Worlds in Rome kicked off with a shocker when National champion Charles Gindy was disqualified from the tournament without prize for fraud.
Usually we don’t really hear about what’s going on with disqualifications, but we had a rare statement from Head Judge Sheldon Menery on what happened:
(taken from DailyMTG.com):
Gindy controlled a Master of the Wild Hunt, along with a pair of Wolf tokens, one a 2/2, and the other a 3/3 thanks to a counter from Oran-Rief the Vastwood.
Gindy activated his Master of the Wild Hunt, targeting one of his opponent’s creatures, in order to kill it. His Wolves were tapped, and his opponent’s creature was killed by the 5 damage from Master of the Wild Hunt’s ability, but the opponent did not assign damage back to either Wolf.
At the end of the match, Gindy asked why his opponent had not assigned damage to kill one of Gindy’s Wolf tokens when Master of the Wild Hunt’s ability resolved. This made it clear that Gindy knew that one of his Wolf tokens should have been assigned damage, but had chosen not to say anything at the appropriate time.
It is mandatory that the ability of Master of the Wild Hunt be completed in full, and by intentionally allowing the card to be misplayed, Gindy committed fraud as defined in the Infraction Procedure Guide. With Master of the Wild Hunt, a clear assignment of damage must be made for the ability to have fully resolved. It is not an option to see an opponent making a play outside the rules and allow it to happen.
Communication is one of the areas of the rules that is occasionally unclear in how it works, even to top players of the game. In this instance there was no ambiguity. It is the responsibility of both players to maintain the game state, and when they see that there is a problem, they must communicate it to their opponent.
The simple example that Sheldon used to illustrate was as follows. If you attack with a Silvercoat Lion, and your opponent blocks with a Glory Seeker that should not die in the combat due to Veteran Armorsmith that is on your opponent’s side of the battlefield, you have a responsibility to let your opponent know—if they try to put their creature in the graveyard—that it has not taken lethal damage. Willfully failing to do so is Fraud, and will result in the same penalty that Gindy received: Disqualification.
This ruling has implications for the Team Competition, where Gindy, as U.S. National Champion, was due to play alongside Adam Yurchick and Todd Anderson. His disqualification from the main event means that the U.S. team is ineligible. The use of the team alternate is not permitted in these circumstances.
Both Yurchick and Anderson will receive their prize money for the team competition, but will take no further part in team play at the World Championships this year.
The statement is pretty damning and makes Gindy seem shady, but several accounts from witnesses in Rome have said that the situation was different.
Allegedly Gindy’s board was:
* Master of the Wild Hunt
* Some number of 2/2s, not summoning sick
* A summoning sick 2/2 Wolf that came into play that turn from Master of the Wild Hunt
* An Oran-Rief, the Vastwood
* Other lands and possibly other irrelevant things (creatures, whatever).
His opponent’s board was:
* A 2/2 creature of some sort
* Lands and possibly other irrelevant things.
Gindy pumped the summoning sick Wolf to become a 3/3 via Oran-Rief, then attacked with the 2/2s. Before blockers, he activated the ability of Master of the Wild Hunt, killing the 2/2 with the 3/3 Wolf.
All of this is legal so far, since Master of the Wild Hunt says, “Tap all untapped Wolf creatures you control. Each Wolf tapped this way deals damage…” So if all the 2/2s were attacking, then the only Wolf eligible to deal/receive damage was the 3/3.
The game played on, and from this account of events, the game state was never illegal.
However, Gindy allegedly thought that Master of the Wild Hunt used the Arena ability for all Wolves, so thought one of his attacking 2/2s should have died in the process. So after the match he asked his opponent why he didn’t kill one of the attacking 2/2s. His opponent, Antoine Menard, called a judge over at that point.
If the situation was as Menery described, then Gindy was incorrect for not saying anything about the damage done to the Wolves and let his untapped 2/2 Wolf live, so there are grounds for Fraud.
If the situation was as described by others, however, then the game state was fine and the answer to Gindy’s question of why an attacking 2/2 Wolf didn’t die is simply “it couldn’t.”
Which account is correct? What really happened?
It doesn’t matter.
What is consistent with the accounts is that Gindy believed that his opponent could have killed a 2/2 Wolf with Master of the Wild Hunt’s ability and violated the communication guidelines by creating ambiguity about the game state. His actions after the match indicated that he did so knowingly, and in the judge’s opinion that was grounds for Disqualification.
It’s like if I have a Paladin en-Vec, I attack you with it and you block with your Grey Ogre, then put the Grey Ogre in the graveyard, all is well. But let’s say I don’t understand the wording on Paladin en-Vec (maybe mine’s in Russian or something) and I believe that the Paladin should have died, but I casually let it live, then I have cheated. If afterwards I say, “My Paladin en-Vec should have died, but I didn’t say anything,” then that would be Fraud even if everything I did was legal, since I expressed my intent to cheat.
From the above announcement:
“It is mandatory that the ability of Master of the Wild Hunt be completed in full, and by intentionally allowing the card to be misplayed, Gindy committed fraud as defined in the Infraction Procedure Guide. With Master of the Wild Hunt, a clear assignment of damage must be made for the ability to have fully resolved. It is not an option to see an opponent making a play outside the rules and allow it to happen.” (emphasis mine)
So the question of whether or not Gindy had an untapped 2/2 is largely irrelevant. Gindy’s actions allegedly indicated that he had thought he allowed a “fast one” to slip through, and that resulted in the DQ.
Contrast that to Brian Kibler’s situation, where a match-altering Angel of Despair trigger was missed in the quarterfinals match of Pro Tour: Austin, but Kibler says that he thought the trigger was a “may,” so when his opponent didn’t destroy anything with the Angel trigger (which would have won the game and match for his opponent), Kibler said nothing. It was obvious that Kibler knew about the Angel trigger and he even said so, but nothing happened to Brian. Why not?
The answer is simply a matter of intent. Maybe Kibler did know that the trigger was mandatory and is lying, but we have no way of knowing that (and his explanation is plausible; he hadn’t played against a Hypergenesis deck all tournament and he wasn’t playing Magic when Angel of Despair was printed and being played in Standard). “May” triggers don’t have the requirements in the communication guidelines, and failing to draw attention to a missed “may” trigger is both legal and strategically correct.
While it may seem ridiculous that the DCI is trying to get inside the heads of people and then rule based on what they intended, there can really be no other way to rule. For example, let’s say Player A has a Doran in play and is at 7 life. Player B has a Chameleon Colossus and plays Tower Above on his Colossus, making Doran block the Colossus. Doran blocks the Colossus as required by Tower Above, and Doran’s five toughness absorbs enough trample damage for Player A to live another day.
If neither player realizes that since Chameleon Colossus has protection from black, the “target creature blocks it this turn if able” clause in Tower Above means that Doran can’t block the Colossus anyway. The intent was not to cheat on Player A’s part, so Disqualification is way out of line, and instead both players receive a warning and nobody’s removed from any tournaments.
But if Player A realizes that he’s actually dead on board but allows the block to happen anyway? Damn skippy he should be disqualified; he’s cheating, and the harsh penalties should be applied appropriately.
Similarly, when comparing the Gindy versus Kibler situations, in the former it appears the intent was to cheat when game state was possibly completely legal, and in the latter it appears the intent was not to cheat when the game state was not legal. The intent to cheat (or not to cheat) is the important thing here, and the penalties were applied appropriately.
Gindy’s thing is Gindy’s thing and he will suffer whatever financial and personal costs from his transgressions. The real victims here are Todd Anderson and Adam Yurchick, his teammates on the United States National Team. Anderson and Yurchick themselves were not disqualified, but will not be permitted to play in the team competition. It’s pretty horrible for them and I can only imagine the disappointment they must be feeling right now.
A question is why can’t Brad Nelson, the alternate, participate in Gindy’s place and allow the United States team to continue? I don’t know the exact reasons for the policy, but I think it’s better that way. If three people on a team wanted to cheat, then you can just try to slip by the cheats and know that even if someone gets disqualified, you have a backup to fill in and allow the team to continue play despite having a member of the team disqualified. It’s essentially a “cheater’s mulligan.”
The bottom line is that I have a hard time thinking that the DCI committed an egregious error regardless of what the game state was or whether or not it was violated. If Gindy thought he cheated and his actions make it clear that he thought he cheated, then I applaud the DCI for treating him like a cheater.
Yours unintentionally,
-Zaiem
zaiemb at gmail dot com
zbeg on Twitter
Careful Consideration - National Tragedy…
Your story has been summoned to the battlefield - Trackback from MTGBattlefield…
Trackback by MTGBattlefield — November 19, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
But Grey Ogre can’t block Paladin en-Vec in the first place…
Comment by norbert88 — November 19, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
brilliant write up, its a shame that people dont take the time to read their cards and know what they do before using the abilities. if gindy who seems to be a really great player just sat down for 3 minutes before the tourney and looked at each card in his deck and getting to know it back and forth… well the us team and he would not have suffered…
Comment by Daniel Ryan Balderas — November 19, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
This entire situation is an unnecessary reaction to the Austin Quarterfinals. Gindy didn’t deserve a DQ anymore than Kibler did, and the DCI is being hypersensitive in an effort to save face and look meaningful. This is some serious bullshit, and you know it.
Comment by Nicholas Gulledge — November 19, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
wait, so Gindy was DQ’d because he thought his opponent could have assigned two damage to one of his 2/2 attacking creatures, even though it actually couldn’t?
That’s complete garbage
Comment by EuroRunner — November 19, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
Isn’t it possible that in that context his opponent has 2 damage to divide amongst the wolves and, while the technically optimal play would be to kill a 2/2, his opponent could choose to deal 2 damage to the 3/3 wolf? Then Gindy’s question is legitimate because he wants to know why his opponent would choose to deal the damage to the 3/3 instead of one of the 2/2s. In this instance, it is relevant whether the creature his opponent controlled was the 2/2 or something like a 4/4 or more because then there is no way to divide the damage across a 3/3 and 2/2 wolf for neither to die.
Comment by krazygu — November 19, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
@Nicholas:
I completely disagree. As a judge, I feel that as soon as a player intends to cheat, he (or she) is cheating. Whether it’s letting your opponent illegally screw up when you know what is happening or riffle shuffling while looking at your opponent’s cards, it’s STILL cheating.
I feel like an analog to this would be if you were attempting to draw 2 cards at the beginning of your turn, but while trying to palm the second card, you drop it onto the table. Of course your immediate reaction is “Oops, must have slipped off the top of my deck,” and you quickly set it face down back on top of your deck. Is this not cheating, just because the extra card never made it to your hand? You still had every intent to cheat, even if you didn’t actually end up doing it.
Comment by catsfanuk87 — November 19, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
What is garbage about Gindy acknowledging that he cheated?
Comment by LSVfan — November 19, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
So you’re saying that if someone kills a Silver Knight with Ghostfire, then after the match confesses to a judge that he cheated by killing something illegally (only to, of course, find out this play WASN’T illegal), he should be charged with Fraud?
What about if you steal something from a store, then come back and confess, only to find out it was a free sample as part of a giveaway? Are they going to call the police on you?
Comment by 1024 — November 19, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Can’t you use the Angel of Despair example for this same situation? It seems like you could argue that Gindy thought the assigning damage from the Master’s ability is a “may” as well — Gindy thought his opponent forgot a may ability, and asked him why after the game.
Comment by Adam — November 19, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Okay, let’s say I have five 2/2s (maybe I played Howl of the Night Pack or something) in play and you end step play a Bogardan Hellkite, then untap, draw your card, and move on …and none of my 2/2s die nor do I take the five damage.
Do I just assume that hey, you COULD have done one damage to each of my 2/2s, so that’s a legal play? No, it’s cheating - you’re trying to pull a fast one. Saying that well, there’s a legal scenario that also happens to benefit me…that’s not cutting it.
It’s the same thing. The Master of the Wild Hunt trigger *could* have resulted in the damage being done to the 3/3 Wolf (in the official scenario). Am I just going to assume that you made the play that’s most beneficial to me, or did you miss something?
Comment by zbeg — November 19, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
What a joke. This is the reason that a whole hell of a lot of Magic players have a hard time making friends.
There is no reason to kick a guy out of the tournament for that. It’s the same personality defect that leads to endless arguments about probabilities and grammatical errors on Magic forums. Why would you DQ a guy when he wasn’t trying to cheat? Adjust the penalties to fit the crime. A game loss or a match loss would be fine, but it’s the brain of the magic player that is going to get all upset over very minor, technical errors of any sort. It’s really an unpleasant character trait.
Comment by Jim Varney — November 19, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
It seems absolutely terrible to set a precedent that “cheaty thoughts” are themselves grounds for disqualification when no actual gamestate or procedural violations have been committed
Comment by Nicholas Gulledge — November 19, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
@LSVfan
It’s garbage because the only legal target for his opponents 2/2, was Gindy’s newly created 3/3. Probably why his opponent just binned his creature w/out saying what he was assigning damage to. Could it not just be assumed that his opponent actually new the wording on the Master of the Wild Hunt? That he knew the only target was the 3/3 that would survive?
He’s DQ’d because he thought his opponent could do it though? How do you get in trouble for not doing anything illegal even though you admitted you thought you had? See 1024’s examples.
Comment by EuroRunner — November 19, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
@ Jim:
“Adjust the penalties to fit the crime. A game loss or a match loss would be fine”
This is one of the things that many Magic players don’t understand. The penalties are not arbitrarily decided by the judge. You can’t just GIVE someone a warning for something that deserves a game loss, nor can you give someone a match loss for something that deserves a DQ. The rules and penalties are very, VERY clearly laid out. What Gindy did was 100% defined by Cheating - Fraud, for which the penalty at every REL is a DQ. If the investigation into the infraction revealed that Gindy knowingly allowed a mandatory trigger/effect to be missed, that IS cheating. There is not a gray area.
@1024:
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. The player knowingly made what he thought was an illegal play, then allowed his opponent to go along with it. That’s fraud. Plain and simple.
Comment by catsfanuk87 — November 19, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
I agree with Zaiem. Cheating in any kind of way should be punished by the DCI (even if it was only attempted),specialy on the game’s biggest stage. I don’t think Gindy is a shady player,but his disqualification and the “penalty” to US national team is something that was probably very well thought before being imposed.
Comment by yum — November 19, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Additionally, where is that he admits to cheating? I think he admitted to not knowing what Master of the Wild Hunt does, not to cheating. You are required to know what you’re cards do, but that’s not cheating, it’s an infraction that’s worth at most a game loss, and probably a warning.
I don’t know Charles Gindy, but the evidence would seem to overwhelmingly point towards the fact that a guy is not going to mention something after the match if he thought he was doing something illegal. He pretty obviously thought it was a may effect, and fraud require that he intentionally mislead his opponent.
That being said, I would imagine there’s a reasonable chance the author has no idea what actually happened and something else went down. IF not it’s pathetic, and I would be absolutely furious. Unfortunately, Gindy has no recourse. Professional Magic players are completely expendable, as they just get replaced by the next guy in line. Wizards doesn’t rely much at all on marketing individual players, and to the extent that they do they can easily hype the next guy just as much.
Comment by Jim Varney — November 19, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
You are completely wrong he could have simply like LSV said(about the Hagra Crocodile) made it seem like the 3/3 wolf was the obvious creature to deal damage to. From what Gindy believed was the wording he assumed it could be dealt to any wolf… and so he treated as if his opponent targeted the 3/3 and his opponent could have stopped him at any point…. that judge just royally screwed him. There was no way to go back to that game state and therefore with no proof it should have been dismissed.
Comment by Javier — November 19, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
“Okay, let’s say I have five 2/2s (maybe I played Howl of the Night Pack or something) in play and you end step play a Bogardan Hellkite, then untap, draw your card, and move on …and none of my 2/2s die nor do I take the five damage.
Do I just assume that hey, you COULD have done one damage to each of my 2/2s, so that’s a legal play? No, it’s cheating - you’re trying to pull a fast one. Saying that well, there’s a legal scenario that also happens to benefit me…that’s not cutting it.”
I feel this one’s different, as it can be inferred unambiguously from the game state what happened. There’s only one legal scenario. With the Gindy case (assuming Master works the way Gindy thought it would), it’s ambiguous where the damage was dealt: 2 to the 3/3, or 1 to the 3/3 and 1 to a 2/2?
Say your opponent has two 2/2’s, you play Pyroclasm, and he responds with Harm’s Way targeting you. He doesn’t explicitly say which damage he wants redirected, but he bins one of his guys. At this point, it’s unambiguous which damage he redirected, and as far as I know, everything here is legal. Isn’t this the same situation as your Hellkite?
Comment by Phil Y — November 19, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
“At the end of the match, Gindy asked why his opponent had not assigned damage to kill one of Gindy’s Wolf tokens when Master of the Wild Hunt’s ability resolved. This made it clear that Gindy knew that one of his Wolf tokens should have been assigned damage, but had chosen not to say anything at the appropriate time.”
This is inredibly flawed logic. It does NOT necessarily mean Gindy knew one of his Wolf tokens should have been assigned damage. It just as easily could, and all the evidence points towards this being the case, be that he thought his opponent could assign damage, but that it was not a required ability.
What horseshat.
Comment by Jim Varney — November 19, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
“I feel this one’s different, as it can be inferred unambiguously from the game state what happened. There’s only one legal scenario.”
Ah actually, this was a bad example, as the Hellkite can deal damage to itself. Assuming a better example though, where there’s only one legal scenario, the question still stands.
Comment by Phil Y — November 19, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
Cheating — Fraud
Definition
A person intentionally and knowingly violates or misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, or any other relevant tournament information. Note that Fraud, like most cheating, is determined by an investigation and will often appear on the surface as a Game Play Error or Tournament Error.
I feel like asking your opponent “Why didn’t you do this thing that the rules don’t allow?” qualifies as knowingly misrepresenting the rules?
Comment by Daniel — November 19, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
@ Phil
The big difference here is that you are very clearly saying “Prevent 2 damage to THIS, let this die.” With the Hellkite situation, you could be saying “Deal 4 to my Hellkite, and 1 to one of your guys,” “One to each of your guys,” or you may have just missed the trigger entirely.
Comment by catsfanuk87 — November 19, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
Errr, reverse that. I DON’T think that qualifies as knowingly misrepresenting the rules.
Comment by Daniel — November 19, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
As a previous posting notes, the key here is that Gindy asked the question which resulted in the judge getting involved. That by itself demonstrates that he didn’t intend to cheat and that the ruling is absurd in its severity. If he was cheating, why would he have said anything after the match??
His question demonstrates that he essentially thought that the Master of the Wild Hunt’s ability had a “may” trigger.
The ruling is appalling.
Comment by S. Stewart — November 19, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
so assuming is now cheating? i dont have to quiz my opp on what he would like to do with abilities and effects all i have to do is recognize them and resolve them. with master of the wild hunt it seems that the clause divided as they choose is put in there to give my opponent a slight advantage with the effect, whether he uses it or not is up to my opp. assumptions are fine to make. if my opp plays banefire for x where x is >= my life and kills one of my creatures am i supposed to tell him i was at x and the i get dq’d? if he can divide as he chooses and does not choose it is to my understanding that he chose to divide in an amount which it did not change game state and i thusly proceed with the game. i will not be surprised if wizards gives a formal apology to gindy and comps him for their mistake. also throughout all of the explanations of this situation, game state and both players come up alot. should gindys opp not of been dq’d as well as he forgot to divide his damage? it seems to me that gindy got shafted pretty hard here. game state is an unbiased check and balance added to the game, but when i biased outcome is based around it it seems a little unfair.
Comment by brad sheppard — November 19, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
So Gindy was DQ’d because he thought he did something illegal, but actually didn’t? lol. whatever, dude. In my eyes, DCI colluded to keep team America out of the first place spot again.
Why is it that whenever anyone from America does well in magic, the international community has to sh*t all over that?
Sorry, magic was invented here. If you don’t like it, you can get out.
Comment by WHUUUUT — November 19, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
“if he can divide as he chooses and does not choose it is to my understanding that he chose to divide in an amount which it did not change game state and i thusly proceed with the game.”
The amount of damage on each creature is part of the game state…
Comment by Phil Y — November 19, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
What Gindy did is disgraceful. He 100% deserved to be DQ’d for his actions. He took advantage of his opponent and intentionally allowed for an illegal game state. He clearly intended to cheat regardless of whether or not the damage could have been dealt. I feel bad for his team members and I am sure they are pissed beyond belief at gindy’s selfish actions. Life lesson…DONT CHEAT.
Comment by BradFlinn — November 19, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
I toally agree with 1024 and LSV Fan. This is absolute BS. If Hindu thought he was cheating then why the F would he EVER go up to his opponent and then ask him about the “instance of fraud?!?!” that is absolutely absurd. Gindy really isn’t the kind of guy that would cheat. This entire thing has really made me ashamed to support the DCI judges involved with the Pro Tour. Not only did they lie to the public about what actually happened, but they disqualified a player, AND refused to let his team replace
him. To me the DCI judges at world seem like the one who are commiting fraud here. Right now, Gindy isn’t mad at himself, for playing that how he dd, he is mad at himself for being honest, and trying to ask a menard a question, to make some post-game conversation. If I get anything pu of this experience, I know have no respect what-so-ever for the head judge who DQed Gindy, and I now know that Antoine Menard is a total pansy, who can’t handle a game loss… Both the Jude and Menard are little b*tches who can’t handle their mistakes. The DCI is balatantly trying to make up for PT: Austin, and Menard is trying to make up for him sucking at magic. Gindy rules, and the US team rules. Thanks for sh*tting on them DCI!!!
P.S. Todd ad Adam really deserved this didn’t they DCI?
Comment by Thought Crime? — November 19, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
Every forum thread and discussion thread about this I’ve seen ignores one very important thing. Whenever judges consider disqualifying a player, they investigate. When they do so, they ask questions of the person they are considering DQing. Do we know what the judges asked Mr. Gindy? No. Do we know what Mr. Gindy said? No. Will we ever? No, because we don’t discuss that.
My point is this: the head judge chose to DQ Mr. Gindy based on the investigation that was conducted. We don’t have the information that the head judge had, and therefore we cannot make a fair determination about the situation. I’ve had the pleasure of being on staff with Sheldon, and while no person is infallible, Sheldon’s judgment in this sort of situation is impeccable.
Comment by Eric Levine — November 19, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
This ruling combined with the kibler ruling is bad for the game because it actualy discourages comunications between the players, and rewards thoose ingnorant of the rules or who lie aout there knowledge of the rules. While punishing the people who are honest with there oponents. I think this ruling is a fix ruling for missing kiblers angel.
Comment by James — November 19, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
It’s quite obvious that he thought his opponent did not have to deal damage to his creature. That is called not knowing what your cards do, not cheating.
Comment by Jim Varney — November 19, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
This rule is a joke because it rewards players who play bad magic. It is the biggest tournament of the year, it’s not my responsibility to teach you how to play Magic. If you don’t know that the wolf tokens die it’s not gindy’s fault that his opponent was bad. Absolute joke.
Comment by Dan — November 19, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
So is it now legal for someone to not assign damage when their oppenent activates his Master of the Wild Hunt, hope they make no comment, and then call a judge over at the end of the game to DQ him?
Surely there is some onus on Gindy’s oppenent to remember what a card does as well. Given there was a scenario where the gamestate wouldn’t end up illegal adds to reliability of the ruling.
It is not Gindy’s job to babysit his opponent. I mean in another scenario, if an opponent were to terminate your demigod of revenge with the trigger on the stack, would you just assume his intent was to do it afterwards, knowing that there is a very minute chance that isn’t what he wanted to do?
I mean the assumption is reasonable enough, a 2/2 and a 3/3 wolf. The 2/2 did not die, hence damage got assigned to the 3/3? Did his opponent have a jund charm in hand? Maybe he forgot to play it eot? Lets not remind him about playing that Jund charm till after the game.
Comment by Keffola — November 19, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
from the alleged situation gindy did nothing wrong. the thing about the damage on the creatures, game state will not change if a 3/3 has 2 damage on it if the opp has no intention or capability of dealing it the final points for lethal. if someone double blocks a creature and the opponent says kill the first one do u clarify the damage left on the second one before moving on. you just assume that its not lethal and if it becomes lethal the damage will be brought up then. misreading your own card, quizzing your opp about it after the match should just get some dirty remarks bc u lost to or won with a card that u didnt know what it did. either way at worst both players should get dq’d because no one is at fault. gindy thought he was trying to help his opp out in further rounds bc master of the wild hunts popularity rose exponentially for this tournament and he wanted his breakers to do better, gindy was being a good Samaritan and got shafted because of it.
Comment by brad sheppard — November 19, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
I have no issues with the DQ. If Gindy knowingly let the game state become illegal, then I have no problems with the ruling. I practice my playtesting rules when playing currently. If someone misses something, we stop where we are and let it do its thing, unless it’s an optional ability. As players, it’s our job to keep track of mandatory triggers. They don’t say “may” for a reason. Gindy’s actions are pretty damn close to saying something like “EOT Slaughter Pact, then untap, don’t pay the cost, and keep playing like nothing’s going on.”
Comment by Adam — November 19, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
My point is this: the head judge chose to DQ Mr. Gindy based on the investigation that was conducted. We don’t have the information that the head judge had, and therefore we cannot make a fair determination about the situation. I’ve had the pleasure of being on staff with Sheldon, and while no person is infallible, Sheldon’s judgment in this sort of situation is impeccable.
saying no one is infallible and then saying they are impeccable is pretty much saying you think Sheldon is infallible… regardless tim Willougbys story doesnt check out with anyone who was there.
Comment by fatguy_poolshark — November 19, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
thats nothing like it. it would be if gindy slaughter pacted a guy it fizzled and after the game he was like i think i forgot about my pact. nothing went wrong gindy was just clarifying it for his opponents later round matches, which in fact gindy was incorrect. his opponent im sure just saw an opening in which it was a win win situation. he can either lie and say he thought this is how something happened get a free win and continue on or try it fail and take the lose bc of communication error. i am not a gindy fan by any means but when there is an international tournament and an obvious language barrier communication enforcement should be lightened.
Comment by brad sheppard — November 19, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
I think it’s similar to the situation where Jed Dolbeer got DQ’d for playing Take Possession during his opponent’s turn (which is something I did the first time playing the card.) It’s not the act itself that causes the DQ. The events surrounding the act are used as evidence to figure out if was cheating or negligence. In Jed’s case, the judges incorrectly decided that he knowingly cheated. That may or may not be the case with Gindy. I think people should withhold judgment until information about Gindy’s discussion with the judges comes out (if it does.) That is much more important to determining whether he should be DQ’d or not than the game state.
One thing I do know is that whether he cheated or not, he clearly didn’t know that what he was doing was cheating. Otherwise he would not have mentioned it to his opponent after the game. So people shouldn’t be attacking his character.
Comment by NovaSandler — November 19, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
If I cheated during a game, I wouldn’t tell my opponent after the match. Just saying…
What Charles Gindy did might have been grounds for a disqualification, and it might have technically been cheating, but I don’t think he was intentionally cheating, at least not in the same way as stacking your deck, or drawing an extra card would be considered cheating, so I think it’s unfair to call him a scumbag and a cheater.
Comment by Alex — November 19, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
I agree with the DQ. This is WORLDS. Gindy should know what the Master does anyways, I certainly wouldn’t show up to even a PTQ without knowing how every card in my deck worked. I would also expect professionals at a professional REL event to uphold the communications policy to its strictest, I don’t think that’s too much to ask. I’m glad the judges upheld the policy despite him being US national champ. It sucks to not get to cheer on my team, but I’m glad I don’t have to hear some controversy over whether a player on the team cheated his way to victories.
Comment by Jason — November 19, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
i really think they try to fix the kibler situation in the quaterfinals of pt austin with this ruling, because it is first of all pretty harsh and excessive (seen from the information that is available, as someone pointed we do not know the whole process of investigation) and secondly it feels like a minor thing compared to the quaterfinals incident. There is just not so much on the line here and it was also after the game so no one, if not filmed fortunately, can really turn back to the game state that was and the things they said there.
I do not say that he shouldn’t be DQed from worlds but i say kibler should have also been DQed at Austin. If Gindy would have said (after the match, to a coverage reporter who is interviewing him) “I thought the Master ability would be a may one (or that he thought he could just divide that damage that nothing happens,witch seems possible) and i didn’t want to draw any attention on it, because i needed the wolfs to survive to grind out the game” he would have been better off (as you can see at the austin incident)
I think both did somethings wrong but the one was clever enough to hide that in the “but i thought it was may, i never played against it, wait i did play against it before (against the same opponent), but i never have seen the card before, you know i playtestet for weeks and weeks and have maybe 100 games against that deck but man HOW COULD I KNOW?” rofl
The other one just said something not that smart and therefore got punished
Lesson learned: don’t speak with your opp after a match - stop - get the slip signed and race off - stop - do ever state that you think anything is a may trigger and you are 99% sure about it
Comment by roar — November 19, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
I’m with Daniel on this one, assuming he posted the actual section on cheating from the Penalty Guide: If you don’t misrepresent the game state, you get away with intending to “distribute the damage in a weird way.” I hope a 2/2 Wolf was used for the ability as well. Otherwise, it appears the Judge didn’t know the wording of the PG well enough and Gindy got screwed.
Comment by mike — November 19, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
I despise the rules that force you to correct your opponents mistake, in a competitive game how this game played out is how it should have played out, how the Kibler game played out is how it should go
you shouldn’t in a competitive game have to say, sorry you are trying to lose really hard, but I have to stop you inform you of your mistake and let you win the match now, and 10k+ enjoy
strong technical play should be rewarded, all this does is allow sloppy plays to get corrected
Comment by Josh — November 19, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
I think that something that is relevant, and didn’t get mentioned at all (in fact, the article steers away from it) is that the 3/3 wolf wasn’t the only one that was being tapped to the Master’s ability. According to the transcript we have, 5 damage was dealt, so a 2/2 as well as the 3/3 were used.
That means there is a much larger gap in communication. Now it’s no longer a 3/3 taking on a 2/2, it’s two wolves taking on anything, from Thrinax to Rhox War Monk, to Putrid Leech. Which is why the bolded part is completely relevant - both Gindy and his opponent had a responsibility to make sure the ability completely resolves. Both are guilty of an infraction for failing to do this, but only Gindy knowingly and purposely didn’t clarify how the damage was distributed.
I like the point of this article, but wish it didn’t include this Gindy scenario, because the one that is proposed here, and his arguments are based around, contrasts with what our DCI’s actual investigation revealed.
Comment by Garlow — November 19, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
There’s another “team mulligan” to be achieved if the fourth member of the team could jump on the team after a DQ. On the last round of the swiss, it could be profitable for the worst member of the team to intentionally get a DQ in order to get the fourth member’s points for the team.
As an extreme example, say team members have 30, 30 and 6 points, and the fourth member has 30. This procedure would gain 24 points for the team, which could earn a lot of money (and the DQ’d player wasn’t getting any prizes with his 6 points anyway). I wouldn’t want to open the door for anything this disgusting.
The same applies on round 6 if we make it so that the team could continue but only before any team rounds are played. One option that springs to mind would be only counting points earned after joining the team, but that would be pretty weird.
Comment by Anonymous — November 20, 2009 @ 12:06 am
You are not required to teach your opponent how to play, or to keep your opponent from making mistakes. You are required to maintain a consistent game state. If you allow a rules violation to occur because that is better for you, that is Cheating - Fraud. If you lie to judges during the investigation (as some have suggested in these comments), and you are caught in the lie, you will probably be suspended from Magic for a long time.
If your opponent fails to follow the rules correctly, call a judge as soon as the violation has occurred. The judge will resolve the problem and issue a penalty to your opponent. You might get a free game win, and you will not be DQ’ed.
Please, everybody, don’t do what Gindy did. Judges do not want to disqualify people, but the guidelines are deliberately nondiscretionary so as to avoid any perception of bias.
Comment by Oren — November 20, 2009 @ 12:08 am
I am the Raging Goblin: “I raged at Worlds, at my family, at my life. But mostly, I just raged.”
Gindy should not have been disqualified, and the U.S. National Team especially should not have been penalized. That’s like putting a criminal’s parents in jail because he committed a crime. Why don’t we ban the Atlanta Falcons (post Michael Vick dog fights) while we’re at it? And all those baseball players taking steroids? Axe the teams. Demolish the stadiums and let’s watch the Nationals and Royals duke it out in a “don’t shit your pants first” contest.
This whole situation is fucking ridiculous. I know it, you all know it, the DCI knows it, and most of all, the U.S. National Team knows it. I’m now left with a shitty feeling in my gut, and the dread that someday this could happen again.
Comment by Blind Fremen — November 20, 2009 @ 12:26 am
From the way it sounds, I don’t think Gindy should have been DQ’s. He did not state whether he knew at that time or realized it afterwards, nor did he state that he knew it was illegal for his opponent to do so. Perhaps he knew exactly at that time or knew it was illegal; that would make it much more deserving of a DQ in my eyes, but still I think this is really harsh. I guess we’ll have to live with the judge’s ruling, which since none of us talking heads were there, I must assume was made with proper judgement.
As for knocking out the american team, that’s just plain wrong. Why do you even have an alternate if you can’t switch him in when one of the team gets DQ’d. In hockey, if you get sent to the penalty box, don’t they get to send in another from their team (not familiar with hockey BTW)?
Comment by Scrapjack — November 20, 2009 @ 12:44 am
to the random hockey question, no if someone is in the penalty box the team plays 1man short for the duration of the penalty or until there is a goal
Comment by Josh — November 20, 2009 @ 1:05 am
@Scrapjack
I appreciate the sentiment completely, but actually, you don’t. You have to play the man down for the whole period of his penalty.
However, you do still GET TO PLAY. Which is the key.
Comment by Hardinaka — November 20, 2009 @ 1:18 am
As has been stated above, it seems reasonable to conclude Gindy did not understand his card in TWO ways:
(1) He thought previously tapped wolves are eligible to deal and receive damage
and more importantly
(2) He thought the card had a may effect
Support for Gindy believing (1): Why would he ask the question after the match if the two damage would have hit a 3/3 and had no impact? But (1) really is of no import here, (2) carries all the weight and we don’t indisputably know the board position.
Support for Gindy believing (2): Why would he ask the question after the match? If I ask why you didn’t draw a card during your turn, I’m clearly cheating, but if I ask why you didn’t kill me with an on-board trick, I’m not cheating in any sense. Further, operating on an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ implies we would need a statement of a very different flavor from Gindy to make us believe he thought he had gotten away with cheating.
If we take (2), then Gindy has not misrepresented anything. The logic in the WotC article is laughable:
“At the end of the match, Gindy asked why his opponent had not assigned damage to kill one of Gindy’s Wolf tokens when Master of the Wild Hunt’s ability resolved. This made it clear that Gindy knew that one of his Wolf tokens should have been assigned damage, but had chosen not to say anything at the appropriate time.”
In what sense has this made it clear? If post-match I ask why you missed an important Blood Seeker trigger, have I made it clear that it legally should have dealt damage and I cheated? I will be quite disappointed in the officiating if the article truly summarizes their reasoning.
[Aside: The hockey analogy doesn't work, as when somebody goes to the penalty box their team will be down a player for the next two minutes]
Comment by DSA — November 20, 2009 @ 1:23 am
The entire thing sounds retarded to me. It sounds like Gindy just thought that the other player just deal all damage to the 3/3 and was asking why his opponent didn’t deal it to a 2/2?
How is it cheating to not say “Hey you should deal 2 to the 2/2″, that sounds like what it was. Gindy just assumed his opponent was making a play mistake in not dealing lethal to a 2/2. He wasn’t trying to slip a fast one on him. Why else would he even ask that after the game?
I see that as really no different than asking someone in ACR draft why they didn’t Hindering Light that Cruel Ultimatum when they had W/U open rather than just discarding it? People make dumb play mistakes. Welcome to magic. Its not the players job to say “Hey, Idiot, cast your Hindering Light.” Obviously they are going to just laugh about such a play error.
Comment by Bradgasm — November 20, 2009 @ 1:33 am
This whole article and discusion thread is relatively useless and rather unimportant. I completely understand that we need to have some sort of accountability for our own actions, but these are two cases where that shouldnt be quite the case. There is no way to realy and honestly know what his intentions were considering there was way too many possible, plausible, and quite frankly very likely outcomes for the case at hand. With that in mind, the judges made a way too snap and harsh desicion based on what was most likely a poor explanation to a plausably very leagal action. There was a possible shady aspect to the situation and as such I personaly would have said tough shit to the oponnent, considering they should be paying just as much attention to the game as the Kibler play resonates, and just tell all of my judges to keep an eye on Gindy. As none of us are/were there at the time and havent had Gindy confess anything to us we shouldnt even be bothering questioning the whole thing. Quite simply we should if anything be questioning why the DCI thinks they can be psychiatrists. AS for the other situation with Kibler, Im sorry the whole backlash towards Kibler is a great big LOAD OF CRAP!!! The one majorly important thing to realize here is that it was a freaking Pro Tour TOP EIGHT!!!! there was not only a judge at the side of thier table, but three more in the room alone and how many multitudes of on-lookers including the webcast. Firt things first here, wether or not you think Kibler is a shady guy, hes definately NOT a stupid one; and as such wouldnt even consider cheating directly in the face of a judge at such a high level of competition. Second of all here, based on the (new) floor rules the dci just released for us, why wouldnt the entire crowed be questioned and reprimanded for NOT mentioning the case, especially the people watching the live feed and announcing the whole thing. And third, like I said there is a high level of accountability we all need to live by, but once there is a judge at the side of the table, certain completely illeagal and wrong plays are supposed to be kept in line by said judge. I know that a judge cant step in when it effects the game unless it was/is a play just the same as I just described. I know I have had more than 2 or 3 situations where I have been playing in the presence of a judge and been told to stop doing something because its not a possible play. In the Kibler play the judge was supposed to and needed to step in to stop the game and let all effects happen that are manditory to do so, and because he diddnt when he was at the freaking side of a table at the top 8 of a Pro Tour he should be suspended for being a dumb a$$!! I know that if I was sitting in front of a judge I would expect him to stop any and all wrong plays and as such wouldnt really think about reading every card that had script on it to make sure it was or wasnt a may ability. It is in essence the same effect of when you are learning something in the precence of a master/teacher/proffesional if you cant do something you know they will stop you.
Comment by ErykH — November 20, 2009 @ 1:34 am
So you ‘GET TO PLAY’ with a two man team? I’m not familiar with how team-whatever works at worlds, but 2 people doesn’t make sense… And if you are saying the alternate should get to play, then read the last parts of the article again.
But honestly, Kibler cheated. I mean come on… How bad are those judges? The card isn’t in the deck just to have 5 power and flying, they should realize that it did stuff. However, were I kibler, I don’t know if I would have the moral fiber to tell my opponent that he’s punting away thousands of dollars.
When did it get brought to attention that the trigger had been missed?
Comment by Fin — November 20, 2009 @ 2:20 am
I think the reason they dont allow the alternate to come in is the same reason in Football (soccer) they dont allow you to sub in a player after a Red Card. but it does feel that in this case because it disallowed the rest of the team to play it should have been allowed.
Comment by Jake — November 20, 2009 @ 2:24 am
This is absolutely retarded and I’ll explain why. He asked his opponent why he didn’t make a play that was actually illegal(a mistake by Gindy). Then Gindy is banned because it’s ASSUMED he knows that the master trigger is mandatory after he just questioned why his opponent didn’t make an illgela play? So apparently he knows enough that he knows he was cheating but not enough to actually know how the ability works? It’s rediculous to be disqualified for this. This logic is pretty stupid and I really hate the whole magic competitive scene the more I hear about it. I’ve been wanting to make the jump from mtgo to pro magic because I know I’m good enough but apparently magic irl is a lot less about play skill and way more about how well you can abuse the rule system.
Comment by Numdiar — November 20, 2009 @ 2:49 am
Btw, I absolutely hate your articles.
Comment by Numdiar — November 20, 2009 @ 2:52 am
I would like it explained a bit more why it is cheating if you don’t violate any rules, like in your example with the paladin. To me it sounds like cheating in a game by definition is breaking the rules. There was a also a comment here by a judge (?) who claimed that the important thing is the intent, not if anyrules were violated. I could understand this in a murder case, but magic is more like football than a murder case, isnt it? Either you break the rules in a game, or you don’t…then if you intended to break the rules, it is worse. But it doesn’t really come down to actions being morally right or wrong, it comes down to the rules of the game. Or does it?
my question is, in short: is it in magic the gathering illegal to intend to do something that one thinks illegal, but is in fact legal?
Comment by xtra — November 20, 2009 @ 3:23 am
@ Nicolas
I couldn’t agree more, I attempted to sift through the slew of everyone’s comments here and made it only about 3/4 through and said F it. Cheating happens, it really does, comparing this to a guy sitting with all the pros bloom combo in lap and fixing your hand is cheating. This, this is complete garbage. DQ is taking it to the extreme, take literal translation of the rules Sheldon, then take it to the eighth degree, screw the american team? DQ a good guy? Now don’t get me wrong, cheating is different and I don’t care if it’s Kai or Zvi, the DQ would be nessisary, and just. THIS IS NOT CHEATING! I wouldn’t even consider it fraud. Unfortunatley I agree with Zaime here on one thing it doesn’t matter. Just like Kiblers win in Austin, not like you can turn back the hands of time now. But given the fact that this is happening in two huge events in one month says alot. Should there be a petition against Sheldon, (which there never will be, thanks to his ties to EDH, and the butt kissing he does to Maro) I for one would sign it. What a douchebag!
Comment by GP — November 20, 2009 @ 3:40 am
Substitute Charles Gindy for Olivier Ruel: would half of the above posts be quite as fervent in protesting their displeasure in the DQ? I doubt it. There’s more than a little national bias here I suspect.
Besides this, a lot more happened in the investigation than is detailed in the article (above and on MTG.com), it sounds like the DQ was quite warranted (according to a friend doing coverage).
Comment by Guy Southcott — November 20, 2009 @ 3:52 am
It looks like there are two main points of discussion here:
1. Was it Gindy’s intention to not be completely forthcoming about the situation?
2. If so, was the punishment warranted?
The premise of my article is based on the answer to #1 being yes. If it was no, and Gindy’s intent was completely innocent, then the situation is obviously entirely different and it more closely resembles the Kibler situation.
That’s the reason why I tried to be very careful in the way I worded things. I wrote that IF Gindy believed he was not completely forthcoming or was causing ambiguity or thought the gamestate was illegal and did not correct it, then XYZ.
Based on the report on DailyMTG, the head judge believed that based on Gindy’s question, he did not let the ability resolve completely, and that it was his intent to let things remain ambiguous.
For the record, I don’t think Charles is some sort of horrible Mike Long guy. There is a grey area when it comes to letting things slip…and a lot of players have acknowledged kind of just letting things go by without saying anything, but Sheldon correctly (in my opinion) identified this as STILL A FORM OF CHEATING, and intentionally cheating should be met with harsh punishment. Even if it’s “not that bad” of a cheat.
@1024 - Yes, it’s cheating if you Ghostfire a Silver Knight and you think you got away with something, and confess to a judge, you absolutely should be charged with Fraud. Intent to cheat is very important. If you do something and it’s an honest mistake, then it’s not that big of a deal. If you meant to do it, then it is.
@Nicholas Gulledge - I think it’s a great precedent. If it can be clearly demonstrated that you meant to cheat, then you should be DQed. That seems like a perfectly reasonable standard.
@PhilY - Let’s say I also have a Guardian Seraph on the table. Does that make the situation different? Then there are multiple legal scenarios there. So if my opponent doesn’t say anything, can I just assume he meant to do one to me, one to the Hellkite itself, and three to each of three 2/2s? Of course not.
That’s basically the same situation we have here. It was assumed that the opponent made the play that was beneficial to Gindy, but why would he do that? It’s a ridiculous play to make (just as it would be ridiculous to ping your own Hellkite), so doesn’t that show some bad intent?
@Eric Levine - I agree that usually we don’t know what happened during a DQ and it would be irresponsible to comment on it. However, since the head judge basically laid out what happened and his reasoning for it, we have enough information to know what he was thinking and to be able to reasonably conclude that there’s not some other thing on (like lying to the judge) that typically clouds these DQ speculations. But I also agree with you that DQs aren’t handed out all willy-nilly and Sheldon’s an excellent judge and he wouldn’t hand out a DQ if he didn’t have a very good reason to think that it was intentional.
@NovaSandler - I was thinking about the same thing with the Jed example. Judge thought Jed had meant to cheat by the way he was talking (although the judge was almost undoubtedly wrong on that assumption), and based on intent to cheat, he got a DQ. Though I disagree with the application of the policy in that particular circumstance (as I felt the judge was maybe a litte overzealous in the DQ), the policy is sound.
@Alex - Premeditated cheating is bad, but so are crimes of opportunity (which are far more frequent than premeditated actions). The cheating threshold, once it’s crossed, is a DQ. Now you can argue how far above the threshold the action is, but the punishment is the same.
@Numdiar - I love you too, pookie. *smooch!*
Comment by zbeg — November 20, 2009 @ 4:19 am
This incident teaches us one very important thing about playing magic:
Know your cards.
Comment by egal — November 20, 2009 @ 4:50 am
I actually believe that both situations were handled correctly. Gindy talked about it, the judges came, confronted him and decided he cheated. Kibler said he thought the trigger was a may so it can’t be proved that he cheated or not.
My main concern is that from now on most come into play triggers should be may so that it benefits the best players. It’s very annoying when your opp who has made several misplays already in the match but he has been drawing much better, suddenly plays a Bogarden Hellkite and forgets about the abilitie and you have to remind him.
Also in situations like Master of the Wild Hunt it should be added a new rule that if there is an option to distribute damage but someone forgets about it the damage is dealt in a way that doesn’t destroy any creature (meaning that if you have one wolf and hit a 2/2 and you don’t destroy it it’s cheating if you did on purpose but if you have 2 wolves and your opp forgets it’s assumed the damage was dealt 1 to each).
These changes would reward playing well and being focused. While the 2nd option might cause some problems that I’m not seeing right now, making most triggers optional (those that have no disadvantages like sacrificing something) will only benefit the game as a whole.
Comment by TugaChampion — November 20, 2009 @ 4:59 am
This whole situation is ridiculous. Regardless of whether or not Gindy should have been DQ’d his team mates should not be made to suffer like this.
And someone above made the point which I think needs to be considered. Why are Magic’s rules constructed such that you are obliged to correct your opponents miss-plays? At this, the highest of levels, it should be the players responsibility to know how the card works. I don’t think Kibler or Gindy cheated, but merely did what anyone else would in the situation: sharked as best they could. Unfortunately, Kibler played it slick and innocent while Gindy managed to scrub himself out with careless words.
Comment by Rohan — November 20, 2009 @ 5:04 am
Thanks for the great article. I’m glad to see the DCI take the rules this seriously. One ought not win games IRL because paper gamers can break rules that MTGO players cannot.
Comment by BeelzuBob — November 20, 2009 @ 5:08 am
is this real? this is a fairly interesting article, however it seems very “princess - esqe.” no magic content whatsoever and all gossip. whats the deal? seems like a stretch for an article to me and was very short. i hope you didnt get paid for this one. remember…DONT BE A PRINCESS BUD!!!!!!
Comment by steve smith — November 20, 2009 @ 5:21 am
1) RTFC
2) Eric Levine commented saying that Sheldon interviewed Gindy, and I think that it is clear that Gindy punted the interview and thats why he was DQ’d, not necessarily because of what happened during the game.
3) @Blind Fremen hear hear, the nats team should have not been DQ’d
Comment by Stan — November 20, 2009 @ 5:45 am
I agree that it seems like the judge must know more than we’re hearing from the outside, because based on the information we’ve been given the ruling sounds really poor and excessive.
But if there was a better rationale for DQing Gindy, it doesn’t make sense that the judge would issue a half-assed statement justifying his decision, one that didn’t hold together. As I and other previous posters have stated, the fact that Gindy asked the question to his opponent after the match seems to be prima facie evidence that he wasn’t cheating. The whole charge of fraud requires intention on Gindy’s part.
The judge should know that a DQ at this level will be closely scrutinized, so if there was more to it the public should have heard about it.
And no, I’m not saying all of this out of some sort of personal or nationalist fervor. I don’t know or care the first thing about Gindy, and if anything I’d like to see the Brazilians win the team title.
Comment by S. Stewart — November 20, 2009 @ 5:56 am
At the end of the day if Gindy really was cheating he wouldnt of asked the question at the end of the game as a worlds champ he knows the consequences and tehrefore would stay quiet surely?
I do not condone cheating at all but i honestly don’t think anyone on the circuit would be that stupid and admit it, the only people that will ever know are Gindy and his opponent. Gindy asked a simple question about why he didn’t kill his 2/2 leading me to believe it may even of been announced that the damage was done to the 3/3 (there is a chance surely?) From now on i know im not asking questions at teh end of the game!
Comment by Danny — November 20, 2009 @ 6:03 am
@ the point Rohan made -
“Why are Magic’s rules constructed such that you are obliged to correct your opponents miss-plays? ”
I feel they are constructed that way because if a card says something has to happen, then by the rules it has to happen. You can’t not put in to the battlefield the 3 Saproling tokens from Sprouting Thrinax when it dies. There is no may. If the thrinax gets Terminated, they come in whether you want them or not. A Blood Seeker would make it not beneficial to have them come in, especially if you are at 3 life, but you don’t get to choose to not put them in. Since paper Magic does not have an “invisible” framework ensuring non-optional stuff happens like Magic Online or any video game, then it is up to both players involved in the game to enforce it.
“May” triggers mean you have to pay more attention to your opponents cards, so that you don’t miss something that might help you. It is assumed you know your own cards “may” triggers. Therefore if you forget one, it is your own fault and you have mis-played.
“Non-optional” triggers have to happen. If your opponent didn’t follow one, you have to let them know, even if it benefits you to not have the trigger happen. This is because the card “has” to work a certain way. If it didn’t, it would have a “may” trigger instead.
Comment by Elementalkid — November 20, 2009 @ 6:03 am
The best point in the article that’s not being talked about is why on this planet Earth can’t Brad Nelson fill in! You think if Derek jeter wouldve been discovered using steroids in the world series the whole team wouldve been dq’d? No cause that’s idiotic…so ridiculous. I would literally be outraged if I was Todd or Adam. Why can’t they use brad?
Comment by Andrew — November 20, 2009 @ 6:08 am
That’s basically the same situation we have here. It was assumed that the opponent made the play that was beneficial to Gindy, but why would he do that? It’s a ridiculous play to make (just as it would be ridiculous to ping your own Hellkite), so doesn’t that show some bad intent?
You CANNOT start making rulings based on what would be strategically sound. Pinging your own Hellkite is no more ridiculous than declining to use a ‘may’ trigger, but we let that happen all the time.
Comment by MH — November 20, 2009 @ 6:14 am
Well, I think everything has been hashed out pretty well. The smart people realize that Gindy allowed what he thought was illegal to happen, which is very obviously defined in the rules as Fraud, and a DQ is the punishment that occurs for that. The dumb people talk about the way they WISH it would have gone or what they think the rules SHOULD BE and other meaningless drivel. “Sorry officer, I ran the red light but it was the middle of the night and there was nobody there so I figured it shouldn’t matter.” Guess what, the rules are what they are and they are going to get enforced. I recently saw someone get a game loss for insufficient randomization the turn he was going to win the game because he cracked a fetchland and riffled once. Play by the rules ALL the time and these things won’t happen to you.
However, I feel the need to respond to Josh “you shouldn’t in a competitive game have to say, sorry you are trying to lose really hard, but I have to stop you inform you of your mistake and let you win the match now, and 10k+ enjoy,” Dan “This rule is a joke because it rewards players who play bad magic,” and anyone else who shared similar comments.
If the rules allowed you to trick your opponent into doing things that weren’t allowed, all sorts of shenanigans would be attempted EVERY SINGLE GAME! Foreign and textless cards would skyrocket in value. Cast spells through your Chalice, ask “does it resolve?” Attack with Tarmogoyf, wait for your opponent to write down his change in life, hope it’s more than it should be. Remember at levels above FNM, you aren’t required to tell the whole truth when explaining what your cards do, so in the Gindy situation, say at an 8 man side event at a PTQ, your opponent asks what your Japanase Master of the Wild Hunt does, you say, “it taps my wolves and they deal damage to your guy.” All legal so far. You don’t remember the exact text and all the judges are judging the PTQ, so you don’t bother them getting Oracle text (or maybe you just trust me, silly you). With the real rules, my card has to still do what it says it does. With the rules you want, my opponent should be penalized? WHY? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
Comment by Mark Conkle — November 20, 2009 @ 6:17 am
That’s basically the same situation we have here. It was assumed that the opponent made the play that was beneficial to Gindy, but why would he do that? It’s a ridiculous play to make (just as it would be ridiculous to ping your own Hellkite), so doesn’t that show some bad intent?
No its assumed the opponent made a bad play. If i swing in with a 3/3 you block with a 2/2 and a 2/2, i assigned 2 to 1 and 1 tot he other, we never explicitly say it in a game, because its just assumed. This seems the same, how am i to know my opponent doesnt have jund charm etc. There is no reason not to assume here.
Comment by fatguy_poolshark — November 20, 2009 @ 6:20 am
Well, I think everything has been hashed out pretty well. The smart people realize that Gindy allowed what he thought was illegal to happen, which is very obviously defined in the rules as Fraud, and a DQ is the punishment that occurs for that. The dumb people talk about the way they WISH it would have gone or what they think the rules SHOULD BE and other meaningless drivel. “Sorry officer, I ran the red light but it was the middle of the night and there was nobody there so I figured it shouldn’t matter.” Guess what, the rules are what they are and they are going to get enforced. I recently saw someone get a game loss for insufficient randomization the turn he was going to win the game because he cracked a fetchland and riffled once. Play by the rules ALL the time and these things won’t happen to you.
No Gindy allowed his opponent to make a bad play. No where in ANY statements did Gindy say “I allowed my opponent to make an error on a must trigger”. He assumed his opponent chose to divide dmg incorrectly. People make bad plays all the time at the PT, and worlds is even more loose.
Comment by fatguy_poolshark — November 20, 2009 @ 6:22 am
The judges just don’t DQ a person. There is an initial assessment of the situation, if need be there is an investigation, and information is gathered in order to make a ruling and ultimately hand down penalties. Gindy is a pro-level player and should know this. I am far from a pro and I know this. Gindy messed up more than once; he should have said nothing to his opponent, and when he smelled blood he should have presented a better argument. Sure it sucks that the judges DQ’d him, but if I were a Worlds Judge, and a player illustrated that he thought XYZ should have happened (which would have been bad for him) and he ignored it until victory…. yeah, that guy would get the DQ.
Now I will argue this; the rules should be changed so that in order for a cheating violation to be handed out, a rule (other than cheating itself) must be broken. The way it worked in this scenario Gindy could have had the following conversation with his opponent to lead to the same result.
Gindy: “Man, I cannot believe you did not see me draw a card every draw step”
Opponent: “Huh?”
Gindy: “Yeah, I started with 7 cards, played a Forest and a Llanowar Elf, said go, and thought… Gee… I could sure use a 6th card, so during my next draw phase I went ahead and grabbed one. Up to 6 again… lolololololololo”
A similar if not identical cheating violation could be handed down for this. Why? Well because Gindy in this situation thought he was drawing extra cards. Good rule, poor ruling. The other thing this does is make defending yourself against a judge (lying) a profitable business. If you are already on the ropes for possible cheating, how can it get worse to start fabricating truth?
Comment by Joe — November 20, 2009 @ 6:39 am
I think what a lot of you are missing here (and I did read every comment, even though most of you must be of borderline intelligence.) is not what Gindy did IN the game, but what he did AFTER the game. Yes the DQ came as a result of his actions in the game and his assumption that Master worked a certain way when in fact it didn’t, but the error was only noticed because of his comment after the match was over.
I fully believe that at the time he had no intent to cheat and felt that the exchange played out in a legal way, but as the game went on he began to think about what had happened and started to question what he felt was his opponent’s mistake. Feeling obviously like he got away with something, he felt compelled to mention it. WHICH WAS HIS FIRST MISTAKE. If neither player noticed at the time that something was wrong, and if both of them were aware of the rules regarding cheating (Which, after Austin, everyone should be) they should have realized that mentioning any sort of misplay or the like could be grounds for a match loss or DQ.
Honestly, it comes down to the fact that Gindy was either feeling gloaty or guilty and wanted to make sure his opponent was aware of a situation. Whether or not his interpretation of the situation was correct, the simple act of informing his opponent of an illegal game state (whether it was or not) is considered cheating. Like zbeg said in one of the comments, INTENT to cheat is just about as important as cheating itself.
Also, while I do feel bad about the rest of the team, I understand not letting the alternate play. Like the guy who made the football analogy, when you go down a man because of something that guy did wrong, you don’t get to replace him.
Comment by Champ Blankman — November 20, 2009 @ 7:06 am
Nelson should be allowed to participate on the Nats team as the alternate. The “Cheater’s mulligan” theory is a poor one at best and automatically assumes the absolute worst about every single Magic player at Worlds.
Comment by Ryan — November 20, 2009 @ 7:08 am
So all this means for me is, even if I win a pro tour (haha), I will never ever ever talk about a game after it’s over.
If anyone asks me why I made a play or what I was thinking for a play, my answer will always be “sorry, I don’t recall”.
Is that really where magic is heading? Ambiguity is safest?
I miss the Vs. Pro Circuit with their “don’t be a dick” core value.
Comment by JinxM — November 20, 2009 @ 7:08 am
It’s troubling to me that Zaiem begins by questioning the accuracy of the information on dailymtg.com. The dailymtg account and Zaiem’s account are both incomplete so I don’t think it’s very fruitful to speculate on the reasoning behind the disqualification. To do so, we would need to know what Gindy actually said during the match and what he said to the judge afterwards.
Did Menard indicate that he was assigning damage to the 3/3 or were both players just silent about Menard’s damage? If Menard indicated the 3/3, I don’t see what the problem is. Even if the card were worded in a way that allowed the damage to be assigned to one of Gindy’s other wolves, I doubt it would be written so that Gindy would need to point that out to his opponent when he chooses to damage the 3/3 instead of killing a 2/2. If both players were silent but then Gindy brought up the fact that he was aware of unassigned damage after the match, it is still not clear that he intentionally violated the rules. He could have thought that the Master’s damage dealing ability was a “may” ability and that by keeping silent his opponent was choosing not to assign damage.
All we really know is that the head judge conducted an interview and concluded that Gindy had intentionally violated the rules for his benefit. I at least can respect that. This article made me rethink the Kibler situation at the last Pro Tour. I was under the impression that Kibler basically just got away with one because it wasn’t caught in time (I have seen players DQ’d in the past for intentionally allowing triggers to be missed because they thought they were optional).
Personally, I hope that in the future R&D tries not to print mandatory triggers for any effect that is beneficial to its controller the vast majority of the time. It would also be nice if a judge (whatever happened to Riki?) would write an explanation of the penalty guidelines outlining what the underlying principles are behind the Kibler and Gindy rulings (though to do so we’d need more details — I am particularly interested in what if anything was asked of Kibler by judges after the quarterfinals).
Comment by Will — November 20, 2009 @ 7:12 am
I find the disqualification both fair and constructive in the sense that it sends a strong signal to the community about where the line is drawn. My heart bleeds for Gindy because he not only has to leave the tournament but also let down his team - what little I’ve gathered about him he seems like a swell guy -, but it’s healthy for the game to know that intentionally omitting mandatory information is not tolerated.
As for the article, well, I found it to be a rather long way of saying something rather simple. It’s the obedience to rules that’s relevant here; whether or not the decision was right is past now.
Comment by Alash — November 20, 2009 @ 7:55 am
I think Gindy’s perception is pretty obvious.
He made his play, and nothing was said as the 2 damage was presumed to be done to the 3/3 and thus made irrelevant. Gindy thought he had done something slick (not illegal). He made it seem that the opponent had to choose the 3/3 as their target (apparently unaware that his opponent had no choice but to choose that one).
I don’t think he was trying to cheat any more than the guy who binned his creature before blockers were declared. The only difference is that Gindy’s ‘trick’ ended up not being a trick at all. The opponent had no choice but to deal the damage to the 3/3.
I fail to see why not saying ‘the 3/3 takes two damage’ (When it seems obvious that both players assumed the 3/3 took 2) is somehow worse than “I attack with these two guys, and you block and kill this one”. If everything is based on ‘intent’ then both actions are equally bad and the punishment (ie: none or DQ) should be symmetrical.
Gindy didn’t assume no wolf took damage. He simply assumed (as did the other player) that the 2 damage went on the wolf it wouldn’t kill. Regardless of intent, this is on the EXACT same level as the guy who binned his critter before blockers. They are both Douchebags that I wouldn’t want to be on good terms with, but that doesn’t quite mean it is DQ worthy.
Comment by Puddledive — November 20, 2009 @ 7:59 am
The account Zaiem lists here in this article is different than the official account. Alot of people seem to be ignoring that.
Gindy tapped two wolves, one 3/3 and one 2/2, dealing 5 damage. Thats the official recount by WOTC. All of this supposed controversy is BS if you believe the official WOTC account instead of what Gindy and his buddies concocted later as an explanation of why he asked that question so that it sounded legal and he “just didnt know the card”.
The official account says he tapped two wolves.
The unofficial account by Gindy to the writer is that he tapped one wolf.
Enuff said, right?
-M
Comment by Metalman — November 20, 2009 @ 8:02 am
@MH - You’re right. So then I’ll reiterate my initial point that the Hellkite example is the same as the Gindy incident if after the match I say, “Why didn’t you kill anything with Hellkite?”
@Ryan - There are some shady, shady people who play Magic at the highest levels. If there was a “cheater’s mulligan,” I guarantee you that at some point some team would try to take advantage of it at some point. I’d stake my life on that.
@Will - It’s not that I’m questioning Sheldon’s statement, but at the same time there has been an awful lot of chatter on Facebook and message boards about the story being different than the official one. I think it’s fair to acknowledge the existence of this alternate story (and as a matter of fact I think it would be just weird if I didn’t at least acknowledge it). And my stance is that the punishment should still be the same regardless of the details. Was a 2/2 untapped? Tapped? Probably untapped, but maybe tapped…who cares? Was his intention to mislead his opponent or to quietly ignore the damage done by Master of the Wild Hunt? That’s the question that matters.
It’s like if I baked two sets of potentially poison-laced cookies for you. You could discuss the merits of the recipe, the sugar/flour ratio, the use of sprinkles and maybe even frosting…but the only that really matters is whether or not the cookie is going to kill you. The frosting and the sprinkles and the other stuff is completely irrelevant.
Regarding Riki, he’s left the site as both a writer and editor.
I’m pretty sure his email address is in some of his old articles, so if you’re really curious for his reasons you can mail him (it’s nothing dramatic or spicy; I could make up a story about a love affair with an alien baby if you’d like). I took Riki’s place as co-editor this week (so if the site’s been a little rough around the edges this week, you can blame me since LSV’s had basically no Internet access while in Rome).
Comment by zbeg — November 20, 2009 @ 8:22 am
Firstly it sucks that Gindy got DQ’d he seems generally like a stand up guy.
I dont think this affects his reputation going forward (look at Oli) but I do think the DQ is valid.
Sheldon is one of the best and I don’t think he would punt a ruling this big (especially with the US team on the line as well).
I doubt Gindy was trying to “cheat” per say, but to get an advantage from a card working a way it shouldn’t. He clearly didn’t think what he had done was that bad otherwise he wouldnt have asked his opponent about it.
But what he didn’t maintain the game state to try to get an advantage. If we allowed that there could be no pro tour.
The difference between the Kibler and Gindy situations is this;
How many ETB triggers are optional? 50% maybe? definatley they exist.
How many Arena style effects can one player choose not to assign damage?
None, and we all know it would never work that way. Sure these things can be forgotten, as can combat damage but how they work is pretty obvious and unambiguous.
I could belive that AoD is a may trigger. Noone would think that MotWH would work that way.
Am I wrong?
Comment by thom — November 20, 2009 @ 8:25 am
Folks, remember, if you cheat, just say “I thought it was a ‘may’ trigger”.
This whole scenario just shows that Kibler is better as a lawyer in Magic than Gindy.
Comment by john — November 20, 2009 @ 8:32 am
If he did cheat on purpose, why the hell would he mention that play at the end?
The conclusion could be 1 of 2:
1 - He did cheat on purpose and was stupid enough to mention it.
2- He didn’t cheat on purpose, that is why he mention it, and therefore he shouldn’t be desqualified.
I’m leaning towards the first hipothesis, if we assume that the official account is right and gindy made up his version.
Comment by double2 — November 20, 2009 @ 8:32 am
I watched most of Gindy’s match and I saw the “re-created” board that they did after the match when the judge was there. He was attacking with several 2/2 wolves, had an untapped 3/3 wolf that was summoning sick. Gindy thought he knew what master did, as he used its ability to target the 2/2. Wizards is using the 2/2 and 3/3 story as a cover-up, because they don’t want to point out how their precious head judge fudged up and DQ’ed someone for the wrong reason.
Comment by SpectatorfromRome — November 20, 2009 @ 8:34 am
How the fuck do people get to play in a Worlds championship and not understand how cards work? From either side of the table on the situation you should understand Master. . . Sure he was confusing the first couple times you read him, but you’re at Worlds. He’s maindecked in a popular deck. Know what cards do!
This is just pathetic.
Comment by B19 — November 20, 2009 @ 8:45 am
I know Gindy. I know Sheldon. I don’t have any more detail then what has been covered on the various sites. That being said:
* I am confident that Gindy wasn’t trying to pull a “fast one” or “cheat”, at least in the way most people would view it. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t fraud.
* I am confident that Sheldon investigated the situation and ruled accordingly. This does mean its fraud.
We don’t know what happened in the investigation and we don’t know exactly what happened (though we have an official recount, so take that as you will). We have an outcome, and that may not be satisfactory to people, but that is all that really matters.
What does seem to be the case is that there was not clear communication on a manditory effect, and based on the investigation, it was deemed that fraud took place. People may not like it, but that is it.
This is NOT any sort of “retro ruling” or “fix” for Austin. Austin may have highlighted the importance for communication, and could have impacted discussion in the judge community, but this is not vengence. Judges aren’t “out to get” players. Judges are there to protect the integrity of the event.
You are responsible for knowing how your cards work. You are responsible for playing the game within the rules. I know there are people within WotC that feel strongly that abilities should be “may” whenever possible, and this highlights why. WotC and the DCI are doing the best they can and they aren’t going to get everything 100%, but they are trying.
I just hope this doesn’t impact him long term.
Comment by e$ — November 20, 2009 @ 8:45 am
This was a terrible ruling. It’s painfully obvious from all accounts of the spectators and report that Gindy had no intention of being a douche. And at least in my opinion, that’s what matters most. INTENT. The judge ruling was overboard and it’s even more tragic that Adam, Todd, and Brad basically shat on.
Magic needs some serious over hauls in “must” rules. Why does Gindy need to be made an example of? The guy has never had a bad rep. Just a jovial, fun guy.
Damn shame.
Comment by amos c — November 20, 2009 @ 8:54 am
The whole situation is unfortunate, I do feel that the DQ is probably an overreaction to the Kibler situation - both are brought about by the incongruity of mandatory triggers in a competitive environment, and the fact that it puts you in a situation where you may have to adviser your opponent on how to beat you - which is inarguably a ridiculous state of affairs.
However, the **much** greater evil is that the US team disqualification which is just totally asinine. Yes, I am sure that some rule stipulates this (it must or WTF?). However, NO competitive event works like this. Sure, if a participant cheated during the event the team can be DQ’d and their result nullified - but this happened when Brad Nelson could easily have been inserted in Gindy’s slot (using his main event record in place of Gindy’s for tie breakers) and everyone could have moved on. This is what happens in every other competitive event on the planet when someone is DQ’d before a team competition start.
Comment by Robin — November 20, 2009 @ 8:56 am
@double2 - The third, and in my opinion the most likely conclusion, is that he intentionally committed an infraction but thought it wasn’t a particularly severe one (maybe a warning at best), and was blindsided by the DQ. Like not knowing that the penalty for spray painting in Singapore leads to caning as opposed to a small fine in other places like the United States.
(Hopefully that analogy made sense.)
Comment by zbeg — November 20, 2009 @ 8:59 am
I think that it should be the opposite. If you cheat and your opponent is okey with it then it should be allowed.
Comment by Adam — November 20, 2009 @ 9:02 am
I think if you can’t spell “okay”, you should be disqualified.
Comment by john — November 20, 2009 @ 9:11 am
@B19 - Look at the Mori vs. Karsten finals a few years ago. Mori obviously didn’t know how his own Yoseis worked with Seedborn Muse, and if he did, he was cheating pretty hardcore.
As for everything else, it tells me an awful lot about why this game (and its players) get such a bad rap. Gindy did something, intentionally or not, that was officially ruled by the judging staff onsite–and a well respected staff, at that–as cheating. He was then given the penalty warranted in the official rules that said infraction incurs. Gindy seems to be taking it in a pretty stand-up way, and Todd Anderson’s reaction from Starkington Post (basically, “I’m not mad, but I’m really disappointed”) seems to be pretty in-line.
Why is the community having such a huge deal with this? I’d hate to play against you people in a PTQ. There are rules for a reason. Either follow them or get DQed. Simple as that. Be an adult and accept the prescribed consequences.
Comment by Rick — November 20, 2009 @ 9:11 am
Again, this makes no sense. Why would he mention it to his opponent if he thought he had cheated? I think it’s fairly obvious that neither of them knew what the card did.
The french guy was completely clueless, and Gindy thought it was a may effect.
There was just no need to DQ him, and it just solidifies my opiinion of many of the “judges.” You give a little man a little authority and they are likely to abuse it.
Comment by Jim Varney — November 20, 2009 @ 9:11 am
The problem is the violation is not the misplay it is the failure to communicate what Gindy thinks is an illegal board state. Check the wording of the ruling, the rule emphasizes his failure to communicate to keep the board state legal. The fact that the board state is legal if you buy the alternative explanation is irrelevant. Gindy believes that his opponent has the ability to kill one of his other wolves even if he does not. Thus he should communicate to his opponent he should resolve damage from the Master, thus placing the burden of keeping the board state legal on his opponent.
His opponent has to relpy well I can only assign damage to the 3/3 I do, it does not kill it move on. Of course this opens the possibility of his opponent cheating if he knows the text of the Master and then kills the wolf. So the board state is now (potentially) made illegal if these actions were to transpire, but Gindy is no longer culpable for failing to communicate. In fact if the opponent is not aware of the Master’s text and says okay I kill x wolf then Gindy’s misplay hurts him and both players are responsible for a now illegal board state but they have communicated.
Whether your believe the official version or the alternative version Gindy thinks his opponent can kill a wolf as evidenced by the discussion after the game. The point of the official ruling is that this conversation should have happened during the match not after the match. Thus Gindy did take advantage of what he believes is an opponent’s misplay by failing to communicate even if his opponent just assumed it was unnecessary to stipulate damage to the 3/3 as it would not be dealt lethal.
It may not be “cheating” but it is certainly trying to gain an advantage from what Gindy believes is an illegal board state even if that board state is legal. That is why the judge can be called, the violation is the failure to communicate about the board state. The legality of the board state is irrelevant and has no bearing on the rationale that motivates Gindy’s continued play which is my opponent could have done this, he did not, I am not going to say anything. WoTC’s point is he should have said something even if is assessment of the board state was invalid.
Comment by Vkandis — November 20, 2009 @ 9:11 am
The funny part is, he wasn’t disqualified for intending to cheat. Go reread everything again. The game state was clearly defined as there being a legal target. But afterward some people (who choose to remain anonymous, imagine that) claimed that the game state was different.
So you have Gindy, his opponent and a judge all saying one thing, and random people who won’t even nut up and say their names saying another thing. I think I’ll believe the guys who were there at the game playing it.
All Zaeim is saying is it doesn’t matter which is true, because Gindy tried to cheat. But the judge certainly isn’t DQing him because he had “cheaty” thoughts. Learn to read.
Comment by Pete — November 20, 2009 @ 9:17 am
To go back to Eric Levine’s post, we have no clue what was discussed or asked during the investigation. Everyone defending Gindy keeps saying that “It’s painfully obvious from all accounts of the spectators and report that Gindy had no intention of being a douche.” (quoted from amos c)
Does everyone really believe that Menery didn’t interview any spectators, too? Don’t the DCI rules even allow spectators to interrupt and speak up if they see something wrong during a match? Where were these spectators then?
My conclusion: either Sheldon interviewed spectators and came to the conclusion that the second interpretation was mistaken, or that second interpretation only appeared long after the fact.
Comment by KD — November 20, 2009 @ 9:49 am
Two important things to point out.
A) We don’t disqualify somebody for intending to cheat. Imagine you Terminate a Baneslayer Angel, thinking it has Protection from Black. Your opponent “lets” Baneslayer Angel die. You brag to your friend later that you “got away” with Terminating Baneslayer Angel. You certainly intended to cheat here. But you didn’t break the rules. There is no Fraud infraction here.
B) Sheldon Menery conclusively determined that Gindy had intent to cheat. Fraud requires two things: breaking the rules in some way and intent to do so to gain advantage. Sheldon would not have disqualified him without being convinced of both. In other words, he didn’t think it was a “may” effect.
Unsurprisingly, Eric Levine has this one right earlier in the comments. It wasn’t “Oh Mr. Gindy, you said that? Get out of here.” There was an investigation process to confirm all the facts, get a chance to talk to Mr. Gindy and get his side of the facts, and all kinds of other things. I’ve been in and open and shut DQ investigation before (we disqualified the player) and you still take your time and cover all the bases. It would be a disservice to the players otherwise.
Comment by Kevin Binswanger — November 20, 2009 @ 9:50 am
Sheldon is a f-ing idiot. The judging system in and of itself is flawed. I completely agree with Jim Varney - you give a man a little authority and they are likely to abuse it.
Comment by BS — November 20, 2009 @ 9:52 am
I’m not sure why everyone has such a hard time seeing INTENT as an important concept simply due to the board state. Intent to cheat followed the evidence that you had intent because you are a fool for running your mouth about it post game seems evidence enough to me. This ruling doesn’t reward bad players - it punishes cheating, but maybe even moreso being an idiot as Gindy was.
Comment by LSVfan — November 20, 2009 @ 9:58 am
@Mark Conkle: Nobody is saying it should be legal to misrepresent the text of your cards to your opponent. But players can’t be expected to choose the correct play for their opponent. In a JSS once my opponent played a FTK targeting my Shambling Swarm. I had no obligation to tell him that it was as terrible play, or course, I simply had to pick up my guy, tap his Kavu twice, and the neighboring elf once. I didn’t have to tell him he could shoot my Nantuko Shade instead. But if my non-shade creature was a 5/5 Mortivore instead, and my opponent doesn’t know his cards well enough to choose a target for FTK when it resolves, I am obligated now to point out what he could target. The player who didn’t even know what his cards do is given a second chance to make the right play, but the one who did know his cards is allowed to screw up.
The easy way to fix this is to make every beneficial trigger a may, but then we lose cool stuff like being able to give your only creature Pro-red in response to an FTK, forcing it to shoot itself. Or they could add a rule that states that if a player forgets to use a trigger that isn’t optional, it is first assumed that a decision is made that would not impact the game state. If no such decision is possible, the opponent who noticed the mistake should dictate how the ability is resolved. You should be punished for making bad plays and forgetting what your cards do, not rewarded with a DQed opponent.
Comment by Ziege — November 20, 2009 @ 10:02 am
@BS: I’ve met Sheldon, and he isn’t power hungry. Trust me, the kind of people who let the power go to their heads don’t put in the time, work, energy and sacrifices it takes to run the Judge Program and HJ Worlds. And if he was that kind of person, Wizards of the Coast wouldn’t let him HJ Worlds either.
Comment by Kevin Binswanger — November 20, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Also, if you listen to Todd Anderson on The Starkington Post, it sheds a little more light on things.
Comment by Kevin Binswanger — November 20, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Now some non US individuals have been DQ’d for hidden information violations - resulting in the additional national teams being DQ’d. This has to stop - teams have one alternate, let them use it! I don’t think any reasonable person would misconstrue allowing national teams to replace one DQ’d individual with the alternate as Wizards somehow condoning cheating.
Comment by Robin — November 20, 2009 @ 10:08 am
I’m sick of all this bullshit about Gindy’s “intent”. How can one judge someone else’s intent? It’s simply Sheldon’s opinion after “investigating” of whether or not Gindy’s “intent” was to cheat. It’s one person’s opinion. This is why I hate any sport/event that judges play a major role in.
Comment by BS — November 20, 2009 @ 10:11 am
@BS
Gindy allegedly committed fraud, and by definition fraud requires intent. That’s probably why people are talking about Gindy’s intent.
Also, what spectators? Spectators aren’t allowed anywhere except for the feature match area.
Again, I wasn’t there and don’t know what happened. If it’s exactly the way it’s printed, than it’s pretty clear it was a terrible ruling.
If things played out differently than what was printed, then they should post something clarify it. It’s unacceptable to incorrectly report something so major.
Comment by Jim Varney — November 20, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Gindy thought his opponent was dumb and assigned 2 damage to a 3/3 and got disqualified for it?
Comment by Ted — November 20, 2009 @ 10:39 am
I love when someone cheats, suddenly everyone is a morally upstanding person who would never do something like that. Bunch of BS if you ask me.
Gindy deserved this if for nothing else than being a moron.
I too feel sorry for Todd and Adam. They probably put a lot of work into this for naught.
@ Numidar- Since Zaiem has to take your comments in stride, I’ll step in here. You are a turd sandwich. Fuck you.
Comment by dowjonzechemical — November 20, 2009 @ 10:45 am
“Gindy pumped the summoning sick Wolf to become a 3/3 via Oran-Rief, then attacked with the 2/2s. Before blockers, he activated the ability of Master of the Wild Hunt, killing the 2/2 with the 3/3 Wolf.”
“Gindy allegedly thought that Master of the Wild Hunt used the Arena ability for all Wolves, so thought one of his attacking 2/2s should have died in the process.”
I don’t believe this is how it really happened and I believe it played out how the judge claimed. If his plan was to kill his opponents 2/2, then why would he attack and before blocks use MotWH’s ability? Why not attack and see if his opponent trades creatures, then if he doesn’t use the ability after damage(would get 2 damage in and the creatures would still trade or if his opponent blocked he has an untapped MotWH and 3/3). There is no strategic reason to use the ability like he did in the second scenario(unless there is some information I’m missing)
Comment by Killamancer — November 20, 2009 @ 11:15 am
The official version of the story specifically has the wolves dealing 5 damage. That means that during the investigation, Sheldon asked what happened and it was pointed out that 5 damage was dealt to the 2/2. Even if the alternate version did occur, it just means that there were 2 things wrong with the way the Master’s ability was resolved. The already tapped wolf dealing damage and not having the opposing 2/2 deal damage are both infraction-worthy. That one of them was an honest mistake (the tapped wolf dealing damage) doesn’t remove the fraudulent element from the other. Gindy cheated, but odds are pretty good that he isn’t a cheat. I hope he isn’t suspended, but a DQ for the single event is warranted.
Comment by John — November 20, 2009 @ 11:28 am
I feel bad for the team, what a complete joke. Whomever the judges and/or people who made the decision are, they are complete morons. That’s is why the alternate is there isn’t it?
Comment by GODSRAGE — November 20, 2009 @ 11:43 am
No, actually that is not why the alternate is there. The alternate is in case one of the other 3 members of the team can’t show up to the event for whatever reason. Also allowing the alternate to play in place of a disqualified player has issues as well, most of which have been brought up in a number of previous posts, but people seem to just want to gloss over them.
Comment by Mr Weeks — November 20, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Bill Stark who is doing coverage for Wizards has an interview with Todd Anderson on his site, which really sheds a lot of light on the unfortunate situation.
When his teammate can say, “I’m not mad at him” and “He intentionally misrepresented the gamestate” then alot of this controversy in the comments seem overblown.
http://www.thestarkingtonpost.com/?p=1588
Comment by mothr — November 20, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
The judges aren’t anything close to being morons. They are excellent people and damn smart. The problem lies, at least IMO, with some particular rules, such as the Team Alternate, “must” triggers, and leeway in judge rulings.
I don’t think the head judge or any any judge for that matter feels good about the DQ’s or has a vindictive personality. Worlds is supposed to be a great time for everyone and the staff are 100% classy.
While at initial reaction, just like many others, that the ruling was overboard, vindictive, we should keep the comments at least tasteful.
Comment by amos c — November 20, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
One thing that is somewhat concerning about this situation is the way in which damage being dealt is being treated. This applies to both the pros playing at the highest levels of the game and the comments of this article.
Damage on creatures happens and is a part of the game state. Often it clears at the end of the turn and sometimes it does not and is very important. Yet apparently at the highest levels of the game it is apparently considered unimportant. I am not sure if it applies to this situation as many details are unknown but many of the comments talk about assuming damage is applied in a way that is nonlethal and leaving it at that.
It is in fact very important the exact way in which “nonlethal” damage is applied. It does not always matter but it could. It does not always matter how blockers are ordered…but it could.
Magic is a game with many possibilities and the idea that “it probably won’t matter” is an excuse to ignore the details is just wrong. I hope that the highest level of the game is not played by the “it probably won’t matter” mantra.
Comment by Lpettro — November 20, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Oops let me clarify - I did not think the ruling was vindictive lol. o man pants on head retarded here.
Comment by amos c — November 20, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
You make a reasonable point Zaiem. But I still think the result is punishing people not for dishonest thoughts, but for honest conversation afterward. If you post-game say something like “too bad you forgot your broodmother tokens” then you face DQ. If you shut up and walk away…
Comment by Amarsir — November 20, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Honestly, whether or not Gindy cheated or how the rule works doesn’t matter to me. What does is that USA is out of the tournament. That seems like a bunch of BS to me. F this year’s Worlds.
Comment by Nick — November 20, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
I agree with the DQ, and I wouldn’t hold it very hard against Gindy. Man up and move on.
Comment by orion — November 20, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
@zbeg “That’s basically the same situation we have here. It was assumed that the opponent made the play that was beneficial to Gindy, but why would he do that? It’s a ridiculous play to make (just as it would be ridiculous to ping your own Hellkite), so doesn’t that show some bad intent?”
What about the aforementioned case where your opponent has 2 bears, you play Pyroclasm, he plays Harm’s Way (not explicitly announcing damage redirection), and then bins one of his bears? It’s similarly ridiculous for him to not save both of his creatures. Do you feel that you have the responsibility to make him explicitly say how he’s redirecting? (In this case you can just say “you’re redirecting the 2 to your living bear?” without giving away too much, but should you have to say this?)
Comment by Phil Y — November 20, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
“@1024 - Yes, it’s cheating if you Ghostfire a Silver Knight and you think you got away with something, and confess to a judge, you absolutely should be charged with Fraud. Intent to cheat is very important. If you do something and it’s an honest mistake, then it’s not that big of a deal. If you meant to do it, then it is.”
No, you’re completely wrong. Read the rule. “[I]ntentionally and knowingly violates” requires an actual violation and plainly excludes situations where a player thinks he’s making an illegal play but actually isn’t.
Comment by Aten — November 20, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
The moral of the story is when you play magic, read the card even if you have read it 5000 time; read it one more time! This applies to both players! If you are unsure of the ability on the card, read it! If you still have questions, call a judge over; that’s why the judges are there! If you see that you opponent is about to do some other game action before an ability resolves, stop them and ask them what their decision is on the resolution of the ability, if it applies to them! These are simple rules to keep the game state efficient and correct. When you make it to Worlds, the judges expect you to know these simple rules! I could see this being different story if it was a nooby that got really lucky on his/her first time making it to Worlds and this happened, but were not talking about a noob here! When in doubt read the cards!
Comment by Sketch — November 20, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
And my stance is that the punishment should still be the same regardless of the details. Was a 2/2 untapped? Tapped? Probably untapped, but maybe tapped…who cares? Was his intention to mislead his opponent or to quietly ignore the damage done by Master of the Wild Hunt? That’s the question that matters.
Your stance doesn’t matter. That’s what people are complaining about. Intent to misrepresent the game state is only cheating - fraud, based on the fucking rules, if some rule was violated. Your article is just wrong.
I watched most of Gindy’s match and I saw the “re-created” board that they did after the match when the judge was there. He was attacking with several 2/2 wolves, had an untapped 3/3 wolf that was summoning sick. Gindy thought he knew what master did, as he used its ability to target the 2/2. Wizards is using the 2/2 and 3/3 story as a cover-up, because they don’t want to point out how their precious head judge fudged up and DQ’ed someone for the wrong reason.
It’s what I’d do. Once you’ve already screwed something up, the best fix is the one that is least disruptive. They aren’t gonna put Gindy back in and restart the team competitions, they’re just gonna lie if the judge messed up.
This was a terrible ruling. It’s painfully obvious from all accounts of the spectators and report that Gindy had no intention of being a douche. And at least in my opinion, that’s what matters most. INTENT. The judge ruling was overboard and it’s even more tragic that Adam, Todd, and Brad basically shat on.
The rules are more strict on the definition of fraud than “intent,” but I understand what you mean.
Why is the community having such a huge deal with this? I’d hate to play against you people in a PTQ. There are rules for a reason. Either follow them or get DQed. Simple as that. Be an adult and accept the prescribed consequences.
Because maybe the judge thought intent was enough for fraud charges when THE RULES disagree.
The problem is the violation is not the misplay it is the failure to communicate what Gindy thinks is an illegal board state. Check the wording of the ruling, the rule emphasizes his failure to communicate to keep the board state legal. The fact that the board state is legal if you buy the alternative explanation is irrelevant. Gindy believes that his opponent has the ability to kill one of his other wolves even if he does not. Thus he should communicate to his opponent he should resolve damage from the Master, thus placing the burden of keeping the board state legal on his opponent.
Read the rule.
I’m not sure why everyone has such a hard time seeing INTENT as an important concept simply due to the board state. Intent to cheat followed the evidence that you had intent because you are a fool for running your mouth about it post game seems evidence enough to me. This ruling doesn’t reward bad players - it punishes cheating, but maybe even moreso being an idiot as Gindy was.
If the board state was legal, intent isn’t enough according to the RULE.
Sorry for being repetitive.
Comment by mike — November 20, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
I dont see why Gindy should be held accountable for his opponents obvious ignorance in this situation. If the person he is playing against is illiterate and unable to read master of the wild hunt then that is the only situation where he should have to explain what a cards abilities are. His opponent is terrible at magic and Gindy suffers wow that definitely seems fair. NOT!
Comment by Joe — November 20, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
@Ziege: You claim that people aren’t saying it should be legal to misrepresent card text, but it IS LEGAL to misrepresent card text! At a Competitive level or Professional level event, you are completely within your rights when someone asks you a question about what your card does to answer truthfully but not completely. Look it up. I’m saying that if it became legal for you to let your opponent not do things they are required to do, all of a sudden, misrepresenting what your cards do would become commonplace. It’s already legal!
Also, I really am confused as to what this was supposed to mean: “You should be punished for making bad plays and forgetting what your cards do, not rewarded with a DQed opponent.” It was GINDY’S card that was in question, not the opponent’s. I know that some cards are more popular than others, but do you really expect everyone to know every card in the format? What about at a vintage tournament?
Also, as to everyone who is disputing the difference between “may” and “must” triggers: stop it! It doesn’t even apply to this situation. The distinction you are referring to apply to entire abilities that can either be used or not used. The opp. dividing damage in Master of the Wild Hunt’s ability is not it’s own ability, it is part of an ability that was clearly being used because Gindy killed the guy he was targeting with it!
Comment by Mark Conkle — November 20, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
This article is by far the best commentary I have seen on the situation. As both a Judge & a Player, Thank You.
Comment by Gerdef — November 20, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
The details ARE important here though! It doesn’t matter anything about which tokens could have been targeted or that he was wrong about anything at all as far as cheating goes, I agree with that. The detail that IS important, however, is that he asked his opponent why he didn’t assign the damage to “kill one of his 2/2’s”! That’s VERY relevant. If you have an opponent that chooses to have the damage dealt to a 3/3 instead of a 2/2 regardless to the fact that the 2/2 would have died is actually a strategic thing, not cheating! I’m more than willing to allow my opponent let 2 damage go to the 3/3 there and leave it at my opponent being either an idiot, or having a trick. That isn’t cheating, and the way he worded his question leaves me no reason what so ever to think that he was being ambiguous about it at all. ALWAYS give your opponent every opportunity to make a mistake. That’s one of the first laws of ANY game strategy.
Comment by newager — November 20, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
So the lesson here is dont discuss internal game decisions with your opponents. ever.
Comment by locustkiller — November 20, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
“So the lesson here is dont discuss internal game decisions with your opponents. ever.”
Don’t forget “If you get caught, lie your ass off and stick to your story.”
Such wonderful lessons the current DCI policies teach us….
Rise up Magic Players! Next time you see a mandatory action missed at a cometitive REL event TAKE NO ACTION! You may (should) be DQ’d under the current rules stucture. But keep the faith! The DCI’s hand will (eventually) be forced by having every tournament marred by mass DQs and we will receive a rules structure where we no longer have to help our opponents beat us. RISE UP!
Comment by Robin — November 20, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
few comments here …
this is a good reason to abolish paper magic and just play online …
Comment by NL — November 20, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
“If you get caught, lie your ass off and stick to your story.”
See, that’s how Oli Ruel ended up with a 6-month suspension.
I say again, there’s an awful lot of bitching on this thread for such a minor deal as following the rules and respecting the judge’s ruling. If you’re not going to abide by the rules as set forth, please stay the hell out of my tournaments. If you’re going to bitch every time a call doesn’t go your way, you can go be a baby about it somewhere else, while the big boys stay and play the game by the rules.
Having said that, I find it interesting that they were able to reconstruct a play such as this well after the game had ended. If they did, THEY MUST HAVE INVESTIGATED IT A LITTLE BIT, HUH? They’re not going to just throw a DQ out there willy-nilly, are they?
Comment by Rick — November 20, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
@zbeg — sorry, when I said it was “troubling” that you presented two different accounts, I didn’t mean “troubling” in the sense of you trying to distort the truth for your own benefit or anything like that. I just meant that the existence of conflicting stories just further emphasized the fact that we are going on incomplete information here so it’s hard to make much of a moral judgment about what Gindy did.
I feel pretty confident that whatever he actually did merited a DQ. However, I have seen upstanding members of the community DQ’d on technicalities in the past. They weren’t trying to subvert the rules; they just made a mistake which merits a DQ by the penalty guidelines (the judge was using a fairly strict interpretation of the rules, but they could have avoided this if they had been more careful). From what I’ve seen I can’t tell if Gindy’s DQs was one of these or one that was brought on by behavior which was more antagonistic towards the spirit of the game.
One thing I do know is that the information in the article seems incomplete (eg it seems unlikely to me that Gindy would tap a 2/2 for the ability instead of just attacking with it).
Comment by Will — November 20, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
@ Rick - “I say again, there’s an awful lot of bitching on this thread for such a minor deal as following the rules and respecting the judge’s ruling.”
My beef is not with the ruling itself, nor the Judges who made it. My beef is with the rules that make it necessary, and ultimately require judges to make a rulings based on an impossible standard: a players state of mind and knowledge/rules awareness. Maybe another layer of REL needs to be put into place (”professional” perhaps) for Pro Tours (and possibly GPs). But it is unfair to all parties to require players to help beat themselves when the stakes are so high.
Comment by Robin — November 20, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
@Robin: I didn’t write the rules, but I’m fairly sure the reason we don’t allow the alternate to play for the national team in the event of a disqualification is this:
You’re the national champion on… uh… the moon, and I’m the alternate. Yeah. After six rounds of standard on day 1 of worlds, you’re 1-5 and I am 6-0. You’re dragging the team down, man! For honor and the glory of your country, you pull a Trey VanCleave and run peeksies in the draft portion, getting yourself disqualified so that I can jump on the team and help us ride to victory, since I am running hot in the event.
Could be bad, right?
Comment by Eric Levine — November 20, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
also:
Robin said:
“Maybe another layer of REL needs to be put into place (”professional” perhaps) for Pro Tours (and possibly GPs)”
We have that.
Comment by Eric Levine — November 20, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
I don’t care what it is called, the point is that something needs to change. The existing structure is not achieving what it needs to in order to foster the healthiest competitive atmosphere. It doesn’t do a *bad* job - in almost every instance it does a good job. I even understand the thought process behind the current set up - I just vehemently disagree with it and think it leaves a gaping hole in certain respects when it comes to apply it to *professional* event.
I get that now is the time for judges to close ranks and support “the system” and their colleagues, but no one should be asked to make these kind of calls.
Comment by Robin — November 20, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Wow, I can’t believe all the comments!
I definitely think the DQ is too severe just because this may technically qualify as a cheating, a head judge at worlds, to me, should be above the rules and how to do things by the book. Well, the book may not allow this, yet, but one or more match loses would be more than fine here. The system should not have set out an example of young naive magic players being punished for just being honest. All this theoretical stuff will not work as there can never be an absolutely certain mechanism for determining intent. The head judges should have much more space in these rulings.
I doubt the other players who got DQ’ed really deserved it, now. My faith in the system has been shattered along with some other people here I’m sure. When someone is “cheating”, it’s really a much bigger deal than such an embecile ambiguidity. This is a totally paranoid view of cheating that’s being promoted and I believe that’s just very unhealthy for the magic community.
Comment by nameless1 — November 20, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
“After six rounds of standard on day 1 of worlds, you’re 1-5 and I am 6-0. You’re dragging the team down, man! For honor and the glory of your country, you pull a Trey VanCleave and run peeksies in the draft portion, getting yourself disqualified… etc”
1) IMHO This is not as bad as disqualifying an entire country’s team
2) Leaving that aside - surely we could calculate the breakers based on the original player up until they were replaced - or even use whichever set of breakers is worse! Give the team a chance to compete - maybe they run the table and it doesn’t matter. The current rule setup for this is completely indefensible.
Comment by Robin — November 20, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Just a simple suggestion, if we’ll be forced to face tens of DQs at every worlds from now on, just because rules are not fixed, but we’re intent focusing on a much smaller issue, on fixing the team alternate issue….
The Alternate could only play the team matches but not have his score effect the total of the team. Thus, countries are still represented and many fans can feel the national pride.
Currently at least 3-4 out of 50 something countries has been practically DQ’ed. That’s too heavy a toll to put on a nation of fans! Weighing this against any accidental OKing of some forms of “cheating”, I still belive it’s Very unhealthy for the future of magic.
Comment by nameless1 — November 20, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
@Mark: You may not be require to recite the oracle text of any of your cards at your opponents behest, but if your opponent asks what Master of the Wild hunt’s ability does, you say “He taps my wolves and they hit one of your guys”, and your opponent replies “Is that all?”, if you say “Yes” rather than “Your guy can also hit the wolves back” you are clearly misrepresenting your cards.
And Gindy’s situation is not the only time this can come up. If Kibler had known that angel had to destroy something he would have been DQed and his opponent would have been rewarded for knowing his own cards worse than his opponent.
And you are crazy if you think ‘may’ can only apply to whole abilities. Ponder wouldn’t work if that were the case. You cast ponder, you have to look at the top three and put them back in any order, at which point it is up to you to shuffle or not. It could say “you may deal 20 damage to target opponent” and you wouldn’t have to use that part of the ability just because you used the first part. If Master of the Wild Hunt said “That creature may deal damage…” Gindy would not have been DQed, nor would he have been under any obligation to point out that part of the ability unless specifically asked, and the burden to see good plays would be on the person that has to make them.
Tangentially, I have to wonder about the implications for someone that intentionally “forgets” mandatory abilities that would be beneficial to them. Either your opponent points it out to you, and you get to use it anyway, or, should your opponent decide to engage in friendly conversation after the match, perhaps discuss specific plays for the benefit of both players, your opponent gets DQed and you get a free win.
Comment by Ziege — November 20, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
@Robin How is allowing a player to intentionally DQ himself in order to improve his team’s standing better than disallowing the team from competing?
DQ’s should be serious. I believe that there is no problem with the disqualification of a player on a national team resulting in that team being unable to participate in team competition. As far as I am aware, alternates are there in the case of a player becoming unable to compete, not in the case of them being disqualified for cheating. I believe that this, philosophically, makes sense. When you play on a team, your actions should impact the team, whether it be in a positive or negative way.
Comment by Eric Levine — November 20, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
@Ziege
“@Mark: You may not be require to recite the oracle text of any of your cards at your opponents behest, but if your opponent asks what Master of the Wild hunt’s ability does, you say “He taps my wolves and they hit one of your guys”, and your opponent replies “Is that all?”, if you say “Yes” rather than “Your guy can also hit the wolves back” you are clearly misrepresenting your cards.”
Well, your example is a case of an option of how to respond illegally and an option of how to respond legally. Other legal responses include, “ask a judge,” “I’m not going to tell you,” “No, that’s all,” “If your guy was a Skulking Ghost he would die before the trigger resolves,” etc. All of those are perfectly legal, as is just not responding at all. However, it doesn’t become a problem if I’m not allowed to CHEAT by letting my ability do something against the rules.
You are right that “may” can apply to just part of an ability, but the way people were talking about it, it really seemed like they were confusing the issue.
Comment by Mark Conkle — November 20, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
I think the best solution for the teams situation is that the 2 remaining players still get to acumulate points from the indivudual competition towards the team standing. Also they still get to play the team portion, but the Dqed player auto loses thier match, so in order for the team to win, the other 2 players need to win thier matches.
While you are still punishing the team for having a cheating scumbag on thier team by maikng it harding to acumulate points, you are still giving them a shot to make some more money.
Also if they do make money, the dqed players share should be split between the other 2 to somewhat compensate the didadvantage of being a guy down.
Comment by Brett Rogers — November 20, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
I think Vs solved this simply by making there be no default state for a “may” trigger. (this would be a third option that Ziege missed.) You are then required to remind your opponent about them just like mandatory triggers.
You lose the “skill testing” component of having to remember every trigger, but you gain a welcome relief from problems like this one, as well as other “dick” moves, like trying to distract your opponent so they forget stuff, etc.
Comment by JinxM — November 20, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
I think that this is as simple as Gindy dying for Kibler’s sins. I think its unfair and puts the DCI in a bad light.
Comment by W A MacMurdo — November 20, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
@Mark: I’m pretty sure if an opponent asked what your card does and you said “I’m not going to tell you” you’d get at least a warning for unsportsmanlike conduct. Normally the solution is just to read the card, unless it is textless or in a foreign language. In that situation, if you knew what the card did exactly, but refused to say, forcing a judge to look up the oracle text, that sounds like a clear case of stalling. You certainly couldn’t tell your opponent “no, all master of the wild hunt does is make my wolves hit your guy. There is no other part of the ability.” That would be like saying “Baneslayer Angel has protection from red.”
Comment by Ziege — November 20, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
I have a question.
If it were some random that got dqed for this and not the US national champion would you care as much? my guess is probably no.
Comment by Brett Rogers — November 20, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
Its got nothing to do wit the Kibler situation. Its apples and oranges.
If after investigation the head judge deems Gindy to have cheated then thier only recourse is DQ. If you cheat there are 2 options DQ with ban, and DQ without ban, anything less owuld not be acceptable.
They absolutely should err on the tough side when it comes to cheating at pro tours.
Comment by Brett Rogers — November 20, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
I think everyone is missing the point. Gray Ogre does not block Paladin En-Vec
Comment by Denog — November 20, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
@Ziege:
Unless we’re playing a regular REL event, I am under no obligation to tell you what my card does. Under the definition of “Derived information” in the Magic Tournament Rules, you will find the following entry:
•Game Rules, Tournament Policy, Oracle content and any other official information pertaining to the current tournament. Cards are considered to have their Oracle text printed on them.
Now, while I can’t lie about what my cards do (”Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly,”) I don’t have to tell you (”Derived information is information to which all players are permitted, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining[.]) (An exception to this exists at Regular REL events, where all derived information is instead considered free information.) If you asked me what my Master of the Wild Hunt did at Worlds, I would most likely reply “Read the card” or “You can call the judge and ask for the Oracle text of the card.”
Comment by Eric Levine — November 20, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Addendum: I don’t even have to answer at all. I could just say “Stuff,” or “it’s Master of the Wild Hunt,” or nothing at all.
Comment by Eric Levine — November 20, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
@Robin - The U.S. team members are still competing individually, they’re just barred from the team portion. It’s not like they DQed everybody. I’m still pulling for Yurchick and Nelson, who stand a chance to make Top 8, and Nelson still has ROTY potential, plus a shot at levelling up once more for next season.
The situation sucks, yes, but it’s not indefensible. Eric Levine has been presenting lots of great arguments as to why the system works the way it does.
Comment by Rick — November 20, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
It should also be noted that the remaining US (and Canadian and Turkish) National team members will still be receiving prize money for the team competition. (Teams coming in 9th place and lower receive $3000/team.)
Comment by Eric Levine — November 20, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
Complete garbage, Kibler saying that he thought it was a may should have been grounds for a life ban or something. It’s the top 8 of a PT and once he untaps, maybe he shouldve checked to see if it was a may ROFLCOPTERMAO and he obviously knew about it the way he talked about it after, and nothing happened, jaysusss
Comment by sneakyhomunculous — November 20, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
Im more interested in the Draft DQ’s I wonder if there is any way that you could get your opp. DQ’d by just being too open with your own cards.
The didnt go too far into the details of exactly what happened with these guys.
On Gindy I can see a situation where during the resolution of the ability he assumed something was going to happen (even though what he though may not have been possible) but wasnt thinking about it as things moved on and only after the match recalled that something was off. And was chalking it up to missed play like most of us would and then asked his opponent about it trying to figure out why things were different than he was thinking they would be. (all very innocent)
Often times we get so far ahead in our thinking about the game and combat that we dont even notice unexpected results (like missed triggers or partial resolutions) till too “late” according to the rules.
I think these game state infractions should have a different penalty structure. such as aqcuiring penalty points that will reduce your tie breaks etc.
There is never going to be a fool proof system that doesnt allow for some “abuse” of the penalty system. But I think DQ in this situation is much too harsh in what amounts to basicly sloppy play by him and his opponent.
I think something we are not seeing in the investigation resulted in the elevation to fraud and not simply the asking of the question. I suspect it was something akin to his opponent having no idea he was able to return damage at all. I suppose we will never really know.
Comment by Chris Young — November 20, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
To those who said that Brian Kibler is a cheater and should not deserve the win, rethink again.
It was the top 8 match which was broadcasted live. Dozens of you are probably watching that match online and many others during the match.
During the match, if any of the spectators see any mistakes, he or she can jolly well ask for a judge to clarify on that matter where both players missed the trigger, and not wait till people start pinpointing it’s Kibler cheating on that matter after the game.
That is not sportsmanship, for those who accuse kibler regarding that matter. Because a whole lot of spectators only realise the missed trigger after the game, like Brian Kibler did. The game was proceeded as normal and nobody recalled that there was something missing.
So how can you say Kibler cheated when in fact, almost everyone didn’t notice the trigger until later on? Even for those who noticed the trigger may have thought that it is a may effect, like Kibler did.
So, please give kibler a break. You guys are merely bullshitting because you felt unjust to Gindy’s case and thus tied it to Kibler’s case when the fact is that both cases are not that similar.
Comment by V — November 20, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
1) If you are playing at any level, but especially worlds, you should know your cards. No exceptions. If you don’t know your cards and get penalized for it, it’s your own fault.
2) If you are intentionally misrepresenting game state, you are intentionally misrepresenting game state, even if your representation was wrong.
3) What would you guys say against, say, Turbofog, Ux Mill, Runeflare Trap.dec, etc if a Howling Mine trigger was missed? That’s a very critical thing for those decks, and you can’t “just miss them”. That’s like saying “oh, my deck’s empty, I’ll just forget to draw a card on my draw step”. Sorry, no dice. It’s not a “may” for a reason. You cheat, you get DQ’d. Simple as that.
Also, I’m Canadian. Our team was DQ’d too, but I’m not whining about it.
Comment by Ertai87 — November 20, 2009 @ 9:50 pm
I guess the next time anyone noticed they are accidentally letting something happen that should have been resolved such as the wolf damage, now people will shut up about it and actually do the cheating instead of being honest.
Considering it technically was a break in the rules despite the odd way the judges found out about it, he should have gotten his DQ, but they should have given him a little benefit of the doubt for a replacement in the teams section just for his honesty.
This way it just tells other players if they miss triggers or such, they need to be quiet.
Comment by Dachami — November 20, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
I’m repeating myself because this is a 100+ comment thread and people who are posting are not reading the thread. (And why should they? It is massive and repetitive.)
The head judge chose to DQ Mr. Gindy based on the investigation that was conducted. We don’t have the information that the head judge had, and therefore we [b]cannot[/b] make a fair determination about the situation.
Gosh, I hope bolding works.
Comment by Eric Levine — November 20, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
Can’t Gindy argue that he was not completely informed about the communication guidelines and was required to clarify with an opponent how he was doing damage? Gindy may think it’s perfectly legal not to draw attention to an opponent forgetting a must trigger, because the opponent could have made choices during the must trigger such that it had no effect.
For instance, if i have 8 2/2s and my opp has niv-mizzet and casts stroke of genius targetting himself for 8 and doesn’t say anything about dead creatures or damage to me, who am I to assume he didn’t want to do 1 to each of the 2/2s?
As it is, that’s not how the rule works, so Gindy broke a rule on communication. To me, this doesn’t seem like Fraud, it seems like misunderstanding of the rules.
Comment by Orie — November 20, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
The DQ was a bit harsh considering that Gindy backtracked and then his teammates had to be taken off the team competition, too. But I do applaud the fact that the judges are trying to be professional about these things.
Still how legit is the team championship without the US competing? I would have loved to see Brad Nelson play as the alternate.
Comment by kakashi — November 20, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
24 hours later and it’s still ridiculous.
None of the released materials have shown any evidence to point away from the high probability that neither player knew what the card did.
Comment by Jim Varney — November 20, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
@ “Can’t Gindy argue that he was not completely informed about the communication guidelines and was required to clarify with an opponent how he was doing damage? Gindy may think it’s perfectly legal not to draw attention to an opponent forgetting a must trigger, because the opponent could have made choices during the must trigger such that it had no effect.”
- Hi2u officer. Why are you arresting me for dealing drugs? I wasn’t informed that dealing would result in an arrest!
seewhatididthere?
Comment by Random — November 21, 2009 @ 1:02 am
Jesus fucking Christ I hope judges and influential people read this because 160+ comments on a DQ proves that the rules need to be changed. There should be damning evidence, beyond question or doubt of any kind, that a player was blatantly and maliciously compromising the game in order to earn a DQ. This was obviously not the case. Since they are not providing “all” the evidence, I assume they have nothing else. In other words, they probably left nothing out, but want us to think they made a more thorough investigation. Did Gindy give a hearty “fuck you” to a judge before punching him in the face? Somehow I doubt that. I also doubt that the reigning U.S. national champion would cheat, especially at Worlds. The feeling I get from this fiasco is similar to the feeling I get when I hear about a terrible crime on the news; it is WRONG. There is a fire in my gut and my throat is tight from restraining a scream of rage. I’m not saying Gindy should not have been penalized. However, the punishment went WAY overboard on a minor misinterpretation.
My argument is probably gonna get shot to shit. Fuck it, I know I’m right, even if I can’t properly articulate.
Also, @ sneakyhomunculous, you are a terrible person. May your hands always be mulligans. Let this be a curse. Too extreme? Probably. But I know you’d do the same or worse to someone else. Hopefully you’ll see the light and become a better person one day, but I doubt it.
Comment by Blind Fremen — November 21, 2009 @ 1:32 am
Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in:
Gindy: “Why didn’t you kill my 2/2 with your blocker?”
Opponent: “Your 2/2 was tapped so it wasn’t hitting my blocker”
Gindy: “Ah right, OK.”
Things happen in the game, both Gindy and his opponent might have known the situation exactly but later when the exact memory fades he asks a question to remind himself. Instead, what happened here was:
Gindy: “Why didn’t you kill my 2/2 with your blocker?”
Opponent: “… JUDGE!”
From the Infraction Guide:
A person intentionally and knowingly violates or misrepresents rules, procedures, personal information, or any other relevant tournament information. Note that Fraud, like most cheating, is determined by an investigation and will often appear on the surface as a Game Play Error or Tournament Error.
So here we have something that was a 100% correct play, no game state manipulation, no nothing, just a guy THINKING he was pulling a fast one? That’s just fucked up…
So basically the next time in a tournament I can just lose and call a judge “My opponent asked why I didn’t assign first strike damage with my Baneslayer for the win” and get him DQ’d? Nice.
Comment by MH — November 21, 2009 @ 4:43 am
Basically this all boils down to: “Don’t talk to your opponent after the game, just return the result slip. You may growl and bark at your opponent if you wish.”
I seriously don’t like what this says about the community, or Gindy’s opponent. He does the math “2/2 hitting a 3/3, since that other wolf isn’t hitting it, meh whatever” then after the match he’s deliriously happy his opponent made the mistake of mentioning something about it. “JUDGE!” time.
And of course, the judges are on edge due to the Kibler outrage. So they decide to make a statement by DQing Gindy. Nice.
Comment by MH — November 21, 2009 @ 4:55 am
Haha I just watched the Todd Anderson interview and when he mentioned Adam flipping out I got the best mental image ever.
As for the ruling, so unbelievably bad. I understand it’s worlds but is that really grounds for a DQ? A match loss seems more appropriate.I feel bad for all three, especially Gindy who loses around 2k in this ordeal.
Comment by Freshlop — November 21, 2009 @ 5:19 am
@Freshlop: The penalty for fraud is DQ. End of story. That’s the penalty, and that’s what happens when you commit it.
@eveyone and their brother: You weren’t at the investigation. The judge determined THROUGH INVESTIGATION that fraud had been committed. We don’t know what happened during the investigation.
Comment by Mark Conkle — November 21, 2009 @ 7:45 am
I must say that I think Eric Levine understands this better than others (is this the same Eric Levine who used to do the judge column here? that might explain it).
I understand everyone who is upset with this ruling for whatever reason, but the FACT of the matter is that we are all operating with imperfect information. We don’t know the whole story. The people who know the whole story are Charles Gindy, and Sheldon Menery + any judges who helped him conduct the interviews. They did indeed post something on the Worlds page including some talk from Sheldon, but that does not at all convey the entire story.
We see this kind of thing all the time whenever a new set comes out, or a new mechanic emerges, or magic comes to the xbox live arcade, or whatever. There is certainly extra work done and extra information gleaned “behind the scenes” that the governing bodies decide not to share for whatever reason, and the rest of us are just going to have to deal with that.
As far as the National team thing goes, I am totally fine with how that worked out. I would have loved Yurchick and Anderson finally get their big breaks by becoming National Team Champions, but I believe that if you are on the national team, you should be representing the United States. If you succeed, your success should be reflected on the national team, if you fail, that failure should be reflected as well. And if you do something dishonest, do so with the knowledgeg that your action should be and very well might be reflected on your team as well.
The moral of the story is to read/become VERY familiar with the rules before a major event, so you can become fully aware of what is acceptable and what is illegal.
Comment by Andy Hurst — November 21, 2009 @ 8:31 am
It’s a bit unfortunate for Gindy but a penalty was definately correct here. Disqualification or game loss is a tough choice and depends on what exactly happened, if Gindy just missed it because he thought it was a ‘may’ trigger a game loss would be correct i think. If Gindy however knew it had to be assigned but just assumed it was done to the 3/3 or knowingly didn’t inform his opponent and just continued a DQ is definately correct. The statement doesn’t make it clear what really happened though and thus I just assume the judge made the correct ruling after investigation.
THe difference between Kibler’s situation and this one are that Gindy’s permanent was the cause for the effect. There is a line between not knowing your own cards and not knowing your opponent’s cards I think.
Comment by Markwerf — November 21, 2009 @ 8:35 am
@ Blind Fremen:
“I hope judges and influential people read this because 160+ comments on a DQ proves that the rules need to be changed. ”
Just because 100 people (who are not experts and do not have the information they need) think something is wrong does not mean it is.
Comment by Eric Levine — November 21, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Not to mention that even among non-experts, it’s far from unanimous. 160+ comments were not all against the DQ.
Comment by Mark Conkle — November 21, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Imagine that! Pro tour players cheat? who knew? sarcasm… who was it that said “if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying”? hence the reason why i stick with casual gatherings like multiplayer games. grumble, grumble…
Comment by Dman — November 21, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
I see no proof in any of the accounts given that show that Gindy knew that assigning damage was a non-may ability. He could have thought it was a may ability, and by the fact that he asked his opponent about it after the game, it figures that he did think it was a non-may ability. If he committed fraud, I don’t see the logic behind him talking to his opponent after the game and saying “Hey, did you notice that I cheated you? Yeah, I totally cheated you, why didn’t you catch that?” which is essentially what he’d be doing if he knew it was a non-may ability. But for example, if someone has a Disciple of the Vault in play, which has a may ability, and they never say “Lose a life,” then you really shouldn’t feel compelled to point that out during the game, and it wouldn’t be unthinkable after the match to say “Hey, did you realize that you weren’t using your Disciple triggers?” That seems to me to be what Gindy was doing, asking his opponent if he knew that he was missing damage assignment that (I believe) Gindy thought were may abilities.
Comment by Lackeos — November 21, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
1024 Said: “What about if you steal something from a store, then come back and confess, only to find out it was a free sample as part of a giveaway? Are they going to call the police on you?”
This is a very interesting analogy for me. I am in law school right now taking Criminal Law, and one of the things that we have discussed is something called pure impossibility. Pure impossibility means that you cannot be held criminally liable for something that you thought was illegal at the time, but turned out to not actually be illegal. This sounds like the hypothetical that you just posed.
I think the difference with Gindy’s situation here is that even though he may have thought he was doing something illegal, and said “Why didn’t you kill one of my 2/2s,” there was still another alternative that did not happen (the 3/3 taking 2 damage). Even though this would likely have no effect on the game, it still is a required result of the ability. In your above hypothetical, there is no other required result: The thing you “stole” was really a sample, that’s that. Here, something was required to happen and didn’t.
Still, this whole situation really leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth, but you can’t peg this one on the judges. I understand the reasoning behind their barring of the other two national team members from play as well (”Cheater’s mulligan” as you put it) but I really feel bad for Todd, Adam, and Brad for losing a chance to represent the USA.
Comment by Sean C. — November 21, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
@ Lackeos “I see no proof in any of the accounts given that show that Gindy knew that assigning damage was a non-may ability. ”
You were not there. You cannot and will not ever have all of the information you need.
Comment by Eric Levine — November 21, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
The number of people repeating that we don’t have full info so the judges must be right is so awkward.
Part A is true but doesn’t mean that part B is also true. Clearly people are biased assuming that Gindy didn’t cheat but all the judges posting in this thread are biased in assuming that the HJ must be correct.
Comment by sti — November 21, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
@Sti: I’m not saying Sheldon is automatically right because we don’t have the info.
I know Sheldon. I like and respect Sheldon. Of course I think he’s right. However, objectively, what I’m trying to say is that we really can’t know one way or the other.
Look for an article from me on Monday…
Comment by Eric Levine — November 21, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Moral of the story?
Keep your effin’ thoughts to yourself, and don’t talk to your opponent. Sad but true.
Comment by michaelv — November 21, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
@ Eric, I will look for the article on Monday. And I hope you can provide ALL the details this time. Let it be known that I wasn’t necessarily implying that the judges made an incorrect decision, etc. I strongly believe that the rules need to be A) presented clearly before each (high level) tournament; and B) possibly changed in some way to appropriately handle situations like the Kibler and Gindy episodes. I believe there ought to be some sort of document on display at tournaments that outlines the general grounds for penalties (with “If you are unsure, CALL A JUDGE” in bold at the bottom). In addition, the head judge might also publicly address the most important (new) rules and game play concerns at the start of the tournament. I haven’t been to a Pro Tour, so I do not know if these things are already being done, but if they aren’t, then they very well should be.
Comment by Blind Fremen — November 21, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
At the pro tour you are expected to know the floor rules.
Its not a pre release, the judges are not there to mother you through the tournement, they are there to protect the integrity of the tournement, and enforce the rules as they stand.
Comment by Brett Rogers — November 21, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
Thanks Brett.
@Blind Fremen: Should they also post the entire 100some page rules of the game?
Comment by Mark Conkle — November 22, 2009 @ 3:24 am
“Moral of the story?
Keep your effin’ thoughts to yourself, and don’t talk to your opponent. Sad but true.”
Or, alternatively, actively communicate with your opponent to prevent an illegal game state. Which is what you’re supposed to do anyway, lest you get a disqualification for cheating.
*Not* talking to his opponent is what got Gindy DQed. Had it been brought up right away, it probably would have resulted in, a simple warning. Is that seriously so hard to understand? It’s right there in the Infraction Penalty Guide, Section 3.10, Failure to Maintain Game State:
“This infraction is committed by a player who has allowed another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error and has not pointed it out it before he or she could potentially gain advantage. If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out other players’ illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, the infraction is Cheating — Fraud.”
Bang, right there, black and white. In both cases of the story, Gindy intentionally withheld any clarifying statements because he thought one of the potential outcomes was bad for him, which is defined as Cheating — Fraud. Had he simply said, right away, “What are you doing with damage?” the whole situation would have blown over.
I think it’s amusing that it took this long for an actual quotation from the IPG to show up. What Gindy did was 100% illegal, no matter how innocent he may have felt in doing it. So the moral of the story is, in fact, DON’T CHEAT. Little white lies have a tendency to spiral out of control when you get caught.
Comment by Rick — November 22, 2009 @ 5:43 am
@Blind Fremen:
“And I hope you can provide ALL the details this time. ”
That’s not my job. I was not at Worlds. I will not have those details. You are missing the point entirely.
Comment by Eric Levine — November 22, 2009 @ 9:55 am
@ Eric
Well then your article will just be a rehash of this article + some comments…great.
Comment by Blind Fremen — November 22, 2009 @ 11:26 am
But it’ll be from a judge’s perspective! Which is… no. I’m not even going to pretend that I think it’ll be different. Perhaps there will be details included. If so, it will be a good article and one well worth reading. If there is nothing included that is new, I would be inclined to think he would not waste our time writing it.
However, that is fully possible. And if that happens, it will be a waste of bandwidth and time, yes.
Comment by Seeker — November 22, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Well, gee, thanks for assuming that just because I don’t have any new information, I don’t have anything relevant to say!
Comment by Eric Levine — November 22, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
This is retarded. End of story.
Comment by Jordan — November 22, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
I just think that it’s fully possible (and indeed, probable) that every point worth making with the set of facts we’re working from has already been made here. I mean, this is one giant-ass set of comments we got here.
Comment by Seeker — November 22, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
I got bored about 3/4ths of the way through the comments so i’m sorry if this has been suggested already. But in the case of a DQ could they let the alternate come in for only the team portions of the event? While the team still wouldnt have a good shot at winning they could still try and pick up more points. This also seems like it would get around alot of the negatives people have been bringing up over letting them use an alternate.
Comment by Ben — November 22, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
I think its just dumb to DQ after a match. If its that important to maintain the game STATE then make a call DURING the game. The game is over, what is done is done. Yeah, Reading is tech but still, things like this are why many players never wish to compete in tournaments.
Comment by Justin — November 22, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
Hi!
Let’s think in the way gindy’s thinked in the game
I use the ability to kill one creature, and then my oponent did nothing
just bin the creature … May he though it was a may ability, and thats fine!
Or maybe he knows that it oponent have to distribute damage on his tapped wolves involved in the ability (no matter if was only the 3/3 or the others too). in this scenario he’s cheating all the way…
The only problem with this proccess’s, it’s the card he was playing, he has to know what his cards does, i think.
It was not a pre-release xD it’s the worlds LOL
It happens, and if it was not intentional by gindy, i’m sorry for that, but it’s the way it goes and have to recognize he failed in not know what the card does, no ones had guilty but gindy….
By the way, i think kibler it’s a worst scenario on PT austin, and my opinion is that he knows what the angel does…here in portugal happened a scenario close to the kibler’s one.
in quarterfinal’s, player A removed a Putrid Leech with a Path to Exile, and by turn 5 or 6, Player B played a Profanne command returning the removed leech to game, i see the error, but the players didn’t, i called a judge, the judge talked with other and the games continues without any change, so there was a illegal play, and nothing happened xD
i realised that if player b tryed to cheat, after caught, he steel have the advantage of cheating, a exiled putrid leech may win that game…. what a dci rules LOL
At least gindy had the courage/curiosity to ask the opponent, showing one thing, he knows something about his card that his opponent missed. A may ability or a You have to…
Anyway, Congratulations Andre Coimbra
Tuga Power :p
Comment by Elmeck — November 22, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
With the dirth of articles on the site lately I just want to Congrats Webb as the Top US player at Worlds 12th overall Why does LSV get top billiing here again? j/k
Comment by Chris Young — November 22, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
This is unbelievable. Why would anyone go to Taco Bell if there’s a Chipotle within the same distance?
Comment by Aceman — November 22, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
What I don’t get is why Gindy even had to ask his opponent why he didn’t kill his 2/2 guy. What could Gindy possibly even get out of it? Best case scenario, verbal confirmation from his opponent that yes, he is an idiot who doesn’t rtfc?
Comment by nickolai — November 22, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
wow. Sucks. Glad I’m not that judge…
Comment by Wes — November 22, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Wow Zaiem!!
Your article is so disappointing. First of all people knowing Gindy will tell you that he is a very clean guy in terms of play. He was never involved in any kind of cheating or unsportsman behavior prior to this event. Can you explain to me why someone u believe he had the intend of cheating would ask his opponent why he let him do that at the end of the match? This would be either stupid or at least illogical for someone who “planned” that as you seem to believe.
I can’t stop myself thinking if Wizards paid you for this article…
Comment by Marlon — November 22, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
I don’t remember people getting this irate when Max Bracht was DQ’d for Stalling a couple of years ago, meaning the German team couldn’t participate in the team event. I think people have lost some objectivity in this matter.
Comment by Guy Southcott — November 23, 2009 @ 2:30 am
@ “Can’t Gindy argue that he was not completely informed about the communication guidelines and was required to clarify with an opponent how he was doing damage? Gindy may think it’s perfectly legal not to draw attention to an opponent forgetting a must trigger, because the opponent could have made choices during the must trigger such that it had no effect.”
- Hi2u officer. Why are you arresting me for dealing drugs? I wasn’t informed that dealing would result in an arrest!
seewhatididthere?
Except in your metaphor what he would be doing would be THINKING ABOUT dealing drugs
Comment by Orie — November 23, 2009 @ 5:08 am
QFT:
As a previous posting notes, the key here is that Gindy asked the question which resulted in the judge getting involved. That by itself demonstrates that he didn’t intend to cheat and that the ruling is absurd in its severity. If he was cheating, why would he have said anything after the match??
His question demonstrates that he essentially thought that the Master of the Wild Hunt’s ability had a “may” trigger.
The ruling is appalling.
Comment by S. Stewart — November 19, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Comment by JC — November 23, 2009 @ 5:22 am
“@ Lackeos “I see no proof in any of the accounts given that show that Gindy knew that assigning damage was a non-may ability. ”
You were not there. You cannot and will not ever have all of the information you need.
Comment by Eric Levine — November 21, 2009 @ 1:45 pm”
This is a cowardly line of defense. Because we don’t have the perfect details we have to throw our hands up and say “there’s nothing you can know about this situation?” There is much disclosed information (or disclosed sets of possibility) in this case, which allows for much legitimate discussion.
Comment by JC — November 23, 2009 @ 5:38 am
Gindy didn’t “think about” (in caps) breaking the rules, he actually did. Unintentionally? we don’t know. Doesn’t matter.
Comment by Random — November 23, 2009 @ 5:47 am
While I think that this may turn out to be the best ruling I have ever seen in my 12 years of playing and watching the game, I think that this ruling may also open the door the load of problems.
Simply put, the DCI has shown that it will not tolerate people trying to get an unfair advantage through unfair means but the problem is that by doing so, you’re basically telling everyone to plead ignorance in every case. If Gindy hadn’t said anything, nothing would’ve happened and thus, everyone is going to follow this example and just keep their mouth’s shut. This immediately creates a problem in the honesty department of this game.
I guess this could work both ways however as it’ll also tell players that they have to be as vigilant as ever when noticing illegal game states because no one is going to openly admit to fraud after this.
Comment by Dan — November 23, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
If your 3 bears are the only creatures on the field, and your opponent plays a Hellkite and fails to announce where the damage is going, can you then Bolt his Hellkite and claim that it should die because obviously he must have assigned at least 2 damage to it to avoid killing any of the bears?
Comment by JonathanW — November 25, 2009 @ 3:19 am
ZOMG posting in a legendary thread!
There’s alot of cheaters on the Pro Tour, although in this case the fact that Gindy brought the topic up himself clearly implies he didn’t think he was cheating…
Continue the flaming!
Comment by Someguy — December 1, 2009 @ 5:10 am