Good morning! After a bit of time hammering away at the new IPG, we're back with a slightly different scenario for your perusal.

Today's scenario is Bronze, and while it is focused on L1s, and that's the group we expect will benefit most, it's not exclusive to them All you L2+ judges please give our target audience a few days to enjoy this one, before you join in.

Here's the scenario:

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/2012/11/01/arrested-decklist-development/

At a Limited-format Pro Tour Qualifier, after the initial pool registration and swap, the Head Judge instructs players that they have 30 minutes to build and register their decks. Players are told to hand in their decklist to a judge once they have completed this process.

During round 1, judges count all of the decklists, and then check them against the master list of enrolled players. They find that they do not have a decklist for one player; when a judge approaches that player and asks if he handed in a list, the player pulls the list out of his pocket and says “oh, sorry, I forgot about that”.

Has an infraction been committed here? If so, what infraction, and what penalty should be issued to this player?

This is a “Tournament Error - Tardiness. A player fails to comply with announced time limits.” The Penalty is Game Loss.

“Players are responsible for being on time and in the correct seat for their matches, and for completing registrations in a timely manner.”

this is tournament error - failure to follow official announcement. he gets a warning.

this is NOT deck/decklist problem because this scenario does not fall under one of the explicitly listed ways to commit that infraction.

I would say: tournament error, failure to follow head judges announcement. This is a warning if it happens again I woul issue a game loss. I would also investigate further to make sure he wasn't attempting fraud which would result in a cheating/ fraud, tournament DQ. I would also remind the player that this type of disregard for the rules is not tolerated and he needs to be more careful.

Seems like the Tardiness penalty example B right out of the IPG.

“B. A player hands in his decklist after the time designated by the judge or organizer”

Penalty is a Game Loss.

Edited Adam Zakreski (Nov. 1, 2012 10:24:51 AM)

I'm with Adam and Douglas on this one - seems to come straight out of the IPG that this is a Tournament Error - tardiness infraction with Game Loss being the penalty.

One note: when I'm reading about Tournament Error - Failure to Follow Head Judge's Announcement, it strikes me as though this infraction is intended for people who don't heed “house rules” if you will - things like not smoking indoors, staying out of certain areas of the venue, using foul language when requested not to do so, etc. I'm inclined to say that any error directly associated with the game or tournament procedures (eg decklist issues) generally wouldn't fall under this category.

this looks as a very easy scenario.
TE-tardiness-GL.
At all matters is how much time has passed since round 1 begins, because we can give a GL for the first game, or wait for the second match. or any penalty (if TO approves).
Of course its necesary, to check if any other time for the start of round was announced.

Now here are some quotes, which i used to make my judgment.
A situation like this is describen as a example in the ipg.
“B. A player hands in his decklist after the time designated by the judge or organizer.”
the penalty can be avoided if the problem is discovered at the begining of the round, (during pre game procedure), and TO approves it.
“Additional Remedy
Give no penalty if the round started early and a player arrived at his or her seat before the originally announced start time. At Competitive events, the Tournament Organizer may elect to give players the amount of time allotted for the pre-game procedure (3 minutes) before a penalty is issued.”

So for short, GL, unless problem solved fast, and TO approves.
“Game Losses should be applied to the game in which the offense occurred unless the players have begun a new game or the tournament is between rounds, in which case the loss should be applied to the player’s next game.”

Edited Emmanuel Leal (Nov. 1, 2012 11:10:12 PM)

My most sincere apologies to any who saw my post, in the wrong channel - and esp. to Mr. Leal, whom I named in what should have been a private post.

Sorry!!! – Scott “still getting used to this new tech” Marshall

Infraction is Tardiness.
Penalty is Game Loss.

And shame for the missed opportunity for an Arrested Development reference in the article.

Article should say:
They find that they do not have a decklist for one player; when a judge approaches that player and asks if he handed in a list, the player pulls the list out of his pocket and says “I've made a huge mistake”.

The specific part of the MIPG we should be looking at is section 3.1. As has been mentioned, the infraction is a textbook example of Tournament Error - Tardiness. The penalty for this infraction is a Game Loss.

This should set off alarm bells! Since we're not the Head Judge, we should be reporting any penalty of Game Loss or higher to the Head Judge, and it is recommended that only the Head Judge issue these penalties (MIPG 1.3). However, this is a Tardiness penalty, and MIPG 1.3 explicitly calls out MIPG 3.1 as a circumstance in which the penalty does not need to be reported to the Head Judge, and where a floor Judge can issue a Game Loss.

Something important to remember here is to discuss with the player is the importance of completing registration and rounds in a timely manner. Since the situation doesn't mention whether the player is still in a game or not; if awarding the player a Game Loss doesn't immediately end the match, make an attempt to keep an eye on the player's table, so as to ensure you can have a brief chat about his Tardiness.

Brief note; MIPG 3.1's Additional Remedy section does not seem to include information relevant to this particular infraction, despite the player's actions being an explicit example of the infraction.

Edited Josh Andrews (Nov. 1, 2012 05:18:01 PM)

I understand those who want to call this situation Tardiness, and “failing to comply with announced time limits.” is certainly is part of the problem here. Also the disruption to the event here is notable.

However, I'm going to argue for: TE- Failure to Follow official announcements; Warning.

Primarily because we have the following as the definition of Failure to Follow (emphasis mine)

"A player fails to follow an instruction given to a broad audience he or she is included in. Most often these are registration instructions, safety instructions, or venue rules. Instructions given directly to an individual and not followed are penalized as Unsporting Conduct — Major." {IPG 3.5}

I feel like like TE - Failure to Follow Official Announcements, could apply, however given that there's a more, (IMO), precise rule that mentions this circumstance it should supersede.

I don't think TE-Tardiness is the way to go here. That penalty is intended to deal with the disruption that could be caused when an entire tournament has to wait for a single player. If a player only started writing his decklist after time for registration was over, then the entire tournament has to wait for him to finish registering and a tardiness penalty would be appropriate.

In this case, however, for all we know he finished registering before the end of the official time limit, which would mean that the tournament didn't have to wait for him. Besides, if the judge hadn't asked for it, he probably never would have handed in his list. That's not failing to comply with a time limit, it's failure to follow the official announcements, given to all players at the beginning of deck registration. The infraction for that is called TE-Failure to Follow Official Announcements, for which the penalty is a warning.

I don't see anything in the IPG that says “Tardiness” is meant to deal with disruption to the entire tournament. For example if a player simply arrives 5 minutes late for his match, that's a tardiness penalty with no affect on the rest of the tournament.

I think the main thing to notice here is the potential for abuse. Without handing in the decklist, this player has the chance to change it later based on what the meta looks like. Since it was caught during round one the potential is not huge, but it is still there. I am not saying that I would rule this as TE-Tardiness just because I think the player should receive a GL, but I would definitely consider upgrading if I saw it as just TE-Failure to Follow Official Announcements.

Aside from that, I do feel that this falls under BOTH TE-Tardiness AND TE-Failure to Follow Official Announcements. In this case we are instructed (MIPG 1.3 “Separate infractions committed or discovered at the same time are treated as separate penalties, though if the root cause is the same, only the more severe one is applied.”) to go with the more severe infraction, namely TE-Tardiness.