| Making the Most of the Three-Judge Rule |
Shawn Doherty
One of the newest changes to sanctioned tournaments is that now judges and
tournament organizers can play in their own tournaments. This is made
possible by the Three-Judge Rule. For those that do not know this rule,
it states:
The Three-Judge System may be used at any tournament with at least eight
and no more than sixteen participants. Organizers choosing this system
must announce its use before the tournament begins and identify the three
judges as head judge, secondary judge, and tertiary judge. Tournament
organizers may only participate in events they sanction if they are using
the Three-Judge System and work as a judge within that event. These types
of events are the only ones in which judges and/or tournament organizers
are allowed to participate. When using the Three-Judge System, the head
judge makes all rulings, except when a decision is needed in a game in
which the head judge is participating. If a ruling is needed in a head
judge's game, the secondary judge makes the call. The only time the
tertiary judge makes a ruling is when the head judge is playing against
the secondary judge. The Three-Judge System may only be used in one-on-one
tournaments, and not multiplayer events. In Three-Judge events featuring
the Enhanced-K tournament system, like in Magic: The Gathering
tournaments, the K-value is limited to 8K.
There are many reasons why a judge should use the Three-Judge rule, but
there are difficulties when using it. I will go through these reasons
based on my personal experience, which I hope will show other judges when
and why they should use the Three-Judge rule.
1) Only seven people show up for the tournament
Since the Three-Judge rule was first implemented, I have used it
frequently in the tournaments that I run at a local store. In most cases
there are at least eight people at the event, but sometimes (if there is a
PTQ in a neighboring town) there may be less than eight. If only seven
people show up for a tournament, the judge could enter as the eighth
competitor instead of canceling the tournament or running it as a
non-sanctioned event. This may be a crucial decision to players if they
want to earn DCI points or if the prize is guaranteed only if eight or
more people play.
2) There are an odd number of players in a tournament
For small, in-store tournaments, most people show up to play Magic, not
get byes. So, when an odd number of people sign up for the event, having
the judge play in the event will avoid byes, at least until someone drops
from the tournament. If the main intent is to avoid byes, then the judge
could drop out at the same time to prevent later round byes.
3) To allow players to get experience as tournament judges
If one or more of the players at the tournament are interested in becoming
a certified judge, then using the Three-Judge rule allows them to work as
a judge in a small tournament without having to worry about being the only
judge there or having the final word on a decision. The certified judge
could also defer the primary judging responsibility to one of these
players if players want experience as a head judge. In this scenario,
there would still be a certified judge working at the tournament to advise
the primary judge, but he or she would only act as secondary or tertiary
judge.
4) To allow the judge to have playing time
As a graduate student, I do not have a lot of free time to devote to
Magic. So if I judge tournaments one evening and all day Saturday, I do
not have the time to play in many other tournaments. The Three-Judge rule
lets me play in some of my tournaments, which lets me play and practice
without cutting too much time out of my week. I have talked to many
judges who have told me that they feel their playing skills have slipped
since they are judging all the time. I think that the Three-Judge rule
will help these judges keep their skills sharp, while still allowing them
to judge tournaments.
While I am an advocate of the Three-Judge rule, I do understand that there
are difficulties that arise from using it.
1) Decreased K-value
Some players are very concerned about their DCI rating. By using the
Three-Judge rule, the K-value of the event is dropped from 16K (in most
cases) to 8K. This means that the total number of points that a played
can gain is halved by the judge playing in the tournament. When
considering whether to play in the event, you should ask anyone who may
mind the K-value dropping before making a decision.
2) Decreased time for logistics
When the judge is playing in the tournament, it decreases the available
time that he or she has to run the tournament. This includes filling out
event forms, calculating pairings, and other tasks that have to be
performed before the next round can begin. If the judge does not finish
his or her match before the round is over, then the next round is delayed
because the logistical work now had to be done between rounds and not
during them. This problem can be helped by using the DCI Reporter
program, which will speed up much of the logistics, and having the other
two judges work on logistics if they finish their matches before the
primary judge does.
3) Conflict of interests
It is possible that other players in the tournament may feel that judges
that play in their own events may show preferential treatment or be biased
in their favor. This can occur anytime a rules question comes up in a
match between a judge and another player. The non-judge may feel that
other judge may rule in favor of the judge in the match. One can help
avoid this potential problem by having three judges who do not know each
other, or at least are not all friends. Another example of this problem
occurred the last time I used the Three-Judge rule. I was playing in a
match and the round was about to end. I was keeping the official time on
my watch, so I knew exactly when the time would be called. If I had
wanted to, I could have delayed my turn or ended it just before or just
after time would be called, depending on which way would have given me an
advantage in the match. In this case, I did not use the clock in my
favor, but it showed me the possibility for abuse. To help prevent this,
I now use a clock that everyone can see and have all three judges
responsible for calling time.
I believe that the Three-Judge rule is a wonderful tool that can be used
in DCI sanctioned tournaments, even with its potential problems. I would
like to hear about other judges' experiences in using the Three-Judge
rule. Anyone with comments about this articles or the Three-Judge rule
can feel free to email me at sdoherty@nwu.edu
|