Ruling Diancie - Sparkle

[Lukiido]

So an interesting debate and theory came about this weekend at a league challenge I was playing in. I believe the ruling to be wrong but wanted to post it here to see if I could gather others thoughts.

My opponent was playing Diancie -PFH - 71/119, and had used the attack Sparkle, with my understanding that this is an attacked effect on the defending Pokemon I proceeded into my turn and eventually retreated my active Pokemon for another attacker. As this was a new Pokemon I felt the effects of Sparkle would no longer in play, and declared my attack.

My opponent then told me I needed to flip a coin due to him having used sparkle in the previous turn, some discussion occurred, and eventually a judge was called over, and it was ruled in their favor.

I believe this to incorrect based on the cards wording, however, I did accept the possibility of it being correct based also on the fact that it was up to the opponent to flip the coin so the effect could be on the opponent? Would like to get some insight though from the community. Thanks!

Sparkle:

If the defending Pokemon tries to attack next turn, your opponent flips a coin. If tails that, attack does nothing.

 

[PMJ]

Your judge done goofed.

Sparkle uses the phrase "Defending Pokemon" as opposed to "your opponent's Active Pokemon" to clarify that the effect of it resides on whatever Pokemon was hit with the attack, and not whatever your current Active Pokemon is. Since you retreated, the effect of Sparkle was cleared and no coin flip was required.

 

[Frosstoise]

@PMJ So is it the case that if an effect is placed on your opponents active pokemon, that it resides on the active pokemon position, rather than the pokemon that was active at the time the effect was applied? The implication of course there being that if an effect is placed on "your opponent's active pokemon", switching will have no effect, and that the new active will be subject to it.

 

[PMJ]

Yes but we'll clarify if you have a specific question.