You've got the point David :-)

I do agree that if a spectator calls a judge and when we come over a player confesses to an additional infraction there is a cause for investigation (why didn't you call me over?), especially if the spectator didn't stop the match. I'd still suggest everyone be aware of our line of that line of action.

Originally posted by Aric Parkinson:

I agree with Mike's penalty assessment, except on one point: From IPG 1.3:

“Separate infractions committed or discovered at the same time are treated as separate penalties… If the first penalty would cause the second one to be inapplicable for the round (such as a Game Loss issued along with a Match Loss), the more severe penalty is issued first, followed by the less severe penalty in the next round.”

I'd say that Ben and Anna should be issued Match Losses for this round, and Nalick should be issued a Game Loss on the next round.

I have always interpreted this to mean separate infractions committed by the same person. After reading your comment I reread section 1.3 of the IPG and noticed that it doesn't explicitly make that distinction. I would be interested to see what an official answer source has to say about this point.

Originally posted by Adena Chernosky:

I have always interpreted this to mean separate infractions committed by the same person. After reading your comment I reread section 1.3 of the IPG and noticed that it doesn't explicitly make that distinction. I would be interested to see what an official answer source has to say about this point.

The IPG is explicit about the handling of this situation under the definition of the Game Loss penalty in 1.2:

IPG 1.2
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. If a player receives a Game Loss at the same time his or her opponent receives a Match Loss, the Game Loss should be carried over into the next round. Simultaneous Game Loss penalties should be applied together even if their application would give one player the match win. It is also acceptable for simultaneous Game Loss penalties to extend a match past the expected number of games if neither player has won a majority. Players will still receive a Game Loss if they drop from the tournament; if the penalty is issued between rounds, they will still receive it even though they will not be paired for the next round.

Alright guys and gals, let's wrap this up!

In this situation Anna and Ben are both guilty of Unsporting Conduct- Outside Assistance. Both will receive a Match Loss. Anna's will be applied to the current match. Since Ben is watching and his match slip signed and turned in, we apply this penalty to his next round, due to IPG 1.2:

Match Losses are applied to the match during which the offense occurred unless the match has already ended, in which case the penalty will be applied to the player’s next match.

Nalick is guilty of GPE- Drawing Extra Cards. He will receive a game loss. Since Anna is getting a Match loss this round, we apply that game loss to the first game of his next match. This is due to IPG 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. If the first penalty would cause the second one to be inapplicable for the round (such as a Game Loss issued along with a Match Loss), the more severe penalty is issued first, followed by the less severe penalty in the next round.

A few of you considered downgrading this game loss due to the phrase in the IPG concerning players calling a judge on themselves before they have the potential to gain an advantage. However, this penalty should absolutely not be downgraded. First, keep in mind that we are looking at this DEC infraction as a separate incident from the OA that occurred in the match. The outcome of one should not influence the outcome of the other. When it comes to situations that fall under DEC, once a player has drawn extra cards they have committed the infraction and we will award the proper penalty. The exception to this rule is given in the IPG:

If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.

A few good points were made in your responses. Good work to:
-Eric Pare, for his emphasis on involving the head judge, and for thinking to have another judge keep an eye on the match while you locate the head judge. While some Head Judges will give their floor judges permission to apply game losses on their own, more frequently the HJ will want any game losses and above to go through them.
-Aric Parkinson, who pointed us to the relevant policy concerning how we apply these penalties.
-Nathanaël François, who mentioned that the cards being stuck together could have come from the sleeves being in bad condition. It would be great customer service to do a quick check for Nalick and see if he should replace his sleeves before the next round.

If you have any questions feel free to message me, I'll be happy to clarify any confusion about this complex scenario. And remember to check back tomorrow for your next scenario!