GPT Pittsburg Report

= GPT Pittsburgh Event Report
= July 26th, 2011

On the 23rd I headed down to West-Mifflin early to Head-Judge a Grand-Prix Trial to be held at New Dimension Comics in the Century 3 mall. We were expecting a decent crowd due to both the standard format and the fact that the GP in question would be local, occurring in Pittsburgh.

In the end we got less players than I personally was expecting, but still a respectable number. We started the event with 23 players, and I announced that we would proceed with 5 rounds of swiss followed by a cut to single-elimination top 8.

When checking deck lists I found only 1 error. A sideboard with 14 registered cards. Upon checking the actual deck we found a 15 card sideboard, so we simply changed the deck list to match the deck, and sent the player on their way (with a game loss).

== Rulings

In round 3 I was called to a table with an interesting interaction. The player had a Phyrexian Metamorph on the battlefield coping an Obstinate Baloth. They also had a Deceiver Exarch on the table (with summoning sickness). They wanted to know if Splinter Twin was put on the Metamorph, would it produce Metamorphs? After very careful consideration, I ruled that If the Metamorph-Baloth was tapped with Splinter Twin, it would create Artifact Baloths. My reasoning was that because both are copy effects, the splinter twin creates copies that share the attributess of the enchanted creature, and the Metamorph exists as a artifact-Baloth on the battlefield. This ruling is supported by CR706.3

In Round 4 I was asked to clarify something about Goblin Grenade, namely when the goblin sacrificed for it leaves the battlefield. The Goblin in question is sacrificed as part of the process of casting the spell, and no player can play spells or abilities between the time a spell or ability is announced, and it becomes fully cast (so no you can't shock the goblin in response).

In Round 5 there was a situation where Player A was at 3 life. Player B flung 3 creatures at his opponent using Mortorpod, and Player A conceded the game. After one of the players picked up their cards a spectator pointed out that one of those points of damage was from a source with Infect. At which point I was called to the table. I informed both players involved that there was no way to accurately re-construct the game state, and the concession (verbally and physically by scooping up one's cards) would need to stand.

This incident created some discussion afterwords. There were questions concerning what (if anything) a player could say while observing a match, and more importantly if they were required to by the tournament rules.

If you are participating in a tournament, and are watching a game (as opposed to playing in one), you are a spectator for that game. Spectators are allowed (encouraged even) to call a judge at all levels if they notice any game error. At regular or competitive level, spectators are allowed to ask the players to pause their match while they alert a judge. At Professional Rel, spectators must not interfere with the match directly.

The Tournament rules lay out that players are required to call a judge if a game error occurs, but from my reading of the Tournament rules, spectators are not required to alert a judge to a possible play error.