Time over

[jazzykat]

This question is about when a 3rd. game gets to go into extra turns.

The scenario: Game 1 my opponent won. Game 2 was a draw (stupid POP). Game 3 we had already presented and looked at our opening 7. I keep, and my opponent decides to mull. The judge comes over and tells us that time has been called and that since we did not actually begin the game the third game, it will not be played. Is this the correct ruling?

My opponent also spends about 5 minutes shuffling between matches, which I also found to be suspicious. However, I do believe that is reasonable based on the actual rules.

This royally sucked because I had a second turn dreadnought vs. zoo so I could have played to a draw for the match.

[Phoenix Ignition]

I have a question about judge calling. How could you prove that you have both been shuffling for 3 minutes already if you didn't take a long time to sideboard? It just seems to me like if you call a judge the best they can do is make sure only 3 minutes more are taken for shuffling.

Am I wrong here?

[cdr]

This question is about when a 3rd. game gets to go into extra turns.

The scenario: Game 1 my opponent won. Game 2 was a draw (stupid POP). Game 3 we had already presented and looked at our opening 7. I keep, and my opponent decides to mull. The judge comes over and tells us that time has been called and that since we did not actually begin the game the third game, it will not be played. Is this the correct ruling?

From MTR 2.3:

"The game is considered to have begun once all players have resolved their mulligans. Pregame procedures may be performed before time for the match has officially begun."


My opponent also spends about 5 minutes shuffling between matches, which I also found to be suspicious. However, I do believe that is reasonable based on the actual rules.

I assume you mean between games, not matches - he has a maximum of three minutes to sideboard, shuffle, present, shuffle your deck, draw his opening seven, and decide whether to mulligan.


I have a question about judge calling. How could you prove that you have both been shuffling for 3 minutes already if you didn't take a long time to sideboard? It just seems to me like if you call a judge the best they can do is make sure only 3 minutes more are taken for shuffling.

Am I wrong here?

The judge can't know how much time has been taken, but the judge should make sure that the deck is presented and the game begun within a short amount of time after being called. If you think your opponent is going to take an unreasonable amount of time between games, you can call a judge to watch as soon as a game finishes.

[quicksilver]

This thread reminds me of in SCG 5k in North Carolina, where my opponent kept calling the judge to try to ge me game losses for the silliest things. Then he spent 9 minutes shuffling. The MATCH next to me was already over before we began game 1. Fortunatly he was playing a terrible deck and I destroyed him, that felt good.

[Forbiddian]

It's very unclear from the answers.

If players have not finished mulligans, do you begin the game under five turns or is the match called?



Also, as a potential way to abuse it, you're allowed to shuffle for about a minute in between mulligans, right? If you know there are only < 5 minutes left in the round and you'd be happy with the result after two games (or potentially a very long first game), couldn't you just repeatedly mulligan your hand so you never have to play the game?

In the same vein, if you know your opponent cannot win in five turns, you could pull the same trick to avoid giving him a longer game.

[Skeggi]

If players have not finished mulligans, do you begin the game under five turns or is the match called?
If time is called and you haven't started the game yet, the game won't be played at all.

[cdr]

Also, as a potential way to abuse it, you're allowed to shuffle for about a minute in between mulligans, right? If you know there are only < 5 minutes left in the round and you'd be happy with the result after two games (or potentially a very long first game), couldn't you just repeatedly mulligan your hand so you never have to play the game?

In the same vein, if you know your opponent cannot win in five turns, you could pull the same trick to avoid giving him a longer game.

That would be Cheating - Stalling.

[Forbiddian]

That would be Cheating - Stalling.

Perhaps I should be more clear: How could that possibly be enforced?

[Maveric78f]

I never liked this concept of cheating. That's a bit too often the answer of the judges when you point out a problem within the rules: the judge witll appreciate if you're cheating.

I think that a well-built game should not have to rely on this concept. How doing things that are not faulty can be sanctionned. I fail to understand.

[Skeggi]

You can't really prevent stalling - it would take too many judges. Or a chess clock, which you have to tap every time you pass priority. It's simply impossible.

[Nihil Credo]

Perhaps I should be more clear: How could that possibly be enforced?When you notice that your opponent is taking the maximum possible time to shuffle (or just after 2+ mulligans), especially if he wasn't as slow in the first game, call a judge to watch over him. If the judge, on the basis of your opponent's shuffling speed, hands, and decklist, is convinced that your opponent isn't actually looking for a good hand, he will issue the DQ for stalling.

Stalling is usually an incredibly difficult violation to assess, but I would say that stalling by needlessly mulliganing is often the easiest type of stalling to detect.

[Anusien]

Perhaps I should be more clear: How could that possibly be enforced?
Max Bracht was disqualified at a PT, perhaps Worlds when it was at the Louvre, for doing exactly this.

Like all DQs, it requires an investigation by a judge. This one probably starts with a judge watching a guy mulligan to 4.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Max Bracht was disqualified at a PT, perhaps Worlds when it was at the Louvre, for doing exactly this.

Like all DQs, it requires an investigation by a judge. This one probably starts with a judge watching a guy mulligan to 4.

I sort of understand how you say it, but how can you possibly say "No, that was a decent hand, you're just mulliganing to stall," compared to, "It's the last game and he really wants to get a decent hand."

I mean, in constructed would they DQ me for not keeping a 1 land hand, or a 5/6 land hand? And after you get down to 5 cards anyway (shouldn't the first mulligan always be allowed, even if it has the perfect number of lands just because maybe they want to mulligan into something?), the chance of having 2-3 lands is significantly lower.

What if I really want to mulligan into a Leyline of the Void. Is that considered cheating if I mull 4 times for it? Assuming I only take 45 seconds to shuffle, if I really want to hit it, is that cheating?

[tivadar]

I'd agree with Phoenix here. The problem is that MtG wants to both have a strict set of rules that are absolutes, but also enforce things like this, which are entirely judgement calls. I don't like it, but it really just comes down to what the current judge thinks. And you really can't appeal to a higher court of law like in the real court system. That being said, I think Magic would be much better off just giving absolutes for something like this. Something such as "after the first mulligan, you may shuffle for up to a minute, 45 seconds after the second, and 30 after each mulligan following". Then at least, while it's harder to judge afterwards, at least there's a fixed definition and rule in place. But alas, this is not what we have. We have a cross between figure skating and ice hockey.

[Anusien]

What if I really want to mulligan into a Leyline of the Void. Is that considered cheating if I mull 4 times for it? Assuming I only take 45 seconds to shuffle, if I really want to hit it, is that cheating?
This sort of investigation probably starts with "What are you mulliganing for?" Answer honestly. As I recall, Max was shuffling slowly, deliberating for a while with hands that were an obvious mulligan, had trouble answering questions easily, and kept looking at the clock.

[Forbiddian]

This sort of investigation probably starts with "What are you mulliganing for?" Answer honestly. As I recall, Max was shuffling slowly, deliberating for a while with hands that were an obvious mulligan, had trouble answering questions easily, and kept looking at the clock.


I don't know. I think the Cheating -- Stalling penalty is just poorly written, so my main gripes are with that. Maybe real judges get more guidelines. I remember when I was a Referee for USSF, there was the laws of the game (a pamphlet) and then interpretations of the laws of the game (a novella), and then (a book I didn't have to know as I didn't do professional games), a voluminous encyclopedia on analysis of the interpretations.


But from my reading of the rules, it appears that some plays fall under Cheating -- Stalling that wouldn't even qualify as slow play.

For instance, you're allowed a relatively fixed amount of time to make ANY decision, regardless of the gravity of the situation. For a game altering decision on the critical turn, you're allowed roughly the same amount of time as someone else would be deciding whether to block the Mogg Fanatic with the Llanowar Elf (although post M10, it's not much of a decision). That's for slow play penalties.

I understand the point of this rule is that it's impossible to evaluate the difficulty of a decision. But then judges can disqualify a player because they felt like he was too slow in figuring out that he has to mulligan the hand?

I understand that time weighs in on decisions, and that players who need to win will be playing faster, and players who just need to draw will be playing more carefully (independent of cheating, even in an untimed tournament, I would hate to punt a game 3 or game 2 after a long game 1). There's also a fine line between playing to prolong the game/get the guaranteed draw and stalling. You're allowed to use game mechanics to prolong the game (for example, sideboarding in Wall of Stone knowing that you just need to stall the game out is ok), but physically playing slower is cheating.

There's a pretty fine line between taking a mulligan and then taking less than the maximum allotted time to shuffle (it's a maximum allotted time for a reason, only going over it should be penalized), and boarding in a Wall of Stone.

As for shuffling slowly, I think that if I mulliganned to five in a critical game three, regardless of the time left in the round, I would take the maximum amount of time to randomize my deck out of some superstition that my deck wasn't randomized. It seems like Max Bracht actually was cheating, but I feel like I could have been disqualified in all of the games that I had to take the mulligan to 4, had they happened in a game 3 under time pressure.



EDIT: And I do think it's weird that it's considered cheating to play slower than normal to stall for time, but it's not cheating to play faster-than-normal. People play with breakneck speed, untapping, drawing, playing cards, and attacking in under two seconds when they're under clock pressure, but then as soon as time is called, that same turn takes them 45 seconds as they meticulously plan it out.

If their opponent had taken 45 seconds on the turn before, they certainly would have been crying to a judge about slow play.

I'm not being serious with the above, but I did notice with some irony in one tournament my opponent called a friend over to watch me for slow play (not a sanctioned tournament, but we were trying to abide by the rules), and then under the first turn of five turns, he took over two minutes deciding whether to attack me or wait until the next turn. The player who came to watch gave his friend a slow play warning.

[cdr]

You don't seem to understand Slow Play vs Stalling - they are two completely different infractions.

Unfortunately I'm at the GP and don't have time for an in-depth response.

[Forbiddian]

You don't seem to understand Slow Play vs Stalling - they are two completely different infractions.

Unfortunately I'm at the GP and don't have time for an in-depth response.

You didn't seem to read my post.

I do. That's what I think is stupid.

[Anusien]

Playing very fast is something I don't mind. It doesn't tend to delay tournaments.

It's worth noting in this discussion that only the Head Judge can disqualify someone. DQs are very rare, but Stalling is one of the rarest. The sky isn't falling.

Also, these "maximum times for shuffling" are not entitlements. You aren't guaranteed three minutes to take those actions. It's okay if it actually takes you that long, but if you finish shuffling after 2 minutes it's not okay to just sit there shuffling for another minute to delay the match. If you normally take 1:30 to shuffle and present, and going into game 3 you shuffle twice as long, I'm going to be suspicious. (And you'll notice the 3 minutes definitely doesn't apply to mulligans.)

The mistake players make is that Slow Play and Stalling are almost never about real world clock time. They're about rate of play. It's usually fine to take a minute to make a tough decision once in a while. It's not a case of "Oops, this decision took more than 30 seconds, Slow Play".

Also, you're misinterpreting some basic things about Slow Play. To wit:

For instance, you're allowed a relatively fixed amount of time to make ANY decision, regardless of the gravity of the situation. For a game altering decision on the critical turn, you're allowed roughly the same amount of time as someone else would be deciding whether to block the Mogg Fanatic with the Llanowar Elf (although post M10, it's not much of a decision). That's for slow play penalties.
It's not like judges run a stopwatch on all your plays. That's not how Slow Play works. It's much more subtle and nuanced than that. Especially because a Warning for Slow Play is almost always preceeded by a Caution. If you actually get the second Slow Play infraction, you 100% deserved it. Slow Play isn't about sitting behind players and punishing them. It's guaranteeing both players get a fair chance to play Magic and to help everyone get home before 4am.

[pi4meterftw]

This sort of investigation probably starts with "What are you mulliganing for?" Answer honestly. As I recall, Max was shuffling slowly, deliberating for a while with hands that were an obvious mulligan, had trouble answering questions easily, and kept looking at the clock.

Judges can really require a player to announce their sideboard hate in front of their opponent? Interesting.

Also, as far as I understand judges cannot respond to what is "obvious." They must dispense justice without any regards to the finesse and strategy involved in the game.

[yggdrasil]

Judges can really require a player to announce their sideboard hate in front of their opponent? Interesting.

Why would the judge do that in a way so that the opponent can hear it?



Also, as far as I understand judges cannot respond to what is "obvious." They must dispense justice without any regards to the finesse and strategy involved in the game.
Regular rulings should be given without regard to strategic or tactical details of the game, but Investigations often must include those aspects as this example nicely shows. I think Stalling would be almost impossible to determine without it.

[pi4meterftw]

Why would the judge do that in a way so that the opponent can hear it?


Regular rulings should be given without regard to strategic or tactical details of the game, but Investigations often must include those aspects as this example nicely shows. I think Stalling would be almost impossible to determine without it.

How would it be done in any other way? Also, judges definitely aren't supposed to use in-game knowledge to make rulings based on the strategic situation of the board. Otherwise this would depend on interpretation.

In fact, I find it hard to believe that the maximum time limit for shuffling is not an entitlement. Otherwise, there would definitely be a fudge factor, arguments etc. Why is it called a maximum time if taking that time isn't even always allowed?

[Anusien]

How would it be done in any other way? Also, judges definitely aren't supposed to use in-game knowledge to make rulings based on the strategic situation of the board. Otherwise this would depend on interpretation.
You pull one player away from the table and have another judge talk to the second player.

Also, you're misinterpreting things. Judges don't engineer their own fixes based on their understanding of the game state. Judges don't really take complexity into account when looking at questions of Slow Play.

Cheating investigations obviously have to take into account the game state.



In fact, I find it hard to believe that the maximum time limit for shuffling is not an entitlement. Otherwise, there would definitely be a fudge factor, arguments etc. Why is it called a maximum time if taking that time isn't even always allowed?
That's nice. it doesn't change the facts.
It's called a maximum because it's the maximum. There's no excuse for going over. Doesn't mean it's always okay either. We've been over it a million times on these forums.