Disqualification Reports
Alfonso Bueno is a Level 2 Flesh and Blood Judge from Spain. The opinions expressed in the above article are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Legend Story Studios or the Judge Program.
Hello judges! In the following lines, I’m going to explain how to write a report after you have to issue a disqualification.
But, first, let me introduce myself. My name is Alfonso Bueno and I’m the lead of the Players Conduct Committee team. This means I’m responsible together with an amazing team of extraordinary judges, to review every case that ends with a disqualification. Our main tool to review the case is the statement of the Head Judge, and that statement is the topic of today’s article.
WHAT IS THE HEAD JUDGE’S STATEMENT?
When a player is disqualified during an organized play event you are head judging, you are required to provide a statement to LSS for review called a head judge statement. It’s simply your version of the situation that led to the disqualification but from a technical perspective. Differently from the player, who is expected to present the facts in any way they’re comfortable in their own separate statement, the Head Judge is expected to be technically precise, list the facts, and the assumptions (yes, because we many times need to make assumptions) and explain your reasoning.
The HJ statement doesn’t need to be long. It has to include the elements listed below, but there’s no need to include unnecessary words to make it look longer.
TIPS AND TRICKS TO WRITE THE HEAD JUDGE STATEMENT.
First of all, it must include the following:
- Explicit mention of the infraction/s motivating the disqualification.
Comprehensive tale of the facts you consider proven, as well as the reasons why they’re proven. Ex: The player had one extra card in hand. Players agree Peter blocked with 2 cards last turn, then he played C&C from hand pitching a blue card and he still had one other card in hand. Players agree Arsenal has been empty for several turns.
- A comprehensive explanation of the assumptions you’ve made and reasons why you made them. Ex: Peter claims he played C&C from his Arsenal, while Maria claims Peter drew 5 cards at the end of the last turn. I reconstructed Peter’s previous turn and I believe it’s unlikely he had a C&C that turn and he chose not to play it then. Peter had enough resources to play C&C rather than the attack players and Maria had a card in her Arsenal. In the current turn, Marias Arsenal is empty.
- Reasoning on how the presented facts and assumptions meet the criteria of each infraction on the Penalty and Policy Guidelines (PPG). This requires a deep knowledge of the PPG, as a judge must have. But, since a DQ is a penalty with a huge impact on a player it’s never a bad idea to reread the infraction definition before issuing the penalty.
- Identification data like disqualified player name, email, GEM, tournament, data, etc, is provided elsewhere in the DQ report form, but I suggest adding them to the same file where you write your statement. It will make your life easier in case you need to refer to it in the future.
Secondly, It would be great if we could be 100% sure of every ruling we make, but unfortunately, reality doesn’t work like that. Sometimes players give you contradictory statements, and frequently a person who cheated will misrepresent the facts to put doubt in your head.
You must be ready to make your decision based on educated guesses and sometimes even based on gut feelings.
Doing that is necessary on many occasions; we in the PCC team know it, so please, be transparent about it in your HJ statement. Ex: I wasn’t able to determine if Peter played the 5th card of the turn from his Arsenal or if he drew one card too many. Based on the body language of both players, I feel it was more likely Peter was lying because at the beginning of the interview he’s only argument was “I didn’t draw an extra card” and only some minutes after he claimed the C&C was player from the Arsenal, he remained nervous, avoiding eye contact, touching his nose and positioning his body towards the hall exit all the time.
EXAMPLE OF A HJ DISQUALIFICATION REPORT
I disqualified Peter for 5.2. Cheating. I believe he drew an extra card.
Peter’s opponent (Maria) called me on the last round of the Swiss of RTN in Madrid. I was able to reconstruct the two previous turns with the details the players provided and look at the discard piles and bottom of their decks. During Maria’s previous turn, Peter was blocked with two 3-defence cards and an Erase Face played by Maria. In his current turn, Peter is playing a C&C pitching a blue card and has one more card in hand (red). Maria is at 5 life and Peter at 11, but in the previous turns Peter has been on the defence using 2 or 3 cards to block.
When Maria pointed out the issue, Peter’s first response was “I didn’t draw an extra card”, I find this quite suspicious, the reaction I expect from a player in that situation is trying to understand what’s going on rather than jumping so quickly into a defensive reaction. After a minute or two while I was reconstructing previous turns, Peter said he played C&C from his Arsenal, I found it suspicious it took so long for him to point it out, maybe he discovered at this point he could justify the extra card that way.
On Peter’s previous turn, he started the turn with two cards, the other two were used to block and they’re in the discard pile. By looking at the bottom of the deck I see he pitched a yellow card to pay for a Scar for Scar (cost 1). If at this point he would have had a C&C in Arsenal it would have made more sense playing it and Arsenaling the Scar for Scar. Maria had a card in Arsenal at that point.
I took Peter aside and asked him to explain to me what happened. He kept saying he paid the C&C from his Arsenal, but his body language was evasive all the time. He didn’t look me in the eyes; he instead was looking with his entire body to the exit of the hall. He wasn’t able to explain why he chose to play Scar for Scar instead of C&C the previous turn.
Based on the previous facts and assumptions I believe:
Something illegal happened. Peter drew an extra card either at the end of his turn or at some point during Maria’s turn. I believe it’s highly unlikely the C&C was in Peter’s Arsenal because he would have played it the previous turn. There’s one extra card in Peter’s hand.
Peter knew he was doing something illegal:
I assume every FAB player in the world knows they can’t draw additional cards. In case initially, the card was drawn accidentally when Peter realized it, he chose to present the situation as if the card was in the Arsenal, not as an accidental draw. I also assume every human being knows that’s wrong.
Peter did it intentionally with the intention to get an advantage:
The winner of this match qualifies for the Top8 and gets prizes. In the game, both players were low in life. Peter has been on the defence for some turns and one extra card may change the flow of the game in Peter’s favour.
While I’m not positive Peter didn’t have the C&C in Arsenal for several turns, I believe it is unlikely and it’s more likely he drew an extra card.
We hope this article will help you understand better how to fill a DQ Report.
Thank you for reading!
English 
Japanese