More on Saito: From an Undisclosed, but Personally Vouched for Eyewitness
Anonymous:
“I personally watched this and it was outrageous. He should have been DQ’d immediately.
Play was proceeding normally as Saito was winning. There are 6-7 minutes left.
Kid then cunning wishes for Tsabo Decree and decrees Merfolk.
Saito tanks for 45 seconds then reveals his hand of 2 merfolk. He bins his 2 in hand and 2 in play.
Kid untaps and casts Jace. Saito then counts kid’s sideboard, reviews graveyard and says ok. Kid fateseals and leaves a daze on top. He activates factory and attacks. Saito spends 45 seconds debating wasteland before taking 2. He rereads Jace again.
He untaps and draws daze. He reviews both graveyards and spends 30-40 seconds before saying go.
Kid fateseals and leaves a land. He activates factory and attacks. Saito repeats his 45 seconds fingering wasteland before taking 2. He then stops to read Jace.
Saito draws the land and reviews both graveyards. He spends 30 seconds before playing land. He then stops to read Jace for 20 seconds. He then fidgets with wasteland and then fetchland for 20 seconds before saying go.
Kid fateseals a land to top. He then activates factory. Saito reviews kids graveyard and finally takes 2. Kid casts pernicious deed with 4 mana up. Saito considers dazing it until time is called.
Rest of game takes under 1 minute.”
Slightly reformatted to make it clear this is a second hand account.
24 Comments »
Leave a Reply
Billy Moreno
A DQ would be a bit much, but a game loss would definitely be appropriate, maybe match loss. Kid should have called a judge, though. I mean, thinking for a bit about using Wasteland is fine, but reading Jace twice? Saito knows exactly what it does. I agree that Legacy is complex and you need to consider a lot of situations, but if this account is accurate, it’s a pretty blatant example of stalling.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Team Slacklikeus, Billy Moreno. Billy Moreno said: More on Saito: From an Undisclosed, but Personally Vouched for Eyewitness: http://wp.me/pRawu-2m [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention More on Saito: From an Undisclosed, but Personally Vouched for Eyewitness « Gaming the System -- Topsy.com | August 3, 2010 |
Aren’t you allowed as a spectator to call a judge over if you suspect slow play?
Yes.
and the penalty for stalling is a DQ, not a game loss.
ah, well ok then.
[...] The situation that concerns me more from Columbus is the accusation towards Saito of slow play. Billy Moreno covered some of it here. [...]
Pingback by Confessions of an (ex) Game Store Clerk » Blog Archive » The GP:Columbus Incident | August 4, 2010 |
Two questions:
a) Where was the judge watching the match?
b) If there was no judge why didn’t you call one?
a) There was a table judge and I don’t know why he didn’t step in at some point (see Fade to Black’s comment).
b) I wasn’t watching the match; this is a relayed account. I’m assuming the witness said nothing because there was a judge present.
This is the opposing player. Pretty much all of this is factual. I cleanly had the game wrapped up and he began pulling these shenanigans. Two things of note:
1. I did not call a Judge for potential slow play. This is my fault, and I felt like an idiot because of it. However, there were a lot of people watching and I didn’t want to make myself out to be an ass in front of an obviously accomplished and renowned player while I myself am some nobody. Additionally…
2. There was a table judge there the entire time. We had gotten deck-checked, and as our match was proceeding into the extra time, we had a table judge pretty much for the entire duration of these “shenanigans.” I figured that he would be prompted to take action as necessary (which clearly I felt there was, though as stated above, did not express such).
All in all, a super frustrating situation. I know nothing really about floor rules/judging, and I probably should have done more. Alas…
Unfortunately, the only way to really get experienced on handling floor rulings and judging situations is to end up on the wrong side a few times. Sorry it worked out like that for you.
Just out of curiosity, are you not revealing the kid’s name to protect him or just because you don’t know who it was?
Happens to be a good friend, who ripped shit to me about this match later. It might surprise people to find out who it was against.
I think you’re asking whether I know who’s account of the match this is, in which case I do. I posted it anonymously because he asked me to and because I felt it was still worth relaying without a name attached to it.
Billy, why didn’t you call over a judge? If you think as a spectator that something shady is going on, you should call over a judge. And then an experienced one. This game can’t use cheaters. A HJ with a bit of balls dq’s them, even when they’re high profile.
Most of the players are not able to notice something like this. And if they are, then they don’t call over a judge because they don’t want to be the guy that called over a judge.
Fortunately the level of dirt on the tour is lower than ever, but there still is. As long as large cash prizes are given away, dirt will be attracted to it.
Jaap, I didn’t call a judge because I didn’t actually see anything. The account above is from another Magic player who was watching the match in question. I can’t attest as to why he did not call a judge, but it most likely had to do with the match being in the feature area with a judge present at the table.
Well, I haven’t been there so I can’t really tell but the kid in question advanced to the Top8 anyway, so the whole incident didn’t cost him much.
Sorry Billy, but you have made a terrible almost irrevisible mistake on camera in a PT Top 4 that everyone saw and you are picking on Saito from a third party account for “stalling” when Saito is a known slow player? Nice.
Not picking on Saito. If you read one of my earlier posts, I said I didn’t see the event in question. And I really don’t like making judgments on events I didn’t see. Just thought I’d relay what I considered to be a trustworthy account.
I was a spectator of this match and if my memory serves me right, the opening post relates events correctly.
That being said, does this behaviour warrant a DQ, I don’t know.
As a Judge, I can say this behavior absolutely warrants a DQ. As the very least, Saito would be asked to play quicker and each player would be given an additional turn for extra time.
Yeah, he should be prompted along. It’s hard for me to say he should be dq’d without first being told to hurry up. Unless they’ve already been tracking the issue, of course.
There is no such thing as table judges anymore. That was done away with several years ago. If you see something wrong, you should call for a judge. If there happens to be one watching the match, this is probably as easy as saying “hey judge, this guy is taking forever.”
True, but the presence of a judge standing there watching would explain why a spectator might not think to call a judge to watch for slow play.
[...] repeatedly calling over judges to check on his total Warning count. Billy Moreno has also posted a report about Saitou’s slowness that strongly suggested intentionality. What I suspect the DCI did is decide, following a pattern [...]
Pingback by Patterns of behavior and an eighteen month DQ | Gifts Ungiven | September 21, 2011 |