A player should get at least a game loss for playing with a squadron that wasn't exactly the same as the one they registered. You require players to submit lists to remove the possibility that they could change things round to round. Leaving off an upgrade and having an unaccounted for 3 points is reintroducing that issue. It is a situation that can be abused. That no one is coming forward to say the player used a different upgrade round to round is likely the reason it wasn't a DQ (and probable suspension from FFG) but that doesn't mean it isn't an error by the player that should have repercussions.

If a judge spot checked a damage deck mid round and found it to be incorrect, but likely not intentionally manipulated, that player is likely going to take a game loss for the illegal damage deck. You're suppose to bring a legal damage deck, there should be consequences when you don't.

You're suppose to play the squad you registered, and there should be consequences if you don't.

The rules clearly state that you are wrong.

"If a leader discovers a player’s squad list missing

appropriate information, he or she should find that player

immediately and update the squad list based on the cardsthe player is using. If this would result in a significant and

potentially advantageous change, the leader should consider

investigating for possible cheating."

The TOs should have considered investigating for possible cheating. That does not translate to immediate game loss.

A player should get at least a game loss for playing with a squadron that wasn't exactly the same as the one they registered. You require players to submit lists to remove the possibility that they could change things round to round. Leaving off an upgrade and having an unaccounted for 3 points is reintroducing that issue. It is a situation that can be abused. That no one is coming forward to say the player used a different upgrade round to round is likely the reason it wasn't a DQ (and probable suspension from FFG) but that doesn't mean it isn't an error by the player that should have repercussions.

If a judge spot checked a damage deck mid round and found it to be incorrect, but likely not intentionally manipulated, that player is likely going to take a game loss for the illegal damage deck. You're suppose to bring a legal damage deck, there should be consequences when you don't.

You're suppose to play the squad you registered, and there should be consequences if you don't.

It is written directly in the tournament rules that unless it provides some sort of advantage the TO should just write in the missing info. He never misrepresented his squad to anyone from what I saw. He had the mangler cannon card on the table and counted the correct number of points for it. FFG has made a ruling to this effect and it is in the rules. You should read them!

As I said earlier, he said his squad was 100 points - (without mangler it would have been 96 points). He had it on the table for every game I saw him play on the twitch feed and used it. He gained no advantage. It was an honest mistake and according to even FFG, he shouldn't have been punished for it.

I think an honest mistake that was made in good faith and played fairly should result in neither a loss nor DQ, and the FFG Tournament rules allow for this. I think the TO made a bad and incorrect call against this player.

I ran into a similar situation in a local tournament. I thoroughly read my opponent's squad list and set up my attack based off of what was printed on his sheet. It was not until it was his turn to attack that he attempted to double tap with his R3-A2 TLT Y-Wing that this became an issue. My setup and engagement were reliant on the fact that I would only receive 1 stress from his Y-Wing. The BTL-A4 Y-Wing title is 0 points but becomes rather significant post engagement.

A player should not have to read a squad list AND inspect all of his opponent's cards. I feel that I should be able to trust the people I play against, even if a mistake was made.

I am not suggesting DQ for the offender. At worst, the player should have to continue the round without the unreported upgrade. Then, between rounds, the squad list should be corrected.

I ran into a similar situation in a local tournament. I thoroughly read my opponent's squad list and set up my attack based off of what was printed on his sheet. It was not until it was his turn to attack that he attempted to double tap with his R3-A2 TLT Y-Wing that this became an issue. My setup and engagement were reliant on the fact that I would only receive 1 stress from his Y-Wing. The BTL-A4 Y-Wing title is 0 points but becomes rather significant post engagement.

A player should not have to read a squad list AND inspect all of his opponent's cards. I feel that I should be able to trust the people I play against, even if a mistake was made.

I am not suggesting DQ for the offender. At worst, the player should have to continue the round without the unreported upgrade. Then, between rounds, the squad list should be corrected.

The situation above is different. His opponent wasn't confused. It was an error on the list he turned in.

With all this whining about a game with tiny plastic space ships that's supposed to be fun, a person has to wonder.

To the whiners: How did you get that Interceptor so far up your ass?, did you have to buy an extra one?, and does your mother know that's what your doing in her basement?

A friend had an error on her squad sheet. She plays common wealth defenders and accidentally put TIE MK2 on Vess instead of Ryad and noticed it during the first or second match. She pointed it out to the TO and he said it was fine. Obvious mistakes are obvious mistakes. The player from Omaha should not have DQ'd if it was an obvious mistake.

At tournaments here in Ottawa we have learned that the first thing during round 1 is each player swaps lists and damage decks. The lists get viewed over for correctness and damage decks get counted and verified. Then we play a tournament.

It saves on hard situations like this.

A player should get at least a game loss for playing with a squadron that wasn't exactly the same as the one they registered. You require players to submit lists to remove the possibility that they could change things round to round. Leaving off an upgrade and having an unaccounted for 3 points is reintroducing that issue. It is a situation that can be abused. That no one is coming forward to say the player used a different upgrade round to round is likely the reason it wasn't a DQ (and probable suspension from FFG) but that doesn't mean it isn't an error by the player that should have repercussions.

If a judge spot checked a damage deck mid round and found it to be incorrect, but likely not intentionally manipulated, that player is likely going to take a game loss for the illegal damage deck. You're suppose to bring a legal damage deck, there should be consequences when you don't.

You're suppose to play the squad you registered, and there should be consequences if you don't.

The rules clearly state that you are wrong.

"If a leader discovers a player’s squad list missing

appropriate information, he or she should find that player

immediately and update the squad list based on the cardsthe player is using. If this would result in a significant and

potentially advantageous change, the leader should consider

investigating for possible cheating."

The TOs should have considered investigating for possible cheating. That does not translate to immediate game loss.

So if I hand you my sheet that totals 96 points by math but I actually have a 100 point squad by cards, you don't see that as potentially advantageous?

Do we know that the player represented his squad as 96 or 100 points for each and every game?

This is what a Marshal has to determine when he adjudicates this kind of issue.

In the case of a DQ, the marshal determined that the player had some kind of unfair advantage.

I really don't like voices saying that the guy did not speak up for himself. Rules are rules and it is TO's responsibility to follow them correctly, even if someone is not able to shout through his point of view. This is what I hate most, when one the players is shouting / messing around just to get the ruling in his favor (with his opponent or TO if already involved).

It's TO's responsibility in the very first place. Other voices might have had some influence, but are not be blamed for not being loud enough...

Playing 96 points with a Mangler gives you advantage of initiative bid, although according to what was stated before on his squad list it was counted as 100 points, hence he had no advantage. Moreover, his random opponent could point out during the game that he has no Mangler in the list and try to force him to stop using it, due to that, but even that did not happen so he might have had the card with him, which would also play to his favor: mistake in the list, but using only the cardson the table which counts up to the correct value of 100.

Marshal's reasoning behind his decision, as posted on the Tournament and League Organizers Facebook Group:

"The part that stood out to me, as I knew the rule change, was, “potentially advantageous change.” In my experience I have told people personally and have done so myself, “you need to under bid.” This was agreed upon to be an advantage as a floating four points that can become a mangler cannon is a lot and can change games. It was agreed that match loss which resulted in the players tournament run end would occur. We also discussed that if we don’t give the match loss his opponent could ask for it and that could get heated quick as a mangler cannon would be huge in the game they were playing. It was better for us to make the call then let things go on. If we let the match continue then we are allowing a player to “fix” his list after the first round of cut and if his opponent finds out and he lost, well it could get heated. It was agreed that the responsibility for a correctly filled out squadlist fell on the player."

It isn't that there was a determined advantage but the potential for an advantage. The Marshal gave the game loss based on the possibility of the player being able to underbid for initiative - not that is was observed to have occurred but that it could have happened, which is what a potential advantage is. If it was a definite advantage then that is called cheating.

The Marshal made the right call.

Do we know that the player represented his squad as 96 or 100 points for each and every game?

This is what a Marshal has to determine when he adjudicates this kind of issue.

In the case of a DQ, the marshal determined that the player had some kind of unfair advantage.

In this case demonstrating the unfair advantage from a 96-point list is as easy as asking his opponents "did he say he was at 96 or 100 points?" But if they already left then the TO has to make a call with just the evidence of an incorrect list, where intent is impossible to prove. Either way, in most of the large tournaments I attend this isn't an issue because we send in the lists beforehand and they're checked and printed out by the staff, or you print it out and it's reviewed during setup before the first round. Errors like this should be discovered before starting and definitely not after the top cut has been decided. Hopefully the organizers will now know how to avoid this sort of situation.

Something similar happened in the Spanish national last year (I think it was in the during the top 4 or 8 when they realized a player hadn't marked which obstacles he was using on his list) and the TO made the controversial decision of taking a middle road and let them play it out, and then subtracted 50 points of MoV from offending player and added 50 to the other (the penalty was decided without informing the players, and quite a while before the match finished), so the player ended up winning the match 100-66 and was eliminated. It was a terrible situation for everyone involved.

A player should get at least a game loss for playing with a squadron that wasn't exactly the same as the one they registered. You require players to submit lists to remove the possibility that they could change things round to round. Leaving off an upgrade and having an unaccounted for 3 points is reintroducing that issue. It is a situation that can be abused. That no one is coming forward to say the player used a different upgrade round to round is likely the reason it wasn't a DQ (and probable suspension from FFG) but that doesn't mean it isn't an error by the player that should have repercussions.

If a judge spot checked a damage deck mid round and found it to be incorrect, but likely not intentionally manipulated, that player is likely going to take a game loss for the illegal damage deck. You're suppose to bring a legal damage deck, there should be consequences when you don't.

You're suppose to play the squad you registered, and there should be consequences if you don't.

The rules clearly state that you are wrong.

"If a leader discovers a player’s squad list missing

appropriate information, he or she should find that player

immediately and update the squad list based on the cardsthe player is using. If this would result in a significant and

potentially advantageous change, the leader should consider

investigating for possible cheating."

The TOs should have considered investigating for possible cheating. That does not translate to immediate game loss.

So if I hand you my sheet that totals 96 points by math but I actually have a 100 point squad by cards, you don't see that as potentially advantageous?

Do we know that the player represented his squad as 96 or 100 points for each and every game?

This is what a Marshal has to determine when he adjudicates this kind of issue.

In the case of a DQ, the marshal determined that the player had some kind of unfair advantage.

I'm not sure people are getting this. The player's list (the one turned in) had 100 points listed, he was correctly "representing" his squad as 100 points every game, and for certain in the game in question. There was zero advantage gained based on evidence and the rules don't require an immediate decision -- they require an "investigation of cheating" if the marshal felt an advantage could be gained.

Marshal's reasoning behind his decision, as posted on the Tournament and League Organizers Facebook Group:

"The part that stood out to me, as I knew the rule change, was, “potentially advantageous change.” In my experience I have told people personally and have done so myself, “you need to under bid.” This was agreed upon to be an advantage as a floating four points that can become a mangler cannon is a lot and can change games. It was agreed that match loss which resulted in the players tournament run end would occur. We also discussed that if we don’t give the match loss his opponent could ask for it and that could get heated quick as a mangler cannon would be huge in the game they were playing. It was better for us to make the call then let things go on. If we let the match continue then we are allowing a player to “fix” his list after the first round of cut and if his opponent finds out and he lost, well it could get heated. It was agreed that the responsibility for a correctly filled out squadlist fell on the player."

It isn't that there was a determined advantage but the potential for an advantage. The Marshal gave the game loss based on the possibility of the player being able to underbid for initiative - not that is was observed to have occurred but that it could have happened, which is what a potential advantage is. If it was a definite advantage then that is called cheating.

The Marshal made the right call.

I hate say this, but if this is Marshall's official statement, he is changing it significantly after the fact. He answered questions on twitch and said his ruling was based on the old tournament document (which doesn't have the above part in it) and said they couldn't find the new rules immediately. This was confirmed by people that were on the ground there. He's trying to come up with clear reasoning to justify his ruling after the fact.

I also disagree with that rationalization after the fact anyway because the player didn't "float four points" on his squad list, as mentioned above. It may have been warranted if the player had ever reported 96 points or even had it listed as such on his squad list, but he didn't. The rules require a "potential advantage" to then be investigated, and it wasn't.

If his point was to avoid getting this heated then he failed, totally. Unless what I mentioned earlier - he was 'afraid' of the other player and decided to punish the one that will not shout and mess around..

Moreover, there were no points "floating" if the player had the card on the table. And if all other cards were correct, then this was a pure mistake and should be allowed to correct it.

The Marshall made the wrong call.

From the twitch feed, the judge (49:57 remaining in Top 8):

@KCamp083 Current rules doc was too much of a mess to find (took me more than 5 minutes to find it), went off what was known from prior versions. This was a new section.

A player should get at least a game loss for playing with a squadron that wasn't exactly the same as the one they registered. You require players to submit lists to remove the possibility that they could change things round to round. Leaving off an upgrade and having an unaccounted for 3 points is reintroducing that issue. It is a situation that can be abused. That no one is coming forward to say the player used a different upgrade round to round is likely the reason it wasn't a DQ (and probable suspension from FFG) but that doesn't mean it isn't an error by the player that should have repercussions.

If a judge spot checked a damage deck mid round and found it to be incorrect, but likely not intentionally manipulated, that player is likely going to take a game loss for the illegal damage deck. You're suppose to bring a legal damage deck, there should be consequences when you don't.

You're suppose to play the squad you registered, and there should be consequences if you don't.

The rules clearly state that you are wrong.

"If a leader discovers a player’s squad list missing

appropriate information, he or she should find that player

immediately and update the squad list based on the cardsthe player is using. If this would result in a significant and

potentially advantageous change, the leader should consider

investigating for possible cheating."

The TOs should have considered investigating for possible cheating. That does not translate to immediate game loss.

So if I hand you my sheet that totals 96 points by math but I actually have a 100 point squad by cards, you don't see that as potentially advantageous?

Do we know that the player represented his squad as 96 or 100 points for each and every game?

This is what a Marshal has to determine when he adjudicates this kind of issue.

In the case of a DQ, the marshal determined that the player had some kind of unfair advantage.

It was 100 points on the sheet and he represented it as such at each round. The TO did not consult or know the current rules about squad lists.

Marshal's reasoning behind his decision, as posted on the Tournament and League Organizers Facebook Group:

"The part that stood out to me, as I knew the rule change, was, “potentially advantageous change.” In my experience I have told people personally and have done so myself, “you need to under bid.” This was agreed upon to be an advantage as a floating four points that can become a mangler cannon is a lot and can change games. It was agreed that match loss which resulted in the players tournament run end would occur. We also discussed that if we don’t give the match loss his opponent could ask for it and that could get heated quick as a mangler cannon would be huge in the game they were playing. It was better for us to make the call then let things go on. If we let the match continue then we are allowing a player to “fix” his list after the first round of cut and if his opponent finds out and he lost, well it could get heated. It was agreed that the responsibility for a correctly filled out squadlist fell on the player."

It isn't that there was a determined advantage but the potential for an advantage. The Marshal gave the game loss based on the possibility of the player being able to underbid for initiative - not that is was observed to have occurred but that it could have happened, which is what a potential advantage is. If it was a definite advantage then that is called cheating.

The Marshal made the right call.

No he didn't. There was no potential for advantage when the sheet said 100 points which included the cost for mangler cannon. According to the rules all that should have happened is that it should have been written in on the sheet. That is a blatant lie that they decided based on current rules. TO said in chat on twitch that they didn't see the new rule. They are backpedaling due to the size of the error and trying to save face but there were many of us in chat that saw what happened and heard them admit they couldn't find the relevant rule until AFTER the player was ejected probably due to the fact that we, in chat, pointed out the page and section of the rules to them that was relevant to this situation.

No he didn't. There was no potential for advantage when the sheet said 100 points which included the cost for mangler cannon. According to the rules all that should have happened is that it should have been written in on the sheet. That is a blatant lie that they decided based on current rules. TO said in chat on twitch that they didn't see the new rule. They are backpedaling due to the size of the error and trying to save face but there were many of us in chat that saw what happened and heard them admit they couldn't find the relevant rule until AFTER the player was ejected probably due to the fact that we, in chat, pointed out the page and section of the rules to them that was relevant to this situation.

I posted the salient quote from chat above.

A player should get at least a game loss for playing with a squadron that wasn't exactly the same as the one they registered. You require players to submit lists to remove the possibility that they could change things round to round. Leaving off an upgrade and having an unaccounted for 3 points is reintroducing that issue. It is a situation that can be abused. That no one is coming forward to say the player used a different upgrade round to round is likely the reason it wasn't a DQ (and probable suspension from FFG) but that doesn't mean it isn't an error by the player that should have repercussions.

If a judge spot checked a damage deck mid round and found it to be incorrect, but likely not intentionally manipulated, that player is likely going to take a game loss for the illegal damage deck. You're suppose to bring a legal damage deck, there should be consequences when you don't.

You're suppose to play the squad you registered, and there should be consequences if you don't.

The rules clearly state that you are wrong.

"If a leader discovers a player’s squad list missing

appropriate information, he or she should find that player

immediately and update the squad list based on the cardsthe player is using. If this would result in a significant and

potentially advantageous change, the leader should consider

investigating for possible cheating."

The TOs should have considered investigating for possible cheating. That does not translate to immediate game loss.

So if I hand you my sheet that totals 96 points by math but I actually have a 100 point squad by cards, you don't see that as potentially advantageous?

Do we know that the player represented his squad as 96 or 100 points for each and every game?

This is what a Marshal has to determine when he adjudicates this kind of issue.

In the case of a DQ, the marshal determined that the player had some kind of unfair advantage.

I do see that as potentially advantageous. That is why I stated that the TO should do what the rules say to do when the error is potentially advantageous; investigate for possible cheating. If there were players mentioning that he was playing at 96 for some games, that would be one thing. But we have been told of no investigation that yielded evidence that he cheated. Instead of following the clearly printed rules, the TOs went to a game loss ruling just on the possibility of cheating. The rules call for suspiscion, not an immediate game loss.

If this had happened before a rules update giving us this new ruling, there would not be complaints. But now, the rules are much more clear cut, and were obviously violated by the TOs. Unfortunately they're still just interested in justifications, and apparently now rewriting the story, as others have pointed out.

A player should get at least a game loss for playing with a squadron that wasn't exactly the same as the one they registered. You require players to submit lists to remove the possibility that they could change things round to round. Leaving off an upgrade and having an unaccounted for 3 points is reintroducing that issue. It is a situation that can be abused. That no one is coming forward to say the player used a different upgrade round to round is likely the reason it wasn't a DQ (and probable suspension from FFG) but that doesn't mean it isn't an error by the player that should have repercussions.

If a judge spot checked a damage deck mid round and found it to be incorrect, but likely not intentionally manipulated, that player is likely going to take a game loss for the illegal damage deck. You're suppose to bring a legal damage deck, there should be consequences when you don't.

You're suppose to play the squad you registered, and there should be consequences if you don't.

The rules clearly state that you are wrong.

"If a leader discovers a player’s squad list missing

appropriate information, he or she should find that player

immediately and update the squad list based on the cardsthe player is using. If this would result in a significant and

potentially advantageous change, the leader should consider

investigating for possible cheating."

The TOs should have considered investigating for possible cheating. That does not translate to immediate game loss.

So if I hand you my sheet that totals 96 points by math but I actually have a 100 point squad by cards, you don't see that as potentially advantageous?

Do we know that the player represented his squad as 96 or 100 points for each and every game?

This is what a Marshal has to determine when he adjudicates this kind of issue.

In the case of a DQ, the marshal determined that the player had some kind of unfair advantage.

I do see that as potentially advantageous. That is why I stated that the TO should do what the rules say to do when the error is potentially advantageous; investigate for possible cheating. If there were players mentioning that he was playing at 96 for some games, that would be one thing. But we have been told of no investigation that yielded evidence that he cheated. Instead of following the clearly printed rules, the TOs went to a game loss ruling just on the possibility of cheating. The rules call for suspiscion, not an immediate game loss.

If this had happened before a rules update giving us this new ruling, there would not be complaints. But now, the rules are much more clear cut, and were obviously violated by the TOs. Unfortunately they're still just interested in justifications, and apparently now rewriting the story, as others have pointed out.

They admittedly(in twitch chat) did not consult the current rules so any excuses being made now are a joke.

I really don't like voices saying that the guy did not speak up for himself. Rules are rules and it is TO's responsibility to follow them correctly, even if someone is not able to shout through his point of view. This is what I hate most, when one the players is shouting / messing around just to get the ruling in his favor (with his opponent or TO if already involved).

It's TO's responsibility in the very first place. Other voices might have had some influence, but are not be blamed for not being loud enough...

Playing 96 points with a Mangler gives you advantage of initiative bid, although according to what was stated before on his squad list it was counted as 100 points, hence he had no advantage. Moreover, his random opponent could point out during the game that he has no Mangler in the list and try to force him to stop using it, due to that, but even that did not happen so he might have had the card with him, which would also play to his favor: mistake in the list, but using only the cardson the table which counts up to the correct value of 100.

The TO doesn't (usually) get paid for this nonsense, he isn't an NFL ref who is trains at being a judge. These guys are players, like you and me. They don't know every single rule in all of the FAQs and Tournament documents. The burden falls on them to make the call. If you are part of the issue, the burden also falls on you to help the judges make the right call. This happens at the highest levels of competition. Major league baseball is famous for this, Coaches in the NFL can challenge calls and plays, and those guys are professionals. In a very amateur event like this there are 2 options, 1) be an advocate for yourself and help the judge or 2) put up with a potentially bad ruling. It really is that simple.

I really don't like voices saying that the guy did not speak up for himself. Rules are rules and it is TO's responsibility to follow them correctly, even if someone is not able to shout through his point of view. This is what I hate most, when one the players is shouting / messing around just to get the ruling in his favor (with his opponent or TO if already involved).

It's TO's responsibility in the very first place. Other voices might have had some influence, but are not be blamed for not being loud enough...

Playing 96 points with a Mangler gives you advantage of initiative bid, although according to what was stated before on his squad list it was counted as 100 points, hence he had no advantage. Moreover, his random opponent could point out during the game that he has no Mangler in the list and try to force him to stop using it, due to that, but even that did not happen so he might have had the card with him, which would also play to his favor: mistake in the list, but using only the cardson the table which counts up to the correct value of 100.

The TO doesn't (usually) get paid for this nonsense, he isn't an NFL ref who is trains at being a judge. These guys are players, like you and me. They don't know every single rule in all of the FAQs and Tournament documents. The burden falls on them to make the call. If you are part of the issue, the burden also falls on you to help the judges make the right call. This happens at the highest levels of competition. Major league baseball is famous for this, Coaches in the NFL can challenge calls and plays, and those guys are professionals. In a very amateur event like this there are 2 options, 1) be an advocate for yourself and help the judge or 2) put up with a potentially bad ruling. It really is that simple.

That is a poor argument. If you are going to agree to TO then you need to have read the FAQ and all rules through so you at least know where to go back to for specific information. This is especially true if you are going to TO a regional. I TO in my area at multiple stores and events and I always check for new rules the day before the event to make sure I have current info so I don't waste players time when they call on me for a ruling.

Arguing with a judge or TO would be quite unsportsmanlike and that poses another dilemma now doesn't it?

I really don't like voices saying that the guy did not speak up for himself. Rules are rules and it is TO's responsibility to follow them correctly, even if someone is not able to shout through his point of view. This is what I hate most, when one the players is shouting / messing around just to get the ruling in his favor (with his opponent or TO if already involved).

It's TO's responsibility in the very first place. Other voices might have had some influence, but are not be blamed for not being loud enough...

Playing 96 points with a Mangler gives you advantage of initiative bid, although according to what was stated before on his squad list it was counted as 100 points, hence he had no advantage. Moreover, his random opponent could point out during the game that he has no Mangler in the list and try to force him to stop using it, due to that, but even that did not happen so he might have had the card with him, which would also play to his favor: mistake in the list, but using only the cardson the table which counts up to the correct value of 100.

The TO doesn't (usually) get paid for this nonsense, he isn't an NFL ref who is trains at being a judge. These guys are players, like you and me. They don't know every single rule in all of the FAQs and Tournament documents. The burden falls on them to make the call. If you are part of the issue, the burden also falls on you to help the judges make the right call. This happens at the highest levels of competition. Major league baseball is famous for this, Coaches in the NFL can challenge calls and plays, and those guys are professionals. In a very amateur event like this there are 2 options, 1) be an advocate for yourself and help the judge or 2) put up with a potentially bad ruling. It really is that simple.

I think it's reasonable to expect the judges to know and apply the rules correctly at a regional level. The situation and what to do was already outlined for them, they just failed to look it up and apply it correctly.

Advocacy steps were taken, but the game board was already cleared. You're asking someone who's mental state is probably already overwhelmed (going from playing on cam with hopes to win the whole thing to being told your run is over) to realize that the TO is wrong and challenge him on it before the board is clear. The players aren't expected to know these rules, they're written for TOs. You're asking a player to know more about TOing than the TO. Pointing out the correct ruling after the fact can't repair his game state.

Arguing with a judge is unsportsmanlike if you are doing it improperly. Also he was more or less getting thrown out of the tournament, so you might as well go all in at that point.

It is ok to say, "I do not believe that is accurate, would it be ok to look it up?" or "Could you show me in the tournament regulations where it says that?" or "Could you give me 5 minutes to look this up so we can talk more directly about this?"

What I am not saying is that the TO made the most appropriate call. What I am saying is that 1) It doesn't seem like the player cared, 2) it doesnt seem like the player advocated for himself in any way and 3) its the internet machine right now ripping on a judge who is a great person who made a call and frankly it wasn't great but it actually doesn't involve you in any way.

Arguing with a judge is unsportsmanlike if you are doing it improperly. Also he was more or less getting thrown out of the tournament, so you might as well go all in at that point.

It is ok to say, "I do not believe that is accurate, would it be ok to look it up?" or "Could you show me in the tournament regulations where it says that?" or "Could you give me 5 minutes to look this up so we can talk more directly about this?"

What I am not saying is that the TO made the most appropriate call. What I am saying is that 1) It doesn't seem like the player cared, 2) it doesnt seem like the player advocated for himself in any way and 3) its the internet machine right now ripping on a judge who is a great person who made a call and frankly it wasn't great but it actually doesn't involve you in any way.

Agree that my words have been maybe too much. Although, I still stand in a position that if you decide to TO or judge such an event, it is your responsibility when a call is made. I do not deny him being a great person, probably also always helpful and fun to play with (no sarcasm!). Though, here we cannot expect or anyhow blame the player for not questioning the rules, would you agree? You and me, probably would. I know a lot of players that would. I know few that would argue and mess around, anything to push through the ruling that is in their favor. I know people that would wait for the decision peacefully and take whatever they get only because they have respect to the rules and the Judge.

There are rules, that all should stick to. Those rules are not because we want them to be. But to create a fun and competitive game. And those should be the same despite if you can speak up for yourself or not, and that is TO's responsibility to ensure it is followed.

Here he failed and I hope he will take the lesson and prepare for the next event better.