Are you a Quiet Speculation member?
If not, now is a perfect time to join up! Our powerful tools, breaking-news analysis, and exclusive Discord channel will make sure you stay up to date and ahead of the curve.
The Pro Tour is usually a great spectacle that showcases the game's greatest putting their all into competing for a sizable prize purse. While I enjoyed much of the coverage of Pro Tour Dragons of Tarkir, there was a portion that was simply handled terribly. There is no reason that we should have had to watch Patrick Chapin appeal his game loss for ten minutes while Randy Buehler did his best to make competitive Magic sound like a terrible thing.
The scenario was that Patrick activated an Ajani, Mentor of Heroes and failed to reveal the creature that he grabbed before putting it into his hand. Then he appealed for a very long time while the producers refused to cut away from the scene.
Patrick's "this sleeve touched this sleeve" argument was dubious and didn't represent any reason to not give a game loss for drawing extra cards the way that the rule is consistently enforced. If it touches your hand, you drew it, and if you drew it you get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir.
That said, there is an argument that Chapin could have made that carries more weight. Seeing as there is a spotter who records the cards in each players hand and there is a camera reel that could prove what Chapin grabbed with Ajani, it could be demonstrated that he grabbed a legal target. Ultimately, the only reason that you have to reveal in such instances is to prove that you didn't do anything that the card didn't let you do. A quick replay could easily repair the game state.
At this point in time, replays are not used to repair game states or overturn such rulings. There is an argument that could be made for this being bad for coverage. In this instance, a player got a game loss in game three to chalk up his first loss of the tournament. Such a thing just isn't enjoyable to watch.
Ultimately, the argument against reviewing the tape in order to make judge calls is that it provides special treatment to those in the feature match area. One person might feel cheated when they get a game loss that the camera could easily overturn, but a lot more people will feel cheated if they get a similar game loss while not on camera while some other person gets absolved because their infraction happened to happen under the camera.
So what do you think? Should feature matches get special treatment because the tape is there anyways? Or would such rulings generate too many bad feelings and compromise the integrity of the game?
Between writing this and publishing it, Cedric Phillips put a great article on this topic up on SCG. Check out his article here.
It’s not just about “someone feeling cheated”. It’s also about delivering a consistent experience. You can’t have the same exact situation result in multiple rulings depending on which seat you’re in.
If we allow video playbacks, how far away are we from someone ask to set up a camera of their own just in case they make a mistake? What about a player that always wants a judge standing over their shoulder so they can always rewind the board state?
Regardless of why the rules exist and what they’re hoping to prevent, they do exist and are written in explicit ways. To ignore that due to a technological safety net does little more than undermine the entire MTR.
In my opinion, I believe that people in the feature matches SHOULD get a little preferential treatment simply because so much more is asked of the players during the match. Players in the feature matches have people prodding them to continuously let them see their hand, face down cards, any revealing effects, etc. The other players don’t have to compete with these distractions during their games. For there to be video evidence that could be used to prove a player is cheating but not to be used to prove his innocence is more than a little hypocritical.
Recently video evidence has been used to prove cheating took place by some somewhat well-known players. Why? Why is that an acceptable use of the video but the exact opposite use is forbidden? If there is irrefutable evidence one way or another, it should be used to come to a verdict. If you don’t think that would be fair, consider this possibility: The tournament is over and a winner has been crowned, but allegations arise that the winner cheated in the earlier rounds. The judges then review the tapes and strip the winner of his or her victory after said evidence is proven true. Is this fair? If you truly believe it is then you should also concede the point that the opposite should also be fair.
Melvin: Those are great insights and I must agree. However, there must be guidelines drawn up for how those “instant replays” would work. Judges discretion only, timely manner so time extensions are a minimum, and only used in instances that can be visually verified in an easy manner. They can’t lock up a whole tournament for a 25 minute review of just any game state and definitely can’t let it become a crutch. However, it is so clear in this instance that no penalty should have been assessed that we at least need to start a conversation on how to implement the video or at least the spotters in the decision.
Players on camera are watched much more closely by judges, floor reporters, spotters, and by the commentators, and I have seen occasions where the commentators asked the judge to stop a match to make sure rules are observed.
I don’t think this happens on the floor for other matches. Therefore, there will be preferential treatment towards feature matches in one way or another. Let’s either use it both ways or not at all to influence how the game is played on camera.
you remember the changes in triggers (when they changed the fact that ‘must’ triggers became ‘may’ triggers, if they were positive for you).
Some new issues came up after the first change. One was that a trigger was missed if nobody saw it. If you missed it, you missed it. BUT if a judge saw a missed trigger he/she had to jump in.
So players could see it as a ‘disadvantage’ if a judge is watching them. Which is not the effect we wanted to create.
You don’t want players to feel the same in the feature match area.
to be honest, Patrick and his experience should now that the moment cards touch eachother, it’s considered as ‘drawn’. That’s a rule for everybody!
If they allowed him to play that game on without game loss, how am I going to explain this ruling on the next PPTQ or WMCQ.
This happens sometimes, and if that player says: “BUT I saw on the pro tour that …”
We need rules to be consistent. If the card touches the cards in your hands, then you drew that card and it’s part of your hand.
Reviewing the tape is meaningless because the IPG requires the penalty assessed here. It is by-the-book. The result that some folks want is to change the IPG somehow to allow for fixes short of a game loss where video evidence of hidden zones makes it possible to back up. When you realize what has to go into a fix, you realize it’s over the top.