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.
It's an awkward situation, since on the one hand you don't want to be seen as a rules-lawyering d-bag; on the other, you want to get on with things; on your third hand, you definitely don't want your opponent to gain an undeserved advantage by intentionally fucking with the clock.
This was going through my head when I called a judge for my opponent's slow-play in R3 of SCG Seattle. I had previously told him twice that if he didn't speed up, I was calling a judge. He was playing TES and clearly overwhelmed by the decision tree and said something like "this is really complex." I told him to play a easier deck -- you don't get a pass because you have to make a ton of decisions.
That was the round I countered an Ad Nauseum with Spellstutter Sprite (which I'll admit has no bearing on this discussion, but was really cool anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardo
This may be slightly off topic, but was the opponent a newbie to the format, or just a veteran used to playing a less complex deck?
He's one of Frogboy's MtG friends, so I'm guessing he's a decent player in other formats, but new to Legacy. - Bardo
Ahh in that case I would have gone easy on him. :D But then again I'm probably too nice to people...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy Wally
I usually go easy on people who are new to the format (new blood is always good), but if he was playing so slow that the game won't end in time, I can see where your frustration came from.
In my 14 years of magic I've only been confronted with stalling once, and that was on a prerelease. Neither I nor my opponent were playing for the win in the last round, but one of us could win a single booster (12th place or something, I forget, this was Oddissey). I had calculated that I could have taken the booster with a draw, and that the opponent needed the win. He had arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion. It goes 1-1, and the third round could go either way. He starts to play slower and slower, but given the circumstances I saw no need to call the judge, because I know him somewhat and I didn't want him to get disqualified for shooting himself in the foot. The game goes to time and ends in a draw, and I tell him he really needed the win to take that small prize. Bastard gets angry with me. In hindsight, I should have called the judge.
I never go easy on my opponents, no matter how new they are in large events. I used to get my ass monkey-stomped years ago trying to get very good at this game, and I paid a lot of money and spent a lot of time doing it. It's only fair the pain gets dished out two-fold; it's the only way to learn in pressure-filled scenarios in a legitimate tournament situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy Wally
You lose fifteen million points for not saying "on the gripping hand".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardo
There are two parts to the story here,
A) Call a judge. No, seriously, even if you're playing Saito. Even if your opponent is Barry Allen, he might be taking too much time to make a decision. And yes, not presenting your deck after three minutes of sideboarding is Slow Play. If you don't call a judge, you don't really have an excuse.
B) Not saying anybody is wrong, but I've watched matches while watching the clock. Players have no idea how much time goes by. This is not to say that anybody's story is wrong, just that the clock does weird things when you're bored or involved in a tough decision or amped up on adrenalin because you're battling a future Hall of Famer.
Agreed about time seeming to slow down when your opponent is idle, but in the case of Saito, he was clearly trying to maximize the time he took for each turn/play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anusien
Looking at Saito reading Jace TMS twice, touching his Wasteland on about 4 occasions as if he was considering to activate it and so on made me feel sorry for his opponent. That being said, he should have woken up the judge who was next to Saito.
All this to say that in my opinion, slow play should be defined both by a time limit and by the perceived intent of a player. In that case, it wouldn't have taken Matlock to convince the judge that Saito was intentionnally trying to use time to change the match's outcome.
I don't take it easy on people who first-pick things like Liliana's Caress in draft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood
I want to win. Just because they're not as experienced (there is no way to say this without sounding like an egomaniac, is there?) or as good as I am doesn't mean I should feel bad. I'd feel like crap if I lost out on top 8 because I was giving a new player a break.
Slightly more on topic, the guy could've called a judge, but he didn't. Is there a penalty for calling a judge and the judge saying that the opponent is doing nothing wrong?
I'm never going to understand this, "You didn't do everything possible not to be cheated= You deserved to have your shit stolen" mentality.
If you can't look after yourself, who IS going to look after you?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
Um, society. This is why we don't live in caves and shit in the woods. If a burglar shows up to your house and begins beating you with a socket wrench, the cops don't shrug and tell you to take care of your own problems. If a hurricane blows through town and knocks over your house, the EMTs don't spout Ayn Rand isntead of saving your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastorofmuppets
If I see someone cheating you, I'm going to get a judge. Because I'm not a douchebag.
Maybe some people need a little lesson.
I wasn't there. I've never watched Saito play. I have no idea if Saito was playing slowly intentionally or unintentionally. But most people in this thread don't seem to watch much Magic for things beyond strategic content. If you watch a match being played and look past the strategy, you'll see this sort of behavior is completely common. Most people don't sit there staring at the board like a statue when they play. They manipulate game objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by aTn
@IBA: Obviously, just because you don't call a judge doesn't license your opponent to cheat you. But I've had dozens of players come up to me and say, "I think my opponent stalled me out of a match." And the answer is a polite version of, "You should have told me this 20 minutes ago, when it was still going on."
Well with the direction in which we are heading I wouldn't be surprised if the EMTs started spouting Ayn Rand...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
you're taking this off the deep end a little bit, IBA. Obviously, there are more players than judges. If someone beats you with a socket wrench in your own house (despite being a weapon of questionable effect), calling out for help might help a little bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
If Saito takes 10 minutes to wipe his ass with your playset of foil Mindsculptors, please note that it will take about a minute or two to call a judge over. They've got other people to keep track of, too. You're not the only person on the planet, and therefore they can't be making sure that you aren't getting Saito'd into next week for the entire 50 minutes of a match. I can say with about 95% certainty that the judge won't tear your head off and suck out your brain juices. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they will assist you in a timely manner. Even if they'd only give your opponent a warning, it should hopefully make them think twice about giving you another chance to call over a judge.
tl;dr: I enjoy Ayn Rand. But you're off the deep end a little bit. Maybe the people around you are all douchebags. Unless you're in a vegetative state, you can say, "hey, judge," you should be fully capable of getting a judge to call you over, instead of expecting someone else to do it for you, or for a judge to be psychic. That's just being lazy.
1) Ayn Rand is a talentless hack and a failure as a human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastorofmuppets
2) A decent sized socket wrench will completely fuck up your day.
3) Yet again, whether or not someone did everything possible to avoid something unfortunate being done to them doesn't mean that they should be blamed for the malicious acts of another. In this case it seems a judge was already at the table, a situation in which no inexperienced player is going to tell the judge anything because they assume the judge is doing their job. But if the judge isn't, and other more inexperienced players are watching it is their duty to correct the situation.
Once again, going back to trusting yourself. Just saying to the judge, "hey buddy, is it just me or is this guy moving kind of slow?"Quote:
Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin
It's not your fault that you got Saito'd in the first place. It is your fault that you let yourself get Saito'd when all you had to do was ask the judge what his thoughts were. Most players don't want to interrupt a match when it's drawing that much of a crowd. Everyone has that same, "I might be wrong" complex inherently.
So, the judge is slightly at fault for being a little lenient to Saito
Saito is smart for being able to get away with it
His opponent was dumb enough to let Saito get away with it, and maybe he could've squeezed out a win had he had the sand to say something, instead of just assuming that everything was peachy.
What don't you understand?
Also, I accept that Rand's writing doesn't appeal to everyone.
You're one of those American militia gun-nuts aren't you? :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastorofmuppets
No. I'm one of those responsible Americans (they do exist!) Also, I live in New Jersey. We pretty much can't have guns unless we prove we can shove them into our small intestine first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeggi
Although guns are fun. Very fun.
how did Saito's stalling get us on the topic of guns? is someone going to make him play faster at gun-point?
Just picture someone calling:
"JUDGE! Dredd"
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownSyndromeKarl
Because it seems to be a commonly held opinion in Europe that everyone who wants to protect and look after themselves is a Militia Gun-Nut despite there being ways of doing so that have nothing to do with firearms.