63 Card Deck Ruling Issue

[Elbow]

This is events that have been passed around enough on the internet that I think is important enough to ask the Beach about. If I made a mistake in the course of events please correct me, but this is just my understandings from the 1,000 comment long Virbank post on Facebook:
This past weekend, a player at a Regional Championship event entered with a 60 card deck day 1, but when making Top 32 and entering with a new decklist consisting of 63 cards, the judges didn't notice the mistake until Round 1 Top 8. The judges asked him about it, and allowed him to personally take out 3 pokemon that he said we 'useless pokemon' in the deck (which was manetric EX/Rayquaza EX deck).
In addition, this person baited his Top 32 Round 5 opponent to shuffle their hand into their deck by playing down an N from a VS seeker, but said 'I wasn't playing it yet' and the opponent received a game loss, which cost him the series (AND the cheater was losing too). He claims that the Juniper would have been the better play in this situation, but he sent a message to Andrew Estrada (2014 world champ) where he said that he would have played N anyways! If needed I'll post the picture.
This has sparked a very controversial issue in the community. A player who had a 63 card deck was still allowed to win a regional championship. Do you think that the ruling was fair? Should he have been reprimanded of the prizes/title? Should cheating like this be rewarded?

 

[TheVoid]

Fact is, he cheated the entire first day. I havent played Pokemon tournaments, but I assume theyre like Yugioh, a day of swiss, then the top x qualify for single elimination. He should have gotten a match loss for EVERY SINGLE MATCH that he had 63 cards in his deck, which meant every game in the swiss rounds. He should have had his rear thrown to the curb.

 

[One Approved]

First of all, a couple of corrections:

As far as I understand it, he did not cheat at all (that we know of) on day 1. Day 1 and top cut are completely different formats, with the first being Standard and the 2nd being expanded. To my knowledge, he "only" cheated for the entirety of Day 2, in expanded format because he needed a new decklist. As for the VS Seeker/N issue, I believe that happened in round 5 of Top 32 swiss (correct me if I'm wrong on that part), while they found the 63 cards in top 8 (that part's for sure, his opponent posted about it in the facebook group).

Anyways, for the penalty, it would have been fair if this had happened in like, round 1. Should he have counted his deck and list? Of Course, but we're all human. Mistakes happen. I can understand that. The problem was they found this in top 8, which means he had already played no less than FIVE matches with an illegal deck (and list.) Even if he unintentionally had 63 in his deck to begin with, you can't play 5 top-cut matches and not notice that your cards don't line up correctly during your 6-pile shuffle. Plain and simple, he knew he had an illegal deck and chose not to tell anybody about it. If I was the head judge I would have DQ'd him on the spot without even thinking about it. He had an extra 3 cards, which is a massive advantage for any list. After 5 rounds I don't think there's any question about whether there was "intent" or not.

Stripping him of CP/The title? I personally would, but I don't know what pokemon's policy on this is, if there even is one. This is the biggest offense to happen since the non-professor won the Professor Cup back in the HG/SS era. If I remember correctly, that guy was banned but he was never officially stripped of the title/prizes/whatever, so I'm not sure that pokemon actually can do that. So all we can do is wait and see.

We can only hope events like this raise awareness and caution in future tournaments so that we don't see things like this happen again.

 

[AlexanderTheAwesome]

Stripping him of CP/The title? I personally would, but I don't know what pokemon's policy on this is, if there even is one. This is the biggest offense to happen since the non-professor won the Professor Cup back in the HG/SS era. If I remember correctly, that guy was banned but he was never officially stripped of the title/prizes/whatever, so I'm not sure that pokemon actually can do that. So all we can do is wait and see.

We can only hope events like this raise awareness and caution in future tournaments so that we don't see things like this happen again.

Lol no, he was banned, but he won a TON of packs (a couple for each match he won), some other stuff, a KINDLE, and the big trophy
Pokemon never made him give any of it back and he ended up selling the trophy lol

 

[Pikachu6319]

We're human and we make mistakes, but to have three extra cards in a deck hardly seems like an accident, at least as far as I'm concernred. When I make decks (for that's worth since I am not a tournament player of course) I count that deck several different times in the process to find out how much more I need before I hit the sixty limit and then count again when I think I've hit that limit. I think most players at that level probably end up (or should if they don't) doing counts at least as much as I do, if not more.

Now I know nothing about how this kind of process works since again I have never played tournaments, but when I was in a minor Yugioh tournament when a player registered the person who did the registration, obviously not a player in that tournament themselves, counted the deck and in the case of Yugioh made sure the cards were legal for tournament play. Whether this was right or not I suppose is up for debate itself but at least it made sure that the deck was legal in all ways.

Given what all of this looks like, I'd say that yes, he should have been disqualified when this was found out. Would it be fair, especially if it really was just a mistake? No. Would it serve as a lesson to make sure everyone has made sure their decks are legal, I think so. Should he be stripped of whatever rewards come from winning regions? Again, I say yes.

 

[Elbow]

First of all, a couple of corrections:

As far as I understand it, he did not cheat at all (that we know of) on day 1. Day 1 and top cut are completely different formats, with the first being Standard and the 2nd being expanded. To my knowledge, he "only" cheated for the entirety of Day 2, in expanded format because he needed a new decklist.

OK, that makes more sense. I'm pretty sure that this is true and I'll update the OP with this info.

As for the VS Seeker/N issue, I believe that happened in round 5 of Top 32 swiss (correct me if I'm wrong on that part), while they found the 63 cards in top 8 (that part's for sure, his opponent posted about it in the facebook group).

His opponent was talking about it being the 'definitive moment,' so I guess it would make more sense to be to get into Top 8 rather than Top 4. Again, I'll update the OP. Thanks for the corrections BTW.

 

[Gengar master]

Which Regionals did this happen at?

 

[My Little Keldeo]

To say the least, I think it's shocking that something like this happened to begin with at such a high-level event, much less in Masters. The fact that the judges did not find out about this until the player was in Top 8 is strange enough, but allowing him to continue playing is even more kooky. I simply can't see how the penalty could be anything less than disqualification at this point. If I was judging at this event I would have handled things quite differently to say the least, but not actually being there makes it difficult for me to make an unbiased comment. I do hope this is reviewed by tPCI in the future, but I can't imagine what kind of action they will or will not take. Revoking rewards after a tournament has completed seems appropriate to me, but I don't know what their policies on this are.

With Florida Regionals on the horizon, I can only hope that as Elbow as stated, we can raise awareness of these kinds of problems and deal with them appropriately should they recur. I can only expect that Florida Regionals will have more vigilant judging and more attention paid to deck checks, or at least I hope they do.

 

[Maximinn]

Which Regionals did this happen at?

Virginia I believe.

For what it's worth, I think it was intentional. Playing with 61 or 59 cards I could totally believe is accidental. I've played games myself with 59 cards after dropping them on the floor or not taking back Flare tools etc. There was someone at our Cities who submitted a list of 59 cards accidentally (our judge caught it though). 63 though? That's too many to just be a miscount. The fact that the list had 63 cards on it too supports this I think.

To be honest though, even if it WAS just a mistake, he still played a whole bunch of games with an unfair advantage over his opponent and might never have made cut if he hadn't had that advantage so he should still have been disqualified.

 

[Mora]

I don't think it matters whether or not it was intentional. (It probably was.) At the end of the day, he had an extra three cards in his deck for the entirety on day two. He had an unfair advantage for day two of the event. I would have DQ'd him on the spot, and my TO said the same after we discussed the event.

Baiting your opponent's to shuffle their hand into their deck is a really stupid move. I wish there was some penalty for the player playing (or not playing) the N. People were saying if there was a penalty for doing that, then opponent's would jump the gun to shuffle their hand in and call a judge and get a game loss for their opponent, but that requires the player playing VS Seeker for N to for some reason not play the N.

 

[Blah]

I don't think it matters whether or not it was intentional.

^^^^^^

Although more importantly, we don't know if it was intentional. Look at all the circumstantial evidence you want, there's no solid proof it was intentional or unintentional. Nobody really has any idea.

I'm pretty sure it states in the rulebook that an illegal deck doesn't actually get that high of a punishment, but that's the problem here. Advantage or not, intentional or not, this should have been an automatic DQ on the spot, as should other illegal deck issues. Writing down a decklist incorrectly is one thing--the rules state you must play with a 60 card deck, and as far as I'm concerned, if you don't have a 60 card deck, you're done. Pokémon needs to take issues like this far more seriously than it does--I saw a problem at a recent cities where someone played with a 59 card deck after having dropped a card on the floor (likely unintentionally, although again, it doesn't matter) and he was merely given a warning. Some rules exist in grey areas, but a 59 card deck or a 63 card deck is not a 60 card deck. There's no in-between.


Edit: As a note, if this were to ever have somehow been proven intentional, or a player does this multiple times, bans are in order. Intentional cheating should result in draconian punishments.

 

[Gengar master]

Wow it happened in VA? I was there. Anyone know the name of this player? Was he one of these players?
http://imgur.com/1D58wxa

 

[Elbow]

Pokémon needs to take issues like this far more seriously than it does--I saw a problem at a recent cities where someone played with a 59 card deck after having dropped a card on the floor (likely unintentionally, although again, it doesn't matter) and he was merely given a warning. Some rules exist in grey areas, but a 59 card deck or a 63 card deck is not a 60 card deck.

I would like to point out that the 59 card deck was from 1 round out of a best of 1 game where he dropped it mid-game after a pile shuffle. The situations are different, but I do agree that he deserved more then a warning.

I think many people have agreed that this person deserves a larger punishment, but what should it have been? He could have received a round loss when noticing in Top 32 Round 5 (Which would have eliminated him from the tourney), a disqualification from the tournament (similar, but seems more threating + no CP/Prizes), or a complete ban? Also, opinions on trying to revoke merchandise?

---

Wow it happened in VA? I was there. Anyone know the name of this player? Was he one of these players?
http://imgur.com/1D58wxa

Jake Dudzik I believe.

 

[Gengar master]

This player should've been DQ'd as soon as they knew this. This one player actually effected the whole tourney! All the players who faced him on Day 1 and loss could've made top cut by gaining a needed win from that player. If the TOs did this right (everything else was fine). We would have had a different outcome. Different players could have made top cut, and most importantly, a different winner. Not only should he have been DQ'd, he should be banned from the game temporarily/permanently. This had a HUGE impact on who made it to top cut, who got prizes and who won.

 

[AlexanderTheAwesome]

Baiting your opponent's to shuffle their hand into their deck is a really stupid move. I wish there was some penalty for the player playing (or not playing) the N. People were saying if there was a penalty for doing that, then opponent's would jump the gun to shuffle their hand in and call a judge and get a game loss for their opponent, but that requires the player playing VS Seeker for N to for some reason not play the N.

ACTUALLY, if your opponent shuffles their hand in pre-N, he or she gets a game loss and you get a warning for "not being clear enough"

So uh.... I guess that's a punishment?

 

[Mora]

Baiting your opponent's to shuffle their hand into their deck is a really stupid move. I wish there was some penalty for the player playing (or not playing) the N. People were saying if there was a penalty for doing that, then opponent's would jump the gun to shuffle their hand in and call a judge and get a game loss for their opponent, but that requires the player playing VS Seeker for N to for some reason not play the N.

ACTUALLY, if your opponent shuffles their hand in pre-N, he or she gets a game loss and you get a warning for "not being clear enough"

So uh.... I guess that's a punishment?

That's not really a punishment, more like the cost of a free win. They should be harder on the player who may or may not have baited their opponent into shuffling their hand into their deck. I wouldn't mind it being a double game loss, but I feel like that wouldn't be a popular opinion.

 

[Maximinn]

That's not really a punishment, more like the cost of a free win. They should be harder on the player who may or may not have baited their opponent into shuffling their hand into their deck. I wouldn't mind it being a double game loss, but I feel like that wouldn't be a popular opinion.

I don't think there's a lot you can do about baiting with N really. It's so incredibly hard to prove. If you came down hard on the person playing the VS seeker then people would absolutely shuffle their hand as soon as an N hit the table and then blame the other person. I think the only solution for this is to never shuffle your hand into your deck until you either see them do it or they specifically say "I play N" or similar.

 

[One Approved]

ACTUALLY, if your opponent shuffles their hand in pre-N, he or she gets a game loss and you get a warning for "not being clear enough"

So uh.... I guess that's a punishment?

That's not really a punishment, more like the cost of a free win. They should be harder on the player who may or may not have baited their opponent into shuffling their hand into their deck. I wouldn't mind it being a double game loss, but I feel like that wouldn't be a popular opinion.

Double Game Losses are difficult because then it could go the reverse way. I could shuffle my hand in and claim my opponent baited me. Then they're stuck with 2 options: play the N or possibly face a game loss when all they did was try to put a card back into their hand.

I definitely agree that there should be some way of being harder on the potential slow-player of the N, but it's so difficult to figure out exactly how we should go about it.

 

[Mora]

That's not really a punishment, more like the cost of a free win. They should be harder on the player who may or may not have baited their opponent into shuffling their hand into their deck. I wouldn't mind it being a double game loss, but I feel like that wouldn't be a popular opinion.

I don't think there's a lot you can do about baiting with N really. It's so incredibly hard to prove. If you came down hard on the person playing the VS seeker then people would absolutely shuffle their hand as soon as an N hit the table and then blame the other person. I think the only solution for this is to never shuffle your hand into your deck until you either see them do it or they specifically say "I play N" or similar.

But the thing is that requires the player playing VS Seeker to get the N, and then not play it. I can't imagine too may situations where that would happen.

 

[Mora]

That's not really a punishment, more like the cost of a free win. They should be harder on the player who may or may not have baited their opponent into shuffling their hand into their deck. I wouldn't mind it being a double game loss, but I feel like that wouldn't be a popular opinion.

Double Game Losses are difficult because then it could go the reverse way. I could shuffle my hand in and claim my opponent baited me. Then they're stuck with 2 options: play the N or possibly face a game loss when all they did was try to put a card back into their hand.

I definitely agree that there should be some way of being harder on the potential slow-player of the N, but it's so difficult to figure out exactly how we should go about it.

I agree with everything you said, but I think a double game loss is slightly better. Game loss for the player that shuffled their hand in rewards the player that tricked their opponent into shuffling their hand into their deck, but the double game loss is closer to a do-over.