Upcoming Rules Changes at PT: Origins

[Remillo]

It's not fair to the non feature matches? What's different? They play the same game as they always do. It's not preventing them from any strategic advantage or disadvantage.

It doesn't promote sloppiness I'm sure they will set rules for it that prevent sloppiness being "rewarded"

It's not providing everyone with the same opportunity. It's not "disadvantagous" to me per se. While I want the rules to be enforced correctly at all times, what I want more, is an even playing field where everyone gets dealt the same hand (figuratively). If at any point it becomes possible where all competive matches can be reviewed, I'm all for it. But until then...

I've already explained why this doesn't make sense to me and I'm not particularly interested in repeating myself.

There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to this:

1) We have the ability and technology, so why not use it.  It's pretty straight forward.  Someone humble on camera?  We can go back and look at it to figure out what happened.

2) Judges on the floor can't rewind time, so judges at the camera shouldn't be either.  It's an issue of every. single. person. at the tournament having the same treatment when a judge is called.  Let's say something happens on camera and whatever the judge's initial call was is overturned by reviewing the tape.  Then, the exact same thing happens at a normal table, but because of a lack of video review, the initial ruling is kept, even though for the featured match, the tape was used to overturn it.  This is the 'interest of fairness'.  While the players that end up on camera are far less likely to mess up in a way that would require review, having that extra layer of certainty can be unfair to normal players who have to rely on honesty from their opponents and the judge's discretion for their rulings.

As a judge, myself, I don't think it will change too much, as featured players aren't nearly as prone to penalty-worthy mistakes.  The number of times that a video will actually be used in investigation will still be quite low.  However, it will satiate those who watch and catch something, as long as someone brings it to a judge's attention.

[Mr_Fahrenheit]

So you want the true winner to lose? How is that fair? It was obvious to everybody that Chapin placed the card on top of his hand him failing to reveal but the without moving his hand at all he flips the top card. He does this clearly without moving any cards so how is it fair to him that we give him a game loss?

If we were to go down this path, then why bother having the rules? They are there for a reason, everyone knows them and by playing in the event they are agreeing to be bound by those rules. Chapin violated the rules resulting in a game loss. Therefore his opponent was the 'true' winner. End of story. Whatever could or would have happened after that point is irrelevant.

[Mr_Fahrenheit]

I agree with all of that, but it has to be taken in context. At FNM, sure, the REL is less and maybe some leniency might be appropriate in those circumstances. But in a pro tour? That is the pinnacle. If the rules arent going to be enforced there, then where will they be?

Also, like you said, subjectivity can become an issue. This is why the rule needs to be in black and white. Otherwise you end up with different rulings for different people in the same situation. Do you want the game to be like that? I know I dont. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think having it like it is is the best place to draw that line, in my (humble) opinion.

[Mattao19]

Except the rules are being enforced if somebody misses a trigger they missed it it's just for minor accidents like not revealing and putting it on top of your hand (like Chapin) now had Chapin shuffled his hand there's no doubt he gets a game loss even with the new video review

[Mr_Fahrenheit]

I really dont see what the fuss is about. Whether he shuffles his hand or not, he still did what is defined in the rules as drawing an extra card. Whether you agree with the severity or validity or not doesnt change the fact that he violated a rule that he knew existed, at the highest level of competition. While it is unfortunate, it could not and should not have been enforced any different.

Lets assume he gets off with just a warning. Now the next time someone gets caught potentially doing sleight of hand shenanigans and get a game loss, they have a legitimate gripe. Chapin got off. What they did looks exactly the same. How are those rules fair? Your intentions are irrelevant, as subjectivity and ambiguity have no place in competition.

[Mattao19]

Thing is is that EVERYBODY saw him reveal the card to the table spotter then PLACE the card on top of his hand then immediately started shuffling his library leaving no room for any shenanigans. (Chapin is just the most recent example that's why I keep referring to it)

[Mr_Fahrenheit]

Thats the thing people dont seem to get. That is completely irrelevant. I dont understad this mindset that everyone seems to have that 'rules are enforceable, except if I think they are inconvenient'

You can disagree with the validity of the rule as much as you want. As long as they are applied correctly then there really isnt anything to complain about. In Chapin's case, he was a victim of the rule itself, not the way the judges made the ruling.

Did he deserve the game loss? Probably not. Were the rules applied correctly? Absolutely

[Mattao19]

Thats the thing people dont seem to get. That is completely irrelevant. I dont understad this mindset that everyone seems to have that 'rules are enforceable, except if I think they are inconvenient'

You can disagree with the validity of the rule as much as you want. As long as they are applied correctly then there really isnt anything to complain about. In Chapin's case, he was a victim of the rule itself, not the way the judges made the ruling.

Did he deserve the game loss? Probably not. Were the rules applied correctly? Absolutely

Ahh now.I see your point but the thing is that a player fighting in a ProTour should not be given a game loss bc he placed a card on top of his hand and revealed it 5 seconds later that is a minor accident that can easily be reviewed via camera so we have the technology so let's use it.

In baseball tie goes to the runner and if the ump accidentally blinks and doesn't catch it should we just allow that runner to be safe or should we use the technology that we have to figure out if he was or not? (I'm tired and couldn't come up with a perfect example but still moral is that technology is there for us to use)

[Mr_Fahrenheit]

I agree but until the rules  are written to properly incorporate it and the same technology is available to everyone then it will never be perfectly 'fair'. Saying we should use it is all well and good, but until the actual problem is addressed i.e. the actual rules that govern the use of it there will always be people who try and tae advantage of it.

[Mattao19]

I agree but until the rules  are written to properly incorporate it and the same technology is available to everyone then it will never be perfectly 'fair'. Saying we should use it is all well and good, but until the actual problem is addressed i.e. the actual rules that govern the use of it there will always be people who try and tae advantage of it.

I guess but I'm sure WotC will have proper rules set up.

When is the PT?