Match results with time called

LoneWulf · Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Posts: 148

i had an issue with the match being 1-1 and time being called while starting game 3. because my opponent won game 1 he's declared winner. when i asked why this was the case in #judges4you i was told by GRAH that it's the DCI ruling.

as a DCI judge i know this is not the case. game 3 would be played with first loss of life being the loser of game 3.

i've discussed this with WildCard and haven't gotten a final answer on my fix suggestions. the players could flip game 3 with the winner reporting as 2-1 (this would save time) or they could play it as a real DCI match would be done and go with "first blood" (this would be more like an actual DCI match).

any other suggestions?

BlaznSpecter · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 7

Yeah good luck on getting any of it past the TCs. They decide how things go here and dont care about the people who arent TCs.

iKe · Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 524 Location: New York

When it's 1-1 and if time runs out before u start or if both people are at the smae life total i think flippin would be the fairest way to decide.

LoneWulf · Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Posts: 148

actually it's not all the TCs that make the decisions. if no one makes a logical complaint with suggested fixes for the problem then it will remain a problem. every one can complain and make suggestions and try to get things fixed. if not then nothing would ever change.

_Metallica_ · Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 92

this issue has be discussed to death... really, you complain now because you just lost to that rule, but someday you will win for that rule. This is not the place to discuss this, we the normal TCs can't do nothing, it's a M-L rule we must follow it. As far as i know the reasoning behind this is that the winner of game one won w/o sideboarding and he has the choose to play first on game 3 therefore an adventage.

i would close this thread if i could.

Strovil · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 567

The first blood rule exists, after a fashion. When time is called, whichever player has the higher life total wins.

Game 3 only goes to the game 1 winner if a) it has not started yet or b) both players are at the same life total (most often this is 20).

I am not as supportive of the first blood rule as a sort of 'extra rounds' business as I thought. Time is called, we are both at 20 life, we play to first blood. This is a MUC on MUC match. Or RDW versus Life. In the one case, it might as well be another 50 minutes. In the other, how is RDW going to lose when it should, 99% of the time, lose the match?

I prefer a flip, especially when the game has not started yet. There are arguments for why Game 1 Winner should win (won without a sideboard) and there are arguments for why Game 2 Winner should win (won *with* the sideboard and game 3 is sideboarded).

One of the most important benefits of a game 3 flip is that it does not reward stalling. Under the current rules, the winner of game 1 has nothing to lose and everything to gain by stalling and playing slow. If game 2 does not finish, he wins. If he wins game 2, he wins. If he loses game 2 and does not get to finish, or play, game 3, he wins. The life rule is a bit of a check against winning game 3 but it only works for aggressive decks. With a flip, he goes from a 100% win in game 3 to a 50% win against an opponent who beat him with a sideboard.

eaglewolf · Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 55

TugaChampion · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 351

The flipping rule is by far the best one as it is the only one that does reward stalling.

Buffalo_Wing · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 138

yes. flipping rule. eagle, no one would complain about that.

WildCard · Joined: 06 Sep 2004 Posts: 735 Location: Japan

Don't woory. this topic has been discussed and ideas brought up. Giving the game to the game 1 winner, or Game 2 winner, or First blood (DCI), or Game 3 flip has advantages and disadvantages that may not be the sxact same but have the same impact. Just reciently because of this discussion the flip idea has come up. As for stalling goes... REPORT IS ASAP. I was reciently playing in a T1 trial and my first 2 opponents had just downloaded MWS (or so they say... I am a trusting person) even though I expected them to play slow due to the inexperience of them using the program I still reported it ASAP, I believe it was turn 2 for both opponents. I went 2-0 in both matches finishing with 20 minutes to spare each round, however if one of them had won game 1 and game 2 kept going forever i may have gotten an extention. This was not supposed to be a rant about Slow-Play... the topic of 1-1 has been brought up, and will most likely be discussed further. GOTTA GO LATERS!

Craze · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 5335 Location: Indiana, U

I'm personally in favor of flipping timeout matches.

LoneWulf · Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Posts: 148

thanks Craze.

i got an email from Koen that had a link to the tournament rules explaining how the 1-1 match should be reported. it's my bad for not knowing how the league ruled on this subject but it still doesnt explain why i was told in the judges channel that it was a DCI rule.

i still believe that this policy could be improved to be more like DCI but it is ultimately up to the major mods. the argument about aggro going first turn shock in game 3 "first blood" still doesnt change the way DCI handles this situation. but since this isnt DCI...

BTW i would still complain if i had won the match. just because i lost doesnt change the fact that i think it could be improved. like i said before, i had never run into this situation.

LoneWulf · Joined: 02 Sep 2004 Posts: 148

Laplie · League Staff Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 545

don't revive old topics