Click
Interesting read.
Printable View
Click
Interesting read.
He did it in Madrid too. It's hard to make very specific rules against this sort of abuse, but it's clear something has to be done. Saito is capable in reducing a 50 minute round into approximately 20 minutes real play time. On one hand it's pretty impressive that he can do this to the second without watching a clock, but ofcourse it's a form of slow play which has to be dealt with.
Heh, I was sitting next to the Landstill player for the match. Can't say anything in the account wasn't true; these were pretty much my exact feelings during gameplay.
Oh so true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeggi
I was sitting next to him on round 4. Now I am not a good combo player (and I'll be the first to admid Saito will think about more plays and scenarios in his head then I will ever do before making a play), but having to think 2 minutes how to respond in cracking a LED (when the only relevand card in hand is an Infernal Tutor is bordering slow play.
Seeing I was having trouble enough fighting ANT and a skullcracking headache at the time (thank God for Spanish painkillers so strong they are banned in the NL and my girl for going out and buy them for me), I didn't say anything about it, but he wasn't my opponent and he even anoyed the hell out of me with him playing as slow as he could.
To clarify on what Skeggi was saying, we had quite a few players from the Netherlands at the top tables in Madrid so some of them had to play Saito as well. He was playing storm, and began taking the maximum time for each decision from the start of the game as it shorter rounds would obviously favor a storm player. He actually managed to squeeze several draws that would have otherwise been losses from this tactic and as such might not even have ended up T8 if he used this approach.
I was actually watching this game. A large amount of spectators were, including two judges. I'm not saying this person is wrong, but I'm a sure one of the judges would've called him on it.
"Would've" or "should've"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryant Cook
In my experience alot of judges seem often impressed by high ranking pro players like Saito and cut him some slack on this sort of thing, or just don't dare say anything because they know the pro player in question as at least the same knowledge of the rules as they do.
This is just my personal experience though, please don't kill me cdr :wink:
Hello MTGO-style chess timer . . . goodbye slow play.
That's kind of sickening to hear, when you consider this sort of behavior could be construed as favoritism by the judging staff who should treat each individual player the same way regardless if they have a 1,200 or 2,100 rating. The guy obviously likes drawing games out when he is ahead of some sort. If a judge sees that a player is intentionally trying to draw the game out like he did, they could conceivably penalize him for "Slow Play" depending on whether he was acting within the confines of the rules and trying to make legitimate decisions in an adequate amount of time deemed appropriate by the staff (which is usually close to thirty seconds or so).Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeggi
I'm quite certain they would have warned him first, anyways. Saito was smart enough (albeit ballsy) to stretch the rules as thin as he could without necessarily getting disqualified, so, what's done is done.
That would be so goddamn annoying, punching the timer every time you pass priority.:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by MMogg
That is exactly the point, he always manages to stay in the boundaries of the rules. I am not sure to which extent the rules are quantified, but it is my understanding that they are, please call me out if I am wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood
To be fair, the guy is mostly a very deliberate player, even when not trying to game the clock.
I was his opponent in Round 5 at Columbus, and actually had to debate (with myself) whether or not to call a judge. He took a rather long time sideboarding between games 2 and 3. And by rather long, I mean like it was 4-5 minutes. I was sitting there trying to debate with myself what to do, I could see the clock. It was funny, as I heard a judge give a player an official warning just 3-4 seats down for failing to present his deck within 3 minutes. And here I am, staring at Saito who just finished agonizingly reconsider his sideboard decisions moving a few cards in and out, then back in and out, and its clearly on 4 minutes since we scooped up from the previous game.
I decided not to do anything becuase I thought it wouldn't matter. We had over 20 minutes left in the round, and I anticipated that would be enough time (It was.) We were even, and I didn't see any advantage for him in what he was doing. He was genuinely trying to figure out the optimal sideboarding which I'm pretty sure he hadn't planned for (I was playing the same Junk deck that Brad Nelson played, with minor variations). He took quite a long time, longer then he should of, but there didn't appear to be anything malicious about it or any advantage gained.
In game 3 he actually sped up his play at one point and missed a Reejery trigger. Before his next turn, he noticed his missed mistake (it didn't matter towards the outcome of the game), slapped himself in the face, and then proceeded to slow down in order to play deliberately and technically correct. And he certainly did, for the 2-3 turns that remained in that game. So what appears to be slow play may be technically correct, deliberate play in order to play well, not to milk the clock for an advantage. Not saying he doesn't do that, but it's gotta be a tough judgement call to allow one without allowing the other. I had a friend get asked to hurry up by a judge in turns when he was figuring out how to get the kill with no threats on the board (the judge let him, he managed to land a tog on turn 3 and get the kill on turn 5 which involved using top to draw a cunning wish to fect beserk, and use the other beserk he had to get the win despite having had his graveyard crypted away in response to the tog resolving), and I feel its tough for judges to find a balance.
The other problem is that I was actually thinking of the forums when deciding whether or not to call a judge, and that sucks. I was conciously aware that I didn't want to be "that guy" who called a judge on a pro to try and get a win. Not that I would be calling a judge for any other reason than to ensure a fair game that I had a chance to win or lose on my own, but there are far too many messageboards with keyboard commentators labeling players as sleezesballs for calling judges on their opponents. It should never be wrong to call a judge and let the judges decided, but too many people don't share that view and there exists a social pressure against it, especially in grey area situations. That sucks and was a factor in my decision making process.
I dunno. Slow play is such a grey area situation. Definitely frustrating and definitely unclear.
If I was playing against a guy who is known to deliberately slow play, or I could see he was stalling it out, my hand would be up in a second.
-Matt
I would be curious to know why increasing the time limit for a format like Legacy where the decision trees can branch out so far and be crucial that a game warning/loss can and does happen occasionally for fast play because of being worried about the clock.
Playing devil's advocate maybe Saito just wants to ensure that missing the Reejery trigger NEVER happens to him again. It’s kind of sad that players have to make a choice to either be meticulous about game play or worry about time constraints...
I didn't get a chance to see the game the article was written about, but it wouldn't suprise me to see a player look at everything in gamestate multiple times to try and understand every avenue possible. It's possible and may be likely he was going to time but having a judge step in and give a warning etc... may fix this specific case, but increasing the play time for matches for formats such as legacy would no only fix slow play(because they couldn't waste that much time without being blatenly obvious!) as well as fixing deck strategies that try to stall and win the match 1-0-1. I just think it would be a better solution than having judges make a call that is based on personal opinion.
It's up to the kid in the story to call a judge and ask the judge to watch to make sure play resumes at a normal pace.
He got away with it
It means you could get away with it.
Just sayin'.
No I can't. I'm not Saito, and people would call a judge on me, and the judge would be stricter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastorofmuppets
Tournaments at places that have a reputation of deliberate slow play attract fewer participants, and will see their local Legacy activity die off. Just sayin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastorofmuppets
Because outside of some drawn-out games, usually involving Landstill or CBTop, only games involving slow play ever realistically reach the clock limit. Tournaments are long and tiring enough as it is and also, T2 is a way slower format than Legacy and would much sooner require a bigger time limit- at least from my limited experience with T2.Quote:
Originally Posted by TnA_Will
BS. People may be afraid to call judges on pro's (but they should), but judges have no hidden alliance with pro players. They're not going to favor them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ummon
Hey you know what? This a 2 player interactive game. It is not 2 guys playing solitaire, in silence, across from one another. If the kid didn't like what Saito was doing he should have told him something. In most cases like this there is no reason to call a judge, if you verbally tell somebody that they are doing something lame they will most likely stop. If they don't and the problem is serious then sure call a judge.
I don't know what this whole "playing in silence" thing is all about, if I am your opponent and you are being a douche I am going to tell you. Hell, I might even be polite about it, but I am going to let you know that you are being a little silly...
If that kid got cheated, he cheated himself.