says “I want my deck back, right now!”. This happens during the game, so there's no chance of getting replacement cards.

Albert is clearly being a jerk now, but is this an infraction? What would you do if you were the headjudge of that PTQ?

imo, this is an issue for albert and nick to resolve for themselves. i
would not force nick to give his deck to albert (i have no idea if he
really borrowed it or not), nor would i force albert not to ask for it
back. if nick returns the deck, then obviously he can't continue to play
the match and has to forfeit.

This looks like a case for local law, if any. Not for the judges, not for the TO.

I will ask both to start playing. If either refuses (because he a) has no deck; or because b) still requests the deck he owns), he loses. This is not theft of tournament material, this isnt USC-Minor; this isnt USC-Major. Whether this is against law is not for us judges to decide.



This is how it's in Germany:
If A lends an object to B, A has the right to have it returned to him at any time, if reasonably possible. B is sitting across from A, so it is reasonable to give the object back. (if B was instead in a different city,..)
It can be very different in other countries.

As judge, I will not decide that he has to return the deck or not. All I will do is to decide if either player refuses to play.

I would consider the request a USC Minor (“a player takes action that is disruptive to the tournament or its participants”). In line with the MIPG, “the player must correct the problem immediately”. To me, this means withdrawing the request. Persisting with the request will result in a second USC Minor and a Game Loss.

I like Sam and Philip's replies above. I don't think this falls into any specific infraction; as far as we're concerned, Nick registered the deck, so they're Nick's cards. If Albert lent Nick the cards, that's for the two of them to sort out. If Albert wants to claim that Nick is stealing his cards, Albert can call the local police; Nick is not taking any active steps to walk away with Albert's cards without returning them and the cards are right there on the table and nothing is being concealed, so I have difficulty believing that this falls under UC - Theft.

What I may consider doing is that if Albert stalls the game insisting that Nick returns the cards, I may begin assessing penalties to Albert such as TE - Slow Play, UC - Minor (Failure to follow instructions, creating an intimidating environment, as required), and, if the situation dictates, UC - Aggressive Behaviour and/or UC - Stalling.

Edited Lyle Waldman (July 27, 2014 09:04:14 PM)

This seems to be outside the realm of a penalty unless we really want to apply UC - Minor due to the disruptive nature of the request. I'd apply it anyways. I'd ask for them to continue the game, and if they don't, I'd be considering penalties for slow play at a minimum, UC - Minor again with an upgrade for refusing the request to continue the match, or UC - Stalling if I think Albert is doing this to buy time. This seems like a local law issue, and not one we can solve except with penalties, if applicable for delaying the tournament.

Under 2.4 of the MTR: “If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she has conceded the match.”

Just for clarification.

108.3. The owner of a card in the game is the player who started the game with it in his or her deck. If a card is brought into the game from outside the game rather than starting in a player’s deck, its owner is the player who brought it into the game. If a card starts the game in the command zone, its owner is the player who put it into the command zone to start the game. Legal ownership of a card in the game is irrelevant to the game rules except for the rules for ante. (See rule 407.)


Importantly, it says legal ownership of a card in the game is irrelevant to the rules. i.g. They need to sort it out and begin playing.

If Nick beings to play and not return the cards to Albert, then Albert tries to forcibly take them back. We then have a problem that the rules cover. Anything before that point we suggest they play their match and settle it after wards.

I completely differ from the general oppinion here. Is Albert being a
jerk? Maybe. But what does the local laws say, and what are we expected to
do? Just to comply with MTG rules?

If I see someone at a tournament beating the crap out of somebody, I won't
just await for him to finish the beating and then just issue an Aggresive
behavior infraction, or order politely him to stop; I'll do my best to stop
him verbally, and in case it proves to be insufficent, I'll try to restrain
him physically, and ask everyone I can to help me in that matter.
Aside from defending the IPG and MTR, I'll always do my best to be a
decent citizen. And as judges we have to be an example of serenity,
maturity, and well-intentioned persons, and as a such, I'll enforce local
laws as well as Mtg rules.

My ruling: I'd ask Nick if those cards belong to Albert. In case he says
yes, I'd give him a direct order to return it to its rightful owner, and
explain that refusing to comply would be an USC - Minor, and it would be
upgraded up to a game loss upon continuing on his attitude. In case he
negates that Albert is the owner of the cards and I have no really obvious
evidence on the contrary, I'd tell Albert that he'll have to solve it
through the law and he can ring the police, but they have to continue the
game, and refusing doing that is considered a concession towards his
opponent.

For the record: In the first case, although I'd be decided to return to
Albert his cards, I'd have a little talk with him explaining that the
attitude he has showed will grant him no friends, a bad reputation, and
maybe some conscience problems, and that I may have ruled in his favor, I
found that attitude really unpleasant and I have acted moved only by duty.

Sometimes I don't like the rulings I have to give, but I'll always prefer
that feeling to the idea of being unconsistent and ignore the rules when I
fel bad about them.


2014-07-27 22:37 GMT+02:00 Nick Rutkowski <

Sometimes something happens that doesn't really fit into a specific
infraction. Please don't try and force this into usc-major/minor.

Originally posted by Carlos Fernandez:

I'd give him a direct order to return it to its rightful owner, and explain that refusing to comply would be an USC - Minor,

No, please, don't.

This is an issue between “friends” (and I use that term loosely, here). If they wish to escalate it and get police involved, that's their right - but who loaned cards to whom and under what sort of agreement is not our concern.

Our concern is that they play their match in a timely manner, and behave within the guidelines laid out in the MTR (and implied by the various unwanted behaviors, from either Judging at Regular REL or the IPG).

As Ben pointed out, don't try to stretch policy to fit the way you'd like it to - things break when stretched like that.

Edit: if the player can no longer present a legal deck (because he had to give it back), Tardiness will apply.

Edited Scott Marshall (May 28, 2015 08:05:33 PM)

Originally posted by Carlos Fernandez:

If I see someone at a tournament beating the crap out of somebody, I won't
just await for him to finish the beating and then just issue an Aggresive
behavior infraction, or order politely him to stop;

But they are not fighting physically.

First of all, I would tell Albert, that they need to figure that situation on ther own, because for tournament purposes, Nick is owner of “his” deck (CR 108.3), also, Judge is not a law officer, so we don't have rights to tell what to do in that type of cases. Then I would ask both player to continue their game, watching carefully for slowplays and stallings (probably from Albert side) and if he will further refuse to do play, I would instruct him last time, that if he don't want to play, then it will be considered as conceding as specified in MTR 2.4. Sadly for Albert, magic policies are working in favor of Nick there.

We are acting depending on the situation here, aren't we? Would it be the
same if Albert has to leave and he needs/wants his cards back? Or any other
case? Shouldn't we encourage the local laws enforcement?

What's the expected limit for a Mtg judge? Just to do what the IPG and MTR
says? To stay away when you see somebody stealing from the TO store,
because it wouldn't be a theft of tournament material?


2014-07-28 17:42 GMT+02:00 Bartłomiej Wieszok <

If there is an outburst of violence in the tournament I strongly believe we shouldn't intervene in any physical way. We as judges are to enforce MTG policies so the tournament can fulfill its purpose of being fun, entertained and fair to everybody. We are not law agents so we have no authority to detain a person in any way. Also, you should always be concerned about your physical integrity.

If you see people who are engaging violent behavior you should immediately involve some security staff to stop it and prevent it from escalating.

In this case I would ask Nick to know if he will comply Albert's request (we can't ask Nick to return the deck). If he returns it, he will need to forfeit the game as it is too late to find a replacement. If Nick refuses, instruct both players to finish the match as, for game purposes, Nick is the owner of the deck. If Albert refuses to play, as seen in MTR 2.4 he is assumed to have conceded the match to Nick.

If they agree to play, you should keep constant attention to that table to avoid any player to disrupt or delay the game and to catch possible USC - Major scenarios according to the new IPG changes.

Also try to get some security officers (involve the TO for this) to avoid the possibility of a fight between them.

Originally posted by Carlos Fernandez:

We are acting depending on the situation here, aren't we?

Yes, we are, and in that particular scenario, Nick borrow his deck from Albert before tournament on some conditions that we don't know. Albers isn't accusing Nick for stealing that deck for eg. from his bag. We don't know if that deck was lent with some bail from Nick side.
On your other examples, is we someone stealing from TO or some players at venue, of course we intervene, it's even legal in most countries to restrain thief until police arrival but that's not our situation. It's just breaking some civil arrangement between those two players.

Originally posted by Carlos Fernandez:

Shouldn't we encourage the local laws enforcement?

In my opinion, we should inform Albert, that we can't force Nick to give his deck back, and he should contact laws officers if it's serious situation.

Carlos Fernandez, I think you have to be absolutely sure about the laws if you want to make decissions there, stealing stuff from the TO or beating someone forces you to to react, the law is clear and you are required to act.

But if two players have a verbal contract (agreement) that a deck is lent for the duration of the tournament, can the owner ask back for the deck, before the tournament is actually over and does the reason matter? Are you sure the laws is that he can request the deck back at any time? I don´t know this for sure. There are a lot of times that we think the laws are like this or that, but do we always know that for sure? If you try to fix the problem on this “stage” you will always be on thin ice (unless you happened to study the laws maybe).
I would rather try to solve the problem with the tournament rules, because if they can fix the problem, it´s much easier, because I actually know them a lot better than the local laws.


Here is what I would do:

I would tell Albert that requesting the cards back right now, for the sole reason of forcing Nick to concede is not an acceptable behaviour. It´s an UC Minor (it disrupts the competetivness of the event as it disrupts the enjoyment of it). He recieves a warning and I will ask them to play.

He is surely allowed to call the police, don´t get me wrong on that, but if he refuses to play and wants to wait for the police, I will accept that he concedes the game.

Edited Thomas Ludwig (July 28, 2014 06:48:19 PM)