Every time the discussion of top 8 splits comes up in conversation, there seems to be a lot of confusion. From what I can tell, it used to be accepted as OK for judges to facilitate top 8 splits at Comp REL events such as GPTs and PPTQs, where an invite or byes are on the line as an unsplittable portion of the prize support. Then there was an unofficial discussion on Reddit during which Toby stated that this was not OK. Any top 8 that included an unsplittable prize could not have a top 8 split. A few months later, I heard from some other judges that it was OK for the split to happen in these circumstances, but the judge could not be a part of facilitating it. Basically, I've heard a lot of conflicting opinions, but I can't seem to find an official ruling on the subject.

Could we get an official answer regarding the legality of top 8 splits at Comp REL events with unsplittable prizes included in the prize pool.

Folks, please - an Official answer was requested (and it's a reasonable request - that's not always the case). If you're not Official, please don't answer. That's in the forum protocol, and has been for longer than we've had a forum.

There was a widely held misunderstanding that it was OK to split cash and/or booster prizes, even when an unsplittable prize was also involved. That is not correct, and what Toby posted in that Reddit discussion is correct.

Originally posted by MTR 5.2:

Players in the single-elimination rounds of a tournament offering only cash and/or unopened product as prizes may, with the permission of the Tournament Organizer, agree to split the prizes evenly. The players may end the tournament at that point, or continue to play. All players still in the tournament must agree to the arrangement.

When a tournament offers a prize that can't be split - e.g., byes for a GP, or an invite to an RPTQ - then it does not match the qualifier in that paragraph (only cash and/or unopened product).

We acknowledge that players will come to agreements among themselves, and split cash or boosters equally before playing for any remaining awards. Judges and TOs shall not facilitate such splits, but we don't have means to stop them (nor should we try).

Here's another thread in which I provided a few Official responses:
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/20090/

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

We acknowledge that players will come to agreements among themselves, and split cash or boosters equally before playing for any remaining awards. Judges and TOs shall not facilitate such splits, but we don't have means to stop them (nor should we try).

To clarify this - we should not be involved in splits that include unsplittable prizes but if players will start to discuss them, we should not intervene?

At what point do we say an unsplittable prize is involved? For example, in an SCG tournament that only has a cash prize, are we allowed to facilitate the split, since there are also SCG “points” involved, which can't be split? What if there's a small trophy, that the players involved aren't interested in?

Originally posted by Olivier Jansen:

At what point do we say an unsplittable prize is involved? For example, in an SCG tournament that only has a cash prize, are we allowed to facilitate the split, since there are also SCG “points” involved, which can't be split? What if there's a small trophy, that the players involved aren't interested in?

Is the prize anything more than “only cash and/or unopened product”? If so, we should not be facilitating a split….

Originally posted by Olivier Jansen:

At what point do we say an unsplittable prize is involved? For example, in an SCG tournament that only has a cash prize, are we allowed to facilitate the split, since there are also SCG “points” involved, which can't be split? What if there's a small trophy, that the players involved aren't interested in?

I can say that, at least here in Quebec, we have been enforcing the no split policy at major events (like the Mana Deprived Super Series) which award a trophy to first place, even though this non-splitable portion of the prize is only of trivial value to the players. The fact that the true prize is the cash/credit awarded to the top 8 players appears to be immaterial to the test of whether the prize split is permitted.

The term “unsplittable” isn't defined, it's just a convenient way to refer to “everything else” - i.e., “only cash and/or unopened product” can be split, everything else can not.

Players might agree to a split of the cash or product, and to continue to play for other prize(s) - but the TO shall award all prizes as originally stated. Honest players will then follow the agreements they reached, and re-distribute their prizes, without the TO or Judges involved.

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

if players will start to discuss them, we should not intervene?

The danger here is that players in such discussions sometimes cross the line, and connect splits to results. I prefer to step in and tell the players “What you do with your prizes after the event is up to you. Remember that exchanging anything, including prizes, for a match result, is grounds for Disqualification.”

Did I just intervene? or perhaps I just performed a valuable service, helping those players avoid a serious problem?

d;^D

So if I'm understanding this correctly, if the Top 8 of an SCG IQ wants to discuss if they want to split their “splittable” winnings as defined by the MTR and play for the SCG points and the invite, the judge should mostly not be involved in facilitating the discussion or participate beyond keeping an eye and ear out for potential B&W (and what Scott mentioned, which sounds like an excellent idea). And if the players agree to do the split, the players get their prizes as determined by the TO, and the players are basically on Scout's honor to redistribute the splittable prizes as they have agreed on, and if they don't, it's not the responsibility of the TO or the judge(s). And nothing regarding splits can include match results or concessions from the tournament or that will be B&W.

If the only prizes are splittable, and the T8 wants to split and end the tournament, they are allowed to do so, and the judge can facilitate this, but all players must agree to it or they play it out.

Am I correct or missing anything on this? I know it's a continual source of confusion and I apologize for adding to the repetition but I want to make sure I understand this clearly.

Edited Matt Cooper (Dec. 21, 2015 10:52:43 AM)

Originally posted by Matt Cooper:

If the only prizes are splittable, and the T8 wants to split and end the tournament, they are allowed to do so, and the judge can facilitate this, but all players must agree to it or they play it out.

Close - they don't have to end the tournament, they can still play it out for whatever reasons.

d:^D

True–PWP grinding amidst other reasons, but I'm also not about to stop people playing Magic if they want to. :P

Thank you!

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I prefer to step in and tell the players “What you do with your prizes after the event is up to you. Remember that exchanging anything, including prizes, for a match result, is grounds for Disqualification.”

Did I just intervene? or perhaps I just performed a valuable service, helping those players avoid a serious problem?

d;^D

I'm stealing this response to have on hand if I ever need it.

Sorry for the forum zombie post, but I had a follow-up question.

What is stopping the TO (with the consent of the players) from changing the payout to match the split the players desire?

For example, Prizes are 125/75/50/50 for the top 4 of an event with a qualification on the line.
The TO offers to change the prize payout to: 75/75/75/75.
All remaining players agree to this change. The tournament is played out for the invitation.

Is this an issue?
If so, based on what rule/policy?

-mf

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

Sorry for the forum zombie post, but I had a follow-up question.

What is stopping the TO (with the consent of the players) from changing the payout to match the split the players desire?

For example, Prizes are 125/75/50/50 for the top 4 of an event with a qualification on the line.
The TO offers to change the prize payout to: 75/75/75/75.
All remaining players agree to this change. The tournament is played out for the invitation.

Is this an issue?
If so, based on what rule/policy?

-mf

Take away all of the fluff and technical changes, and this boils down to: “Top 4 players wanted a split, TO facilitated that split, tournament continues” - so nothing really changes here when you look at it with a common sense point of view. Of course, there's no exact guidelines for how prize payout needs to be laid out, but in this situation, it's fairly trivial to link the TO's changing of the prize structure to the player's requests for prize splits.

Originally posted by Matt Farney:

What is stopping the TO (with the consent of the players) from changing the payout to match the split the players desire?

ummm… because Wizards has specifically stated it's not allowed?

Not every question that's asked will be covered by existing (or even future) text in the rules documents. That doesn't mean it's OK. I know this analogy is a bit extreme, but perhaps it will make the point, in a rather memorable fashion: your question, Matt, is akin to “Where does it say (in policy) that I can't murder my opponent in order to win the match?”

d:^D