US Nationals is over for the year, and masses of readers eagerly checked these pages to see what took place at the event. Coverage of the matches, the decks, the metagame, and the tech was quite solid. One thing that didn’t get much attention, though, was the judging. While most of the Yu-Gi-Oh! world was riveted on the players at the most significant tournament in the country, there was some top-rate judging going on as well. Since it’s likely to be of interest to the judges who weren’t present, I’m going to use today’s Agents of Judgment column to talk about what went on from my perspective as head judge, and also to give you some information about the stellar floor staff.

First, how does a judge get ready for such an event? It’s the most scrutinized Organized Play event in the country, so whatever your judging role might be, you definitely want to be prepared. You’ll know ahead of time the potential number of players, and you need to estimate from that how many will actually attend. The judges familiarized themselves with current strong decks, and made sure they were up on the rulings for cards they expected to see.

I prepared by downloading new copies of penalty and policy documents, to make sure I was totally up to date, and then reviewed them carefully (I think I’ve just about memorized them by now, but it doesn’t hurt to make sure). I got the new errata list and looked it over, and updated my Book Of Judge Rulings collection. I took the job very seriously—Fort Mason sits right on San Francisco Bay, and Ian informed me that he’d throw me in if I messed up. I’m pretty sure he could chuck me in with one hand, so I wasn’t taking any chances.

The first thing I needed to do was talk to the Upper Deck staff about their goals for the event. Then I could work on structuring the teams to best accomplish those goals. There was a lot expected of the staff for Nationals. Of course, the event needed to run as well as possible, with accurate rulings and a high standard for rules enforcement. But Upper Deck also wanted the judges to learn from each other, and to pass along any improved knowledge to the other judges in their area. Balancing the teams with judges who knew each other, hadn’t worked with each other before, and had differing levels of experience (while keeping the teams even and geared towards each individual judge’s strengths), was definitely a challenge.

I was amazingly fortunate in that I had such a fantastic staff of floor judges to work with. Just look at them! There were no rookies or beginners—envy the head judge who has a team staffed with some of the hardest-working and best-known level 3 judges in the game (along with a level 2 or so here and there). They hailed from all across the country, and some even came from Canada. Knowing that the event floor is in the hands of judges who have head judged Shonen Jump Championships before takes a lot of worry away, and it inspired player confidence as well. Many players took advantage of the opportunity to ask the judges a variety of rulings questions independently of situations that came up during the tournament.

Here’s a look at the teams, and a roster of the most excellent staff.

Decks

Team Lead: Ken Jackson

Chris Goff

Simon Sangpukdee

Peter Luchinger

And assisting with the decklist checks at the beginning of the event, Kevin Tewart and Justin Reilly

Pairings

Team Lead: Jon Lacey

Dan Scheidegger

Jeff Richardson

Matt Weaver

Slips

Team Lead: Jerome McHale

Simon Choy

Khoi Ngyuen

Leighton Kurashima

Logistics

Team Lead: Franklin DeBrito

Chris Tachella

Simon Key

Feature Match Judge:

Jeff Yuschak

Often times, head judges struggle with, “What do I do with all these brand new judges? I don’t have enough seasoned ones to manage the new guys!” I had the opposite problem at this event—a fleet of seasoned judges—so choosing team leads was tricky! In the end, I decided to choose leads from the judges I’d worked with consistently before and really knew well, figuring that I could assess their skills accurately. I also assigned judges I felt would pass on new tricks or ideas to the rest of the team. Ironically, it took longer to refine teams with experienced judges than it does when I’m working with beginning judges!

Ideally, both the players and the judges will leave the event having learned something new that they can take back with them to their local areas. It’s a great opportunity to disseminate knowledge to everyone. Players are exposed to a very high standard of rules enforcement (with an emphasis on correct tournament behavior), and judges get the opportunity to work at the top level. This raises expectations at events like Regionals, and hopefully more players will show up at Shonen Jumps and future Nationals better equipped to perform well.

Once the pre-tournament preparation was done, the teams were assembled, and the rules enforcement was settled, it was time to start the event itself!

My next area of focus was to work with the judge staff, and implement some strategies to head off problems before they started. Interacting with players before the event was particularly helpful. They were able to double-check rulings or policies that they found confusing, verify that their sleeves were in acceptable condition, and inquire about the playability of “altered” cards. Once the meetings with Upper Deck were over, I spent most of Friday answering questions about the next day’s event, as did several of the other judges in between work on the Last Chance Regional tournaments. Many players happily took advantage of that resource, which averted quite a few potential problems.

We also addressed the subject of shuffling. We’ve all heard allegations of players manipulating their decks when they shuffle, and whether it is true or not, it often gets leveled at those who do well in the event. It’s much harder to influence the order of your cards if you’re shuffling with them facing the table, so I decided to require all competitors to shuffle with their cards either on or parallel to the table. The opponent could then shuffle as well, as per the policy document, and the player was allowed one final cut. Players were responsible for reminding their opponents if they didn’t shuffle accordingly. It discouraged that particular type of cheating, and just as importantly, it made it less likely for a player to be wrongly accused of cheating.

For this event, players did not hand in the match slips after each round. When the match ended, a judge was responsible for collecting the slip, verifying the results with both players, and turning the slip in to the scorekeeper. It was a good way to safeguard against misreported matches, or other mistakes such as lost slips, defaced slips, or accidental drops. It did take several rounds for all the players to remember to do this, and we did have to send several of them back to their seats to wait for a judge. We had only one instance of an allegedly misreported match, but the results on the slip in question matched the results that were entered, along with the judge’s signature indicating that he’d asked both players if the slip was correct, so the complaining player had little recourse.

We also enforced a spectator-free zone on the tournament floor. Once a match had ended, the players were required to leave the enclosed tournament area. They could watch, but only from beyond the barricades, and were required to remain quiet when doing so. Clearing the floor of players no longer engaged in the round made it much easier for the judges to keep track of who was still playing, and reduced worries of team scouting or signaling. It also prevented players who were done from distracting those who were still part of the round. There was plenty of room for the finished players to wait outside the play area, and it really helped discourage players from bringing food and drinks in.

I announced these policies during the player meeting, and reminded players that rules enforcement would be conducted at the highest level, as befitted such a prestigious event. I also reminded them to play in a manner that communicated their intent clearly to their opponent, and for both players in any given match to keep the game state clear.

During the event, I relied on reports from team leads about any issues they’d encountered on the floor, which they collected from quick team meetings once time was called. If a problem developed, between-round announcements were tailored to address it. Whether it was a reminder to put side and fusion decks on the table, or to double-check that your opponent was in fact conceding before you scooped up your cards, these occasional announcements reminded players what was expected of them, and drove home the importance of adhering to the policies we’d set forth at the beginning of the round.

The floor judges were vigilant as they walked the floor, supervising the players and providing a visible presence. They kept the rounds moving at a smooth place, and reminded players to leave the area once they finished their match. They zoned themselves out well, and I never saw the “judge clumps” that so often spring up at an event. Player questions were dealt with quickly and efficiently in most cases, with little waiting time. The floor staff at this event deserves praise for the speed and smoothness of the event.

This being Nationals, rules enforcement was conducted on a very high level. These were Regionals and Shonen Jump winners, after all, and the level of play at Worlds is very demanding. Team leads—all experienced judges—could therefore assess penalties on the floor, rather than having to refer each one to me. The stricter enforcement did lead to some unhappy players, and we had a few who played in a sloppy manner or who couldn’t seem to stop making errors. Judges looked carefully at anyone who called for penalties against their opponents, to discourage those looking for an automatic win. While some of the penalties seemed harsh to the players receiving them, they were all handed out in accordance with the policy document, and all players should have reviewed it beforehand.

While there were a few rulings appeals, most were about penalties. Personally, I was happy to see the players appeal. I want them to appeal if they don’t agree with a ruling or a penalty—but let’s sort the issue out when it’s relevant, and not afterwards when there’s nothing to do but complain about it to anyone who will listen. Admittedly, the higher level of rulings enforcement made it tough for players from areas where enforcement was lax. Hopefully they’ll convey that to their local level tournaments as, “We need to learn more about specific rules, so we can actually compete at this level,” and not as, “The judges were so unfair, and they gave us game losses for things that don’t matter.”

From my perspective, the event went really well, and when we talked over it afterwards, the rest of the team agreed. The event finished on time, which is always a cause for great rejoicing among the judges, and the feedback we received on site was quite positive. There were disappointed players, to be sure, and not everyone who received a penalty was satisfied with it. It’s quite hard to make 300+ players—all of whom wanted to win a trip to Tokyo—100 percent happy, but we gave it a run for its money.

Players are used to the ways events are run in their area, and it can be hard adapting to the higher level of the most prestigious tournament in the US. But these top events (and the increase in events, period) not only increase the skill and number of players, but the skill and number of judges as well. It’s easy to overlook that when the success of the game comes under review, so I’m glad to have had this opportunity to give you a closer look at the judging for this event. Thanks again to all the fantastic people who made up the backbone of the tournament. It wouldn’t have worked so well without you.