YGO Level 3 Judging mistake?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jake

New Member
This weekend I played an event in my home country of Holland (represent!). We had Judges there from Germany (who tried their best to make themselves understandable in Dutch) and for one particular thing they had to call a Level 3 Judge.

The Situation:
Player A has a Horus LV6 on the field,player B has a set Enemy Controller and wishes to place Horus LV6 in defense position.
At this point, almost all players say it can't be done. The Judge overseeing the event had to call a Level 3 Judge about this situation.

The Ruling:
The Level 3 Judge said that Horus LV6 can be put into defense position by Enemy Controller. I know Horus LV6 can be sent to the graveyard as a cost for Level Up!, but doesn't Enemy Controller target the card?

Did the Level 3 Judge make a mistake? I just want to know.
 
Hmm... the only L3 judge I know from Germany (and only one there is actually) is Oliver Gehrmann... AKA soulwarrior here on the forums.

Oliver's gots some 'splainin' to do...

[/Devil's Advocate]
 
It's also possible he misunderstood the situation.
Often times when a judge is called over for a card ruling the words used in a question don't reflect what the actual situation is I've found. (see my article on "Asking the right questions")

If the wording wasn't correct asking the question, it's likely that the judge didn't give the right ruling. It could have easily been misunderstood or mis-stated as, "Can I use Enemy Controler with Horus LV6?"

You can see where the confussion or misunderstanding would arrise if that were the case.
 
I'll get Oliver to see this, he'll let you know what happened and if it was actually him, but as far as I know, Oliver is the only L3 judge in Europe.
 
[ycard="DR1-EN006" said:
Helpoemer[/ycard]316]Hmm... the only L3 judge I know from Germany (and only one there is actually) is Oliver Gehrmann... AKA soulwarrior here on the forums.

Oliver's gots some 'splainin' to do...

[/Devil's Advocate]
Click to expand...

Thank you for bringing it up to me. :)

I would first like to correct Michael. We have another Level 3 judge in Germany, his name is Robert Grimm and he's from beautiful Leipzig (or a place near Leipzig, *lol*).
There are also two Italian Level 3 judges, but I'm getting off the subject...


So yes, I got a call last weekend and was asked if a player can use Enemy Controller against Horus LV6.
I told Frank (the judge calling me) that it's possible to offer a monster as a Tribute in order to activate the second effect of Enemy Controller and target Horus LV6, but it will do almost nothing, the Horus will stay where it is (not change the side) and your monster and your EC will be gone for good.

You could also activate the first effect of EC and target Horus LV6, but it won't change positions, again, because it's unaffected by Spell Cards.

I can't understand why he got me wrong, I was pretty sure that he got it. o_O

What a mess... :(

soul :cool:
 
Sadly, you can speak clearly and concisely to a person and they can say they understand right to your face. Bu they can walk away and still not remember what you said accurately.

I've also seen cases where a Judge makes a ruling and then walks away and the player with the strongest peronality "interprets" what he thought he heard the judge say. The other player assumes he mis-understood and goes along with the opponenet so as not to feel stupid and the mistake becomes a "ruling" from a judge.

So many scenarios. So many ways for miscoinception to develop.
 
word of mouth almost always makes the original statement altered. Have any of you ever done the experiment (just for fun, not really scientific or anything) where you have at least 6 people sit next to each other in a line and pass a message whispering to each person next to you and you can't ask for a repeat?


"Jon and Suzie have both seen that new movie 'Love Always'"

"Jon and Suzie went to the movies to see 'Love Always'"

"Jon and Suzie went on a date to see 'Love Always'"

"Jon took Suzie to the movies and told her he will love her always."

People never repeat word for word. This is how messages get messed up.

But as for confusion with a ruling situation, I know all about what JD means. I was judging a regionals lately with Jon Lacey present (but Darren something was actually head judge) and I got asked if while Mirror Wall is still on the field if the ATK is still halved. The way the player asked he made it seem like the monster in question had attacked, so I said yes, the ATK decrease remains untill Mirror Wall leaves the field. What the player neglected to tell me is the monster he wanted to attack was NOT the monster that attacked when he activated/had active Mirror Wall. It had not attacked as long as Mirror Wall was active, and the only reason I found this out is because as I was walking away, the other kid said 'I thought I had to attack with the monster at least once for it to be affected....". I immediately turned around and asked both players to explain the game to me from the point of the attack declared that Mirror Wall was responed to with.
 
<nodding> Exactly my point.

Two years ago at nationals I was called over and the players said, "Fiber Jar is flipped and he chains Ring of Destruction to the effect of Fiber Jar....he can't do that can he?"

"Sure he can" I respond.

"Can I appeal to the head judge?"

"Certainly, that's your right"

I explain the situation to Curtis as we walk over the the match.
Now the player says, "He attacks my face down Fiber Jar and..."

"Whoa!" says I!

"Your story changed, you didn't say earlier that your Fiber Jar was attacked, you said it was flipped. Big difference there"

In truth, it was my fault, I'd been judging long enough, I should have known to ask the right questions as a judge. A question like that is just BEGGING to be answered incorrectly without asking about the circumstances surrounding the current game state.
 
John Danker said:
In truth, it was my fault, I'd been judging long enough, I should have known to ask the right questions as a judge. A question like that is just BEGGING to be answered incorrectly without asking about the circumstances surrounding the current game state.
Click to expand...

That's the point and I'm very happy that you wrote an article about the subject.
I guess for a new judge it's one of the hardest lessons to learn how to ask the right questions.

It also helps you, because you don't look like an idiot to the head-judge, if you're able to clear things up in the first place. ^^

soul :cool:
 
John Danker said:
<nodding> Exactly my point.

Two years ago at nationals I was called over and the players said, "Fiber Jar is flipped and he chains Ring of Destruction to the effect of Fiber Jar....he can't do that can he?"

"Sure he can" I respond.

"Can I appeal to the head judge?"

"Certainly, that's your right"

I explain the situation to Curtis as we walk over the the match.
Now the player says, "He attacks my face down Fiber Jar and..."

"Whoa!" says I!

"Your story changed, you didn't say earlier that your Fiber Jar was attacked, you said it was flipped. Big difference there"

In truth, it was my fault, I'd been judging long enough, I should have known to ask the right questions as a judge. A question like that is just BEGGING to be answered incorrectly without asking about the circumstances surrounding the current game state.
Click to expand...

Yea askin' the right question matters a lot on rulings. I run and judge tournies, and I always say show me the steps of the chain. So I know how that was flipped, activated, and etc. Its very important to know the steps of the chain at hand.

To the person who asked bout Horus LV6 and E.Controller, yea you could use both effects on Horus LV6, but the first effect (change the battle position) doesn't effect Horus LV6. The second (tribute a monster) is a cost, so you could tribute Horus LV6, but you can't get control of Horus LV6. This was an easy ruling. I wasn't there, so I don't know how the ruling was asked. The judge shoulda said, what effect are you using, and on what? There shouldn't been a problem with this situation. A very easy enough ruling.
 
Digital Jedi said:
Sadly, you can speak clearly and concisely to a person and they can say they understand right to your face. Bu they can walk away and still not remember what you said accurately.

I've also seen cases where a Judge makes a ruling and then walks away and the player with the strongest peronality "interprets" what he thought he heard the judge say. The other player assumes he mis-understood and goes along with the opponenet so as not to feel stupid and the mistake becomes a "ruling" from a judge.

So many scenarios. So many ways for miscoinception to develop.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean things like The Legendary Fisherman ruling where your opponent can attack directly, even though the rules in the rulebook clearly state that if your opponent has a monster on the field, you must attack it first before you attack directly (this is, of course, barring monsters that have effect text stating you can attack directly, i.e. Raging Flame Sprite).

Yeah, I know what you mean, and all subsequent rulings have gone as such for monsters with similar text to The Legendary Fisherman.

Believe me, I loved playing Water-Type Monster decks, but after that, I can't even bring myself to put one together. I do have a friend who has been extremely successful with his own Water-Type deck, so much so he has become bored with it, and has put together a Warrior-Type deck, as have I, of course, since the Warrior Structure (I love that new warrior lady, she's hawt! :icon_redf)

But I digress.

The point is, it's easy to make a mistake, it's harder to admit it, but, it's forgivable. Because judges are human beings too.

Of course, I'd like to have some words with the judge who made that ruling on Legendary Fisherman... :icon_twis
 
Well, The Legendary Fisherman (and Guardian Kay'est for that matter) are examples of text not defining what the card does. The rulings are clear that if you only control one of these monsters by themselves then your opponent can directly. But they had to put this ruling on the Judges List since they failed to put into the card text or to even phrase the card text in a way that it could be insinuated.

In this case, we have a ruling that many don't understand because the card text does not support. With so many instances like this make ruling misconceptions possible. Look at Ultimate Offering. Up until a few weeks ago it's card text clearly did not say how the card actually worked. It wasn't even explained how in the rulings. Just an explanation on the Judges List saying "thats how Konami want's it to be played".

In the link in my sig, I addressed The Legendary Fisherman in my old errata thread, attempting to address the problems of card text that doesn't say what they do. But The Legendary Fisherman has been ruled that if alone, the controller can be atteacked directly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top