JUDICIAL PENALTY GUIDELINES

i. Warnings

Officials give warnings so players recognize that they made a mistake. Players may or may not be aware they committed a rules infraction, and warnings are a way to let them know they violated a rule. At the time a warning is issued, players also should be told that repeat offenses carry greater consequences. Warnings accumulate over the course of an entire event, regardless of how many days it covers. However, all warnings will not carry over into the final rounds (i.e. quarters-, semi- and finals). Players receiving warnings during a tournament’s main rounds may receive a double warning if they commit the same infraction again in the final rounds.

ii. Warning Summary

Unofficial Warnings:

• Caution: verbal warning; not tracked

• Notice: verbal warning; tracked, but does not directly count toward penalties. Notices may be used as grounds to upgrade a warning or penalty.

  Official Warnings:

• Single Warning: Most offenses fall in to this category. The infraction was probably an unintentional, honest mistake, but it was disruptive to the integrity of the event.

• Double Warning: Judge suspects a player is cheating; a player repeats a previous offense; or the rules violation resulted in a player gaining a serious advantage in a duel or match.

• Triple Warning: Judge has a strong belief that a player is cheating; or a tournament participant is engaging in severe, unsportsmanlike conduct. Issuance of this type of warning will result in an investigation of the recipient by the DCI. The findings of this investigation may lead to further penalties.

  All official warnings must be confirmed with the head judge before being issued. Only the head judge may issue Double and Triple Warnings.

  All notices must be reported to the head judge as soon as possible. The head judge may upgrade a Notice to any of the official warning classifications listed above, upon review of a player’s warning history.

iii. Once three (3) or more official warnings have been issued, the judge may decide to do one of the following: The default penalty for three warnings is ejection.

1. Forfeit current or next game
At the head judge’s discretion, he/she may downgrade the penalty for three (3) warnings to a loss of the current or next duel if:
• all three of the warnings are minor in nature;
• all three are unintentional;
• and none are duplicate or double warnings.

2. Forfeit current or next match
At the head judge’s discretion, he/she may downgrade the penalty for three (3) warnings to a loss of the current or next match if:

• all three of the warnings are minor in nature;
• all three are unintentional;
• and none are double warnings.

3. Ejection


A player ejected from a tournament will have his or her tournament record stand as it exists. However, an ejected player will not be allowed to continue play in the tournament. Once the tournament is over, the ejected player is eligible for any prizes that his/her tournament standing yields. Ejection is the base line penalty for three warnings. This penalty includes double warnings. Players who receive a fourth warning are also ejected.

4. Disqualification


A player disqualified from a tournament forfeits all prizes and standings that they might have earned over the course of the tournament.
At the head judge’s discretion, he/she may upgrade the penalty for three (3) warnings to disqualification if:
• the head judge strongly believes that the player in question was cheating;
• or if the player has received two Double Warnings or a Triple Warning.

iv. Infractions
All infractions fall into one of four categories:

• Unintentional and Nondisruptive: minimum penalty is a Caution
• Unintentional but Disruptive: minimum penalty is a Notice
• Intentional but Nondisruptive: minimum penalty is an official Single Warning
• Intentional and Disruptive: minimum penalty is an official Double Warning.

v. Sample Infractions

The guidelines specified in Section iv allow judges to gauge the severity of an infraction and determine what type of penalty will best fit that situation. However, all penalties are the head judge’s decision, and he/she makes the final ruling. Below is a list of sample infractions and how the DCI believes judges should handle them:

1. Previous opponent’s card found in player’s deck

This infraction is almost always unintentional, but it is disruptive. This infraction carries a minimum penalty of a loss of the current or next game.

2. Deck not returned to original configuration

In most cases this is unintentional, but disruptive. In some cases, however, this infraction is intentional and disruptive. The head judge decides under which category a given infraction falls.

This infraction assumes that the deck played was legal and was misrecorded on the deck list in a manner that is not illegal. In most cases, this infraction is unintentional and nondisruptive. However, due to the judicial necessity of accurate deck lists, this infraction’s penalty is the loss of the next game. In rare cases, this infraction is intentional and disruptive. If a head judge comes across one of these rare cases, harsher penalties are at his/her discretion.

In most cases this is unintentional. A card was lost or the deck list was misrecorded as an illegal deck. However, due to the disruption to the tournament’s integrity, this infraction carries a baseline penalty of ejection. In some cases, illegal decks are intentional and should result in the responsible player’s disqualification.

This infraction includes not paying the correct casting cost for a spell. Infractions of this nature can be of all four categories and should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

In most cases, this infraction is unintentional but disruptive.

This infraction is almost always unintentional but disruptive. Due to the nature of the infraction, the penalty typically increases depending on the length of tardiness.

This infraction includes timing of events and life totals. In some cases, this infraction may be unintentional but disruptive on both players’ parts. In some cases, however, this infraction is intentional on one player’s part. If the judge cannot determine which player’s activities are intentional, he or she should issue official Single Warnings to both players.

This covers any infraction that is intentional and disruptive.