Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 89

Thread: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

  1. #1

    David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    David illegally brainstorms for 1 with a thalia in play

    judge is called and the ruling is he shuffles his hand and puts 3 cards back ontop of his library at random....

    HJ later explains you are allowed to cheat without getting penalized as long as its after a game rule violation (illegally cast BS, GRV takes effect over the more serious illegally drawing 3 cards)

    Looks insanely bad on SCG for allowing such garbage calls and on having one of their buyers be a total douche and not scooping to her and going to G3.

  2. #2
    Zombie Elf Warrior
    danyul's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2004
    Location

    seattle
    Posts

    966

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    That game was terribad. Twitter is raging. What makes it worse is David tried to Submerge Giovanna's stuff like three separate times. He missed 1)that she had no forest in play and 2) that the thing he was trying to Submerge had Pro:Blue.

    So bad!

    I dunno if she would have won if that Brainstorm never happened, but it definitely was a "feel bad" ruling by the judge. David was sitting on zero lands and none in his grip if that Brainstorm didn't go off.

    A very awkward situation.

  3. #3
    Lets be freaks...
    NecroYawgmoth's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2007
    Location

    Mettmann
    Posts

    339

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    He also got a Fetchland in his hand due to this ruling, which gave him a "really unfair" advantage, because he knows what the top cards of his library are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tacosnape View Post
    Kenjawn, Mutator of Cells
    :16: - (See, now Erratic Explosion's a deck)
    Legendary Creature - Horror
    Haste, Hexproof, Double Strike, Trample
    Kenjawn, Mutator of Cells is indestructible.
    Permanents you control can't be sacrificed or copied.
    Whenever Kenjawn, Mutator of Cells attacks, defending player gets liver cancer (This effect doesn't end at end of turn.)
    13/13

  4. #4
    Zombie Elf Warrior
    danyul's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2004
    Location

    seattle
    Posts

    966

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Yeah. Turns out Brainstorm is really good. But when it's illegal, its becomes godmode.

  5. #5
    Member

    Join Date

    Jun 2011
    Location

    Czech Republic
    Posts

    140

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Agreed. That game was super awkward. I don't know why he just didn't scoop to her. Karma will catch you brah.

  6. #6
    Member

    Join Date

    Sep 2010
    Location

    MNL
    Posts

    322

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    ^McDarby lost in the quarters.

  7. #7

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Joey Andrews doesn't really look like he's skilled enough to make it to the finals of a tournament to be perfectly honest. This feels a lot like "I got here because this deck is good" and not much to do with him, every game so far I've seen really, really awful decisions by him. And like, nerves are one thing, but I'm baffled that someone who is almost incapable of holding their own cards (at one point he couldn't shuffle his own cards from how badly he was shaking) could make it to the finals.

    But on topic, I'm baffled by that judge call. That's absolute horse-shit considering that Giovanna was going to wreck him had that not happened. It almost looked intentional honestly.

    What that really said to me was "Well look, if you cheat and act like it was a mistake, it's cool, because Brainstorm will let you draw 3 cards, then randomly put 3 on top of your library, AND COST NO MANA OR CARDS".

    Am I wrong about that? I can't remember but didn't they let him draw the three, then put three back, then let him untap the land and keep the brainstorm?

    Like how apeshit onesided benefit is that?? If you watched the brainstorm, he wasn't hitting another land for a long time, the play for her was to force the kill on thalia so she could drop an uncontested sylvan library and take over that game. She -easily- had that game.

  8. #8

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    She got robbed.

    As I said on twitter. "Love seeing women in magic. Hate seeing bitches."
    westcoast degeneracy

  9. #9

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    To the guys who disagree with the judge call, in your opinion what would have been the right call?

  10. #10

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Quote Originally Posted by jam3sbob View Post
    To the guys who disagree with the judge call, in your opinion what would have been the right call?
    obv. gameloss; put back random 3 lose the BS at worst ... they seem too soft on the feature match players lately, SCG events have low REL i guess, bearing in mind half of the guys play horribly at first place

  11. #11
    Site Contributor

    Join Date

    Dec 2011
    Posts

    459

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Quote Originally Posted by Sloshthedark View Post
    obv. gameloss; put back random 3 lose the BS at worst ... they seem too soft on the feature match players lately, SCG events have low REL i guess, bearing in mind half of the guys play horribly at first place
    Too soft on their employees, maybe.

  12. #12

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Quote Originally Posted by jam3sbob View Post
    To the guys who disagree with the judge call, in your opinion what would have been the right call?
    easily a game loss. After seeing three cards deep you know too much about the game state. You can't undo that. Not to mention, why was his submerge not binned after the first time he fucked it up? He failed with it like 3 times and the judge let him keep doing it..

  13. #13

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    I wasn't watching, but AFAIK the correct calls were made per the IPG. The ruling was 100% by the book.

    1) The MTR prohibits judges from using video in rulings, supposedly because of time concerns. Putting 3 back at random was the correct remedy. If you don't like that, complain to the people who make the rules.

    2) There was no cheating. If there was, there would have been a DQ. If you can cheat and fool multiple level 2-3 judges, good for you I guess.

    3) You do not get Drawing Extra Cards/Game Loss for improperly casting a spell. The reasoning is that there is generally enough time for an opponent to notice an improperly cast spell that it is excluded from the more severe penalty.
    “It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.
    -David DeLaney

  14. #14
    They see me puntin'
    dsck's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2010
    Location

    Finland
    Posts

    518

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    3) You do not get Drawing Extra Cards/Game Loss for improperly casting a spell. The reasoning is that there is generally enough time for an opponent to notice an improperly cast spell that it is excluded from the more severe penalty.
    From what I remember she had no chance to say anything. So they ruled it was her responsibly as well but she had less than a second to respond?

    David also played submerge wrong 3 times, isnt that game loss also?

  15. #15

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Quote Originally Posted by dsck View Post
    From what I remember she had no chance to say anything. So they ruled it was her responsibly as well but she had less than a second to respond?

    David also played submerge wrong 3 times, isnt that game loss also?
    There was no "ruling" involved, improperly playing a spell is a GRV and therefore cannot ever lead to DEC per the IPG.

    I hadn't seen/heard anything about Submerges, but yes, a third or subsequent Game Play Error warning - for anything - on the day should be upgraded to Game Loss. Players are bad about calling opponents on errors, though, and even judges can be lax when they're watching a table.
    “It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.
    -David DeLaney

  16. #16

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    3) You do not get Drawing Extra Cards/Game Loss for improperly casting a spell. The reasoning is that there is generally enough time for an opponent to notice an improperly cast spell that it is excluded from the more severe penalty.
    This is the problem. He tapped the land, played out brainstorm and drew the cards right after the brainstorm hit the table. Giovanna didn't reasonably have time to respond (imo).

    You can watch the replay on http://www.twitch.tv/scglive. It's round 6, game 2 of legacy.

  17. #17

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Quote Originally Posted by Linqed View Post
    This is the problem. He tapped the land, played out brainstorm and drew the cards right after the brainstorm hit the table. Giovanna didn't reasonably have time to respond (imo).

    You can watch the replay on http://www.twitch.tv/scglive. It's round 6, game 2 of legacy.
    Again, I was speaking to the philosophy of the definition of the infraction. We have a separate Drawing Extra Cards infraction because the potential for abuse is higher and it's more difficult to catch. At the same time, we don't want to be overly harsh on common errors (the IPG has evolved consistently towards being less punitive). We don't put card draws resulting from game rule violations or player communication violations under Drawing Extra Cards because they are in general both easier to catch and have less potential for abuse.
    “It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.
    -David DeLaney

  18. #18

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    @cdr: The above point is very true. He sets the Brainstorm on the table then a second later the first card from the Brainstorm is in his hand. How the is onus of this supposed to be on Giovanna, or any player in that same situation? As much as it is every player's job to maintain the board state, a player also has to be able to play the game and make plans accordingly, which one can not do if their every thought is directed at making sure their opponent doesn't "forget" about some effect like Thalia. I'm not saying David cheated, but it is up to all players to maintain the game state. If that is the end result, there is no reason for David to not make the play he made. Worst case, you get perfect information to plan your next 3 turns and a brainstorm to cast at a later date, and best case, you resolve a brainstorm as normal. He clearly, either intentionally or not, broke the game state to a point where a rewind would give him a huge advantage. How is that not a game-loss?

    Edit: You posted your above reply while I was still typing, and the philosophy is important, but I was under the impression that rewinds don't happen if they result in one player getting a substantial advantage?

  19. #19

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Quote Originally Posted by LennonMarx View Post
    @cdr: The above point is very true. He sets the Brainstorm on the table then a second later the first card from the Brainstorm is in his hand. How the is onus of this supposed to be on Giovanna, or any player in that same situation? As much as it is every player's job to maintain the board state, a player also has to be able to play the game and make plans accordingly, which one can not do if their every thought is directed at making sure their opponent doesn't "forget" about some effect like Thalia. I'm not saying David cheated, but it is up to all players to maintain the game state. If that is the end result, there is no reason for David to not make the play he made. Worst case, you get perfect information to plan your next 3 turns and a brainstorm to cast at a later date, and best case, you resolve a brainstorm as normal. He clearly, either intentionally or not, broke the game state to a point where a rewind would give him a huge advantage. How is that not a game-loss?
    It's not that the onus is on the opponent to notice, but that a draw resulting from a game rule violation is considered less serious than one happening for other reasons. "Advantage" in terms of whatever a specific situation is is not considered.

    Edit: You posted your above reply while I was still typing, and the philosophy is important, but I was under the impression that rewinds don't happen if they result in one player getting a substantial advantage?
    That's incorrect. "Advantage" is not something objective and can't be considered. What is considered is the complexity of rewinding the game state to the point prior to the error - if too much has happened since the error, the game state is left as is.

    IPG:
    If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error.
    “It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.
    -David DeLaney

  20. #20

    Re: David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

    Quote Originally Posted by cdr View Post
    It's not that the onus is on the opponent to notice, but that a draw resulting from a game rule violation is considered less serious than one happening for other reasons. "Advantage" in terms of whatever a specific situation is is not considered.



    That's incorrect. "Advantage" is not something objective and can't be considered. What is considered is the complexity of rewinding the game state to the point prior to the error - if too much has happened since the error, the game state is left as is.

    IPG:
    If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error.
    Something needs to be done to change these rules then. Whether or not the advantages are being considered or not, they still exist and because of this they make the game hugely unfair against one player, in this situation.

    It boggles my mind to see that the rules don't take into account situational circumstances and context. I mean, judges have extensive knowledge of magic, so that judge should've known how badly his ruling fucked her shot at winning, the bottom line for me I guess is that the losing player won because they cheated/made a massive play error, and any good set of rules shouldn't allow this. It seems lazy to just have black and white, catch all rules for when something happens and to completely ignore the context (i.e. giovanna should have won, but because of the ruling she lost...)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)