Using a judge to bluff
I am sorry that my articles turn out so long :( I tried to shorten it as much as I can which leads to it sounding somewhat very strict and “not nice”. And this post is clearly not intended to attack any person involved in this discussion personally, nor is it to prove anyone wrong or unthoughtful. It is a try to set clear standards that apply to everyone.
Maybe this is even better for a “new topic” - How much freedom should a Floor Judge have in deciding whether he issues a warning according to the IPG or does nothing.
TL; DR: I understand that all circumstances of the case have to be taken into consideration but in the end there should be a clear verdict and not a wide variety of possible actions.
The judge call was accurately described. The question clearly stated. Disrupting the Combo might influence the Twin-Players decision to combo off. An unneccessary judge call was made. OP used the wording of the player, which also leaves no room for speculations. I think it is possible - without further information of the “being there” - to decide whether it is “no big deal” or an infraction.
Since it is Competitive REL I do not clearly understand the “watering it down” to having a chat with the player. It is not even the Floor Judges right to do so: “Only the Head Judge is authorized to issue penalties that deviate from these guidelines.”
No doubt, at Regular REL that is the course to take. As far as my limited knowledge of the IPG goes (no experience just turned L1) there is always the possibility to downgrade it to a caution if a warning seems inapropriate and if certain condictions are met (e.g. player called judge himself, quick and easy to clearify).
I understand that i might be “too close to the word” here, however:
“The purpose of a penalty is to educate the player not to make similar mistakes in the future. This is done through
both an explanation of where the rules or policies were violated and a penalty to reinforce the education. Penalties
are also for the deterrence and education of every other player in the event and are also used to track player behavior
over time.”
So, imho, the Floor Judge should have given a Warning USC - Minor. If the player insists (!) on an explanation which i honestly don't think he will - he should be given the proper explanation. “You called a judge intentually to set up a situation that you think might benefit you. This is not the purpose of the Judge. We are here to help players with rule questions or situations that need to be fixed.” It also undermines the judges authority if he is used “as a tool” for a bluff.
If the player appeals, the Head Judge might downgrade it to a “caution” - but one thing is for sure. This player and NO OTHER player this person talks to about his “clever trick” will ever try this again. Watering it down might encourage him and others to keep doing it.
What is even worse about a variety of choices to a clear situation is that depending on the judge, depending on the player, depending on the time of the day, depending on the mood of the people involved, the verdict might differ from case to case, from event to event and from player to player. This in itself will then be seen as “favorism” for players who get a nice chat as a reward and those receiving a penalty.