PTQ Ft. Lauderdale Tournament Report 10/22/11
PTQ Ft. Lauderdale 10/22/2011 Head Judge Report
Find other articles in the Judge Article Index.
|Original Site||Judge Wiki|
|Link||This article is only available on the wiki; see below.|
|Tags||PTQ, HJ Report|
|Recommended for Level||all levels|
|Notes||QT Dark Ascension|
|Abstract||Michael Lopez reports on his first HJ experience at a PTQ|
PTQ - Ft. Lauderdale
On Oct. 22nd 2011, I was given the opportunity to judge a PTQ in Fort Lauderdale. Although Florida as whole has many judges, the southern portion of it doesn’t. After speaking with the Tournament Organizer, Jeff Williams, I began to assemble my staff. At the end of it all the final staff aside from me included:
- Ben Mcdole (L3 Tampa)
- Erik Mock (L2 Orlando)
- Matt Rossi (L2 West Palm Beach)
- Carlos Medina (L1 Miami)
- Enrique Albizu (L0)
- Eric Lehman (L0)
Erik Mock served as score keeper, Matt Rossi ran the deck checks, Ben Mcdole was on the end of round procedures, and Carlos Medina was on paper with the L0’s. The interesting thing about this PTQ, while we are all from Florida we hadn’t worked with each other before. It was also Matt Rossi’s third competitive event and first as L2. It was Carlos Medina’s first event as a judge. It was my first time having more than 1 judge under me.
I started off the tournament with the official announcements, which the players were ignoring until Ben and Jeff helped gain their attention. Shortly after that we began to hand out the sealed pools. The registration went smoothly. Then came the deck swapping, it wasn’t as smooth. When it was determined that some players still had their own pool judges on the floor started to solve the issue before I had decided how to best resolve. At the end I felt it was fine for some players to keep their own pools. It should be known that it is ok for some players to keep their own pool. Decks lists were collected and we proceeded with the first Swiss round of seven.
During the first round our group’s inexperience began to show. Some were not where they were supposed to be during the round. Luckily, everyone got up to speed during the second round and I cannot say there were any further hiccups on the part of the staff.
Matt Rossi’s deck check team uncovered 8 problematic lists and was able to handle them properly. There was a list that stood out amongst the rest. It contained 26 lands and nothing else. We assisted the player in sorting the deck and matched the deck list to the deck. This was accomplished before the start of the following round and we were able to keep the penalty down to a game loss.
There were four lists checked at the start of every round from the 3rd on and each round had at least 1 mid round deck check performed. I was very pleased with this considering the amount of experience this staff had.
During the later rounds a player was found to have registered 7 forests when they clearly meant 7 plains. The issue with this was that the player had very good green cards in the pool. We downgraded the penalty to a warning but conducted our own investigation on the side and we determined it was just an accident.
During the event there were 5 appeals and only 1 was overturned. The overturned appeal consisted of Player A casting Day of Reckoning and quickly choosing which creature would be spared before Player B could respond. Player B destroyed a Fiend Hunter controlled by Player B in response to the day of reckoning. Player A wanted to choose to keep the freshly returned creature. That is when the floor judge was called in and ruled that player A had to stick to their original choice. That is when I was called in and said they could make a new choice. While normally a player must adhere to a choice when jumping the gun if an opponent responds to that spell or ability they make change their mind.
There was another appeal that the original ruling had been upheld on but the situation merits mentioning. Player A had been in the attack step, repeatedly tapping and untapping two of his creatures in quick succession while stating how much they hated rebuke. Eventually he left them tapped for a period of time. Then, player B cast rebuke. Player A said they weren’t attacking with the creatures. Then the players called a judge. The floor judge ruled saying that Player A had indeed attacked. Which Player A appealed. The only matching parts of both players’ stories were what I had stated. A spectator had informed that player A had stopped untapping and tapping long enough for anyone to be sure that they had decided to attack. I upheld the ruling due to the information given by the spectator in combination with that I had felt was that Player A was fishing for Player B to play the rebuke. So, allowing him to take back the attack would be damaging to the integrity of the match. Also, I felt that player B hadn’t jumped the gun on the play. He waited while Player A repeatedly and indecisively tapped and untapped his creature to then pause with them tapped for a significant period of time.
Aside from appeals and interesting deck checks, there were other things of note. This event being in south Florida I made some announcements in Spanish that was met with a great response from the players. The L0’s had achieved a great deal of teaching from Ben Mcdole and a bit from me. The post event feedback from the L0’s gave me the impression that they enjoyed working the event and seemed determined to pass the exam in the near future.
This ended up being a great event due to the hard work of our judge staff. I would like to give special thanks to Erik Mock and Ben Mcdole for traveling so far to work the event. I would also like to acknowledge that Matt Rossi stepped up and showed that he is a level 2 for good reason.