How to NOT Disqualify a Player

From Judge Wiki

This page is a part of the Tournament Operations, Professional and Competitive (Sphere).

Also see Investigations for more resources about investigations and disqualifications.

Find other articles in the Judge Article Index.

Author	Sam Straus, Eric Shukan
Date Published	2011-04-19
Original Site	DCIFamily
Link	http://www.dcifamily.org/article/9
Language	English
Tags	DQ, Communication, Tournament Procedures
Recommended for Level	all levels
Notes	—
Abstract	An article about techniques, procedures and how to conduct an investigation for a possible disqualification.

Investigations are tricky things. Without natural talent or specific training, it can be extremely difficult to see what the next step should be. The purpose of this article is to provide a general outline of the flow of an investigation, and what the investigating judge should attempt to keep in mind. Throughout this article we will use examples from an investigation from US Nationals 2010.

Investigations start with a trigger incident. This can be anything from a simple rules call where something doesn’t seem quite right to a player specifically saying he thinks his opponent is cheating.

Example: At the beginning of round 2 of the draft portion of the event, I was given a decklist with an improperly registered card pool (38 instead of 42). As I approached the table with the player in question, I saw both players shuffling in preparation for their first game. I pulled the player aside and informed him that there was a problem with his decklist that needed to be corrected, at which point he informed me that he would need to desideboard. I thought this an odd thing to have to do since he was already shuffling and it was for the first game of the match, but because he had not presented, no infraction had yet occurred. I made note of what cards were moved while he desideboarded, proceeded to correct the decklist error, and issued the Game Loss penalty.

Most times, it is best to not let the player know you suspect something is wrong, so that they will act like they have been while you investigate. If this is a potential DQ investigation, the Head Judge should be informed as soon as possible, once that possibility is identified. In the above example, the judge did not do this, costing valuable time.

Example: After the Deck/Decklist infraction was issued and the player returned to his match, I approached one of the Deck Check Team Leads and informed him that I felt there might be something up and that the player in question should be targeted for a deck check at the beginning of the next round. A few minutes later I was talking with Head Judge Eric Shukan and mentioned what had happened. Because neither of us was busy, he suggested that we find and ask the player’s round 1 opponent if he had seen any of the sideboarded cards. I was initially opposed, thinking it an unnecessary waste of time. Eric convinced me otherwise, pointing out that we weren’t busy, and that more information is always an asset to any investigation. The scorekeeper informed us that the player had a bye in the previous round. Yet he needed to desideboard after we asked to see his deck? Now we had a problem.

There may be times during an investigation where the conclusion seems obvious, but it’s still best to gather as much information as possible. Most importantly, remember that a judge’s job is to find the truth. Investigations should explore both avenues that exonerate and avenues that disqualify players. Judges rarely have solid proof that a player has cheated. Most evidence is circumstantial, and judges must exercise judgment and apply their experience as both players and judges to determine what really happened.

Example: After we found out that the player had not played a game before the one in which he said he needed to desideboard, we called the player over and Eric interviewed him. The player’s responses to Eric’s questions were contradictory and the player appeared extremely nervous. His body language strongly suggested that he was fabricating his explanation on the fly. Eric and I exchanged glances during the interview. We were both thinking that now we had a big problem.

Time permitting, judges should always pursue every reasonable avenue of investigation, even when already sure of its conclusion. It is amazing how one little detail can completely turn an opinion on its head.

Example: The interview with the player had made Eric fairly certain he was going to be disqualifying this player. However, the player had stated - after substantive prompting from Eric - that he had played some practice games with a friend. Eric decided to call his friend up and interview the friend as well. It was a bit tricky: at first, the player could not remember either the friend’s first or last name. When he finally did give us the friend’s name, it looked like he was making it up on the spot. We were able to find the friend with the given name, though, and we made sure that the two players did not have a chance to communicate at all before Eric talked to the player’s friend. Both Eric and I had a sinking feeling that the friend was not going to know anything about what was going on.

When interviewing a player, the judge should lead with questions with answers that he or she already knows. The player’s reactions to these questions will give the judge a better understanding about the player’s truthfulness.

After those initial questions, the judge can slowly work towards questions with unknown answers. Judges should endeavor to have questions open-ended when possible: let the player fill in the details on their own where possible, prompting him or her only when not enough is volunteered. The investigating judge should avoid, during this questioning, being antagonistic in tone or line of questioning. The more comfortable the player is, the more likely he or she will provide useful information. Often it can be advantageous for the judge to lead with some irrelevant or conversational questions to put the player at ease, so the important questions are surprising and offer little time to fabricate an answer. (This is Eric’s favorite strategy, especially with potentially serious situations.) Some of these misdirecting questions can serve double duty, as a way to gauge the player’s tournament experience.

Example: The player’s friend was almost the complete opposite during his interview. The friend was able to answer questions quickly and with absolute detail. They played their game in a couple tables to the left of the concessions stand, they played 3 games, yes the first did sideboard. The friend being interviewed remembered making fun of him for sideboarding in a practice game. The friend went on to say, “I saw (sideboarded card) and it completely wrecked me,” and he described a very extensive game state and sequence of wrecking events. We went from feeling fairly certain that the player had cheated to being absolutely positive he did not. What a swing!

There are often multiple points during an investigation where the investigating judge is tempted to conclude the investigation and make a ruling. Doing that prematurely, however, may lead to the wrong conclusion (or, perhaps, the right conclusion for the wrong reason). Investigations can take quite a bit of time, however, and that time commitment needs to be balanced against the standard tasks of running an event. Judgment calls need to be made on that balance between time spent investigating vs. time taken from the tournament.

The most important thing to take away from the experience in the examples is that judges must explore avenues of investigation that help players prove their innocence just as thoroughly as the avenues that can lead to disqualification. While doing so, the investigating judge should keep an open mind. During investigations, judges should asking themselves, “What reason could the player have for doing X?” The answer, or lack thereof, has quite an impact on the direction and conclusion of the investigation.

Written by Sam Straus and Eric Shukan. Originally posted on DCIFamily.org.