Tables that can come to an agreement themselves have not been forced by a judge to play it a specific way.

That's going to depend highly on what the agreement is. But at Worlds and such they do see to take a IMO unhealthy level of hands off when it comes to stuff. I've seen a few cases where someone clearly gets it wrong and Alex himself comments on it, but no one does anything.

Now I get that Alex as a spectator shouldn't get involved. But someone should again IMO mention it to a judge who should get involved.

Tables that can come to an agreement themselves have not been forced by a judge to play it a specific way.

That's going to depend highly on what the agreement is. But at Worlds and such they do see to take a IMO unhealthy level of hands off when it comes to stuff. I've seen a few cases where someone clearly gets it wrong and Alex himself comments on it, but no one does anything.

Now I get that Alex as a spectator shouldn't get involved. But someone should again IMO mention it to a judge who should get involved.

You say that, and I can say that I don't agree. That doesn't change the example that we have been given by ffg.

That doesn't change the example that we have been given by ffg.

True, but FFG isn't running the tournaments I do. So until they change the tournament rules I'll continue to run them the way I see fit, just like they'll run theirs the way they see fit.

The TO/Marshel/Judge has the final say over how things get run, the tournament document even spells this out.

I had come up at regionals I was in disagreement about a how Finn works. Well anyways a third party chimes in and then when I disagree he says he will get the judge and he did. Is that kosher I am still a bit bitter about that. Should I be?

Rules say:

"A spectator is any individual at a tournament not actively engaging in another role. Spectators must not disturb an ongoing game, and cannot provide any input or assistance to players during their games."

The third party should not have commented to you or called the judge. You either settle the disagreement or call a judge to settle it.

The guy may have been trying to be helpful, but he overstepped his bounds as a spectator.

If the guy wants to clarify the rule for himself and ask the judge what the correct ruling is outside of the game, he has the right to do so, but should not actively be calling the judge over to make a ruling.

In regard to the judge, he has a responsibility to assist in settling disputes. Unless he officially declares himself a player or spectator, I think he has a responsibility to help settle the issue and clarify the rules. Some may disagree, but that's how I read it.

The guy may have been trying to be helpful, but he overstepped his bounds as a spectator.

How so? I mean if someone does nothing more than go and point out to a judge that some table is having an issue with a rule... How have they interjected or had any impact on the game?

It's not the spectator making the call or offering an opinion on the ruling. They're simply pointing out to a judge that a given game has stalled out because of a rule dispute.

It sounds like in this case the spectator did interject. Then when the OP disagreed with the spectator, that spectator then went to the judge. The spectator should have never interjected, even to announce he was going to the judge. He should have just gone to the judge.

It sounds like in this case the spectator did interject.

That's something we all agree on. The spectator did interject and shouldn't of.

Groovy. I thought you were saying differently, my mistake.

The guy may have been trying to be helpful, but he overstepped his bounds as a spectator.

How so? I mean if someone does nothing more than go and point out to a judge that some table is having an issue with a rule... How have they interjected or had any impact on the game?

It's not the spectator making the call or offering an opinion on the ruling. They're simply pointing out to a judge that a given game has stalled out because of a rule dispute.

Sorry but we really disagree on this. Its not your game, go away. For one, it provides input that other players do not have access to. Unless you have players who have the exact same knowledge jumping in on every game that goes on in a tournament a spectator should spectate, if the game is REALLY being played wrong, they wont do well in the tournament anyway and it will sort itself out.

I for one have a no talking policy at tables im at if they are not playing in the game. They can walk 3 feet away and chat all they want. I have also had judges burn me on incorrect calls before. I would hate for a judge to be able to interject every time they felt like something wasnt perfect.

As far as I'm concerned, no third party has the authority to call for a judge. They might suggest one of the players call the judge over, but I feel it's pretty damned rude that he was the one that decided to go and get the judge.

I think that's what most of us are saying.

In fact, no, Parravon is strongly suggesting that a third party should not even call a judge. And this is the disagreement right now... Most people say we should call a judge but not interfere.

I'm not just strongly suggesting it, I'm following the tournament rules. A spectator cannot interfere. Plain and simple. They have no right to involve themselves in a game dispute or disagreement, and no right to go and call a judge over when not requested to by either player.

Now the tournament rules clearly state that " when a judge is not actively performing judge duties, he or she is a spectator ", and the spectator status says they " cannot provide any input or assistance to players during their games ", which I understand to mean they are not allowed to offer any advice or opinion unless asked, and when they are asked, their status becomes that of the judge once more.

Other than that, all third parties to a game should just butt out! It does not matter if two players are playing something incorrectly, it's their game.

If a player has finished his game and is now watching another game, and starts pointing out a rules mistake or offering comments, or worse still, gets involved with a dispute in that game, that person is in breach of the tournament rules and should be penalized accordingly.

It's also up to the judge to know exactly when and who is allowed to ask them for help. If I were a judge at a tournament and a spectator came to me telling me two players were having a disagreement, there's no way I would step in and interrupt their game to set them straight. I haven't been asked by a player yet. I would prefer to go and observe the game, but I wouldn't offer any comment unless asked. Sometimes, if a player is doing something dodgy, the mere presence of a judge watching will stop it. And that same presence will sometimes prompt an unsure player to ask a question, whereas it may not get asked if that player has to go and search for the judge.

The game is played between two players. Not two players, a personal advice coach, a few spectators, and a cheerleading section. Just two players.

Its not your game, go away.

That's not true however. Every game at a tournament can effect the tournament as a whole, so if someone see's someone blatantly cheating they owe it to everyone to see that the player is dealt with.

If they see a game stalled out because the players can't agree on a issue, then there's no harm in mentioning it to the Judge. The Judge will then be the one to decide if they should get involved or not, because that's what they're there for.

I would hate for a judge to be able to interject every time they felt like something wasnt perfect.

Ideally they won't do that. They'll only interject when they feel there's a need.

If for example the players can't decide if the ship actually landed on an asteroid or not, they can ask a judge, or they can sort it out themselves. A judge should only interject in that case if asked, or if the players can't come to an agreement.

But if a judge sees a player picking up and covertly changing a dial while the other guy is distracted then the judge must interject into the game regardless of if anyone asked him or not.

Or lets say a player by either being loud or just really convincing is about to make another player ignore the rules, such as convincing them that they can't nest actions with PtL. The Judge should get involved because that may or may not be cheating but is clearly going to create a unfair game.

Then there's all the cases in between which quite frankly require a judgement call by the judge to decide if he should or shouldn't get involved. If someone is constantly interjecting in a game when not needed, and worse is making bad calls, that person shouldn't be a judge.

But the Judge has not only the right, but the requirement to interject into a game at will, without being asked if they feel it's needed. If they couldn't then there's quite frankly no way for them to deal with things like cheating or poor sportsmanship.

The whole point is a Judge should be able to know when to get involved and when not to.

Other than that, all third parties to a game should just butt out! It does not matter if two players are playing something incorrectly, it's their game.

But again, if we're talking about a tournament that's not really true, because it's not just their game it's a game that's part of the larger event.

It's the judge's decision to get involved or not. If you saw someone blatantly cheating do you need to just stay silent and not inform the judge?

whereas it may not get asked if that player has to go and search for the judge.

So in that case it was beneficial to the players that someone else asked the judge to check it out, because they were able to ask the judge a question without wasting even more time going and looking for one. Or as you point out may not even bother asking because it's a hassle.

But again, explain how a 3rd party pointing an issue out to a judge harms anyone.

Other than that, all third parties to a game should just butt out! It does not matter if two players are playing something incorrectly, it's their game.

But again, if we're talking about a tournament that's not really true, because it's not just their game it's a game that's part of the larger event.

But again, explain how a 3rd party pointing an issue out to a judge harms anyone. It's the judge's decision to get involved or not. If you saw someone blatantly cheating do you need to just stay silent and not inform the judge?

Yes. Anything you as a spectator says confuses the issue. You dont know the spectator's relationship to the other players. Shut up, sit down and watch xwing.

Anything you as a spectator says confuses the issue.

No it doesn't, not if you aren't speaking to the players. If you walk up to the judge and say "The guys on table 6 are having an issue could you go see if they need help?" Does nothing to confuse the issue.

But if you actually mean you should allow people to cheat and not say anything to the TO/Judge when you see it... Well then I'm not going to bother debating it further with you.

It sounds like in this case the spectator did interject.

That's something we all agree on. The spectator did interject and shouldn't of.

Anything you as a spectator says confuses the issue.

No it doesn't, not if you aren't speaking to the players. If you walk up to the judge and say "The guys on table 6 are having an issue could you go see if they need help?" Does nothing to confuse the issue.

But if you actually mean you should allow people to cheat and not say anything to the TO/Judge when you see it... Well then I'm not going to bother debating it further with you.

saying "The guys on table 6 are having an issue could you go see if they need help?" is not calling out anything and if you want to waste your time getting a judge, i dont see how thats an issue. Saying, "The guy at table 6 is cheating" is inappropriate and should not be noted to a judge as all spectators are unreliable witnesses.

Saying, "The guy at table 6 is cheating" is inappropriate and should not be noted to a judge as all spectators are unreliable witnesses.

No spectators are not in fact unreliable witnesses that's just nonsense. They may not have the ability to make the call, but that doesn't mean they can't accurately report what they saw.

Edit: That doesn't mean the Judge takes what someone says as proof, they shouldn't DQ someone just because someone else said they saw them cheating. They should however keep an eye out on that player to see if something is going on or not.

They may not even see them do anything else for the rest of the event, but that could simply be because the person didn't want to take the chance of getting caught.

If a spectator came up to me, as a judge, and said "one of the guys on table 6 is cheating", then morally I would feel obliged to investigate and observe , but I would only intervene if I actually observe the cheating act or I was asked to intervene. And by "cheating" i don't mean a misinterpretation of a rule. I mean blatantly manipulating a rule or act that will influence the outcome of that act. However, after the game, I would probably feel obliged to point out any errors they made in order to correct them before their next game.

Spectators are witnesses, that's true. But a judge should carefully consider whether their input into any debate will be helpful or not.

I'm a referee at our local speedway, and more once I've had to tell an "observer" to shut up as their input is not warranted or required. When there's a dispute, I only want to talk to the drivers. Not the driver's representative, parent, pit crew, and especially any spectators. We have 3-4 referees watching each event, so we have enough eyes on an incident to make a decision without any biased views from outside. We generally just want the driver's point of view before determining if the issue warrants further action.

We've had this debate so many times here. Should a judge intervene when someone is cheating? Should a judge intervene when someone is just playing something incorrectly? It can sometimes be a fine line between the two, but I see cheating as actively breaking one or more rules in order to gain an advantage. And If I see that happening, then I'm likely to intervene, because that's where i draw the line. I'm not likely to be too harsh on a competitor when they have broken a rule and were unaware of it, but I have no problem ejecting a competitor from an event for blatant cheating, be it in X-wing or at Speedway.

You don't see sports referees or umpires taking counsel from spectators before intervening, do you?

Looking back at the hundreds of games I've refereed, and watching many more games, then yes, you actually do. If something's going on that the ref should be aware of but she's focused elsewhere a quick head's up can do wonders.

Maybe not on the televised level, but that's not the level we're playing at here, are we.

Other than that, all third parties to a game should just butt out! It does not matter if two players are playing something incorrectly, it's their game.

In a tournament situation, it does, though.

Because if they do something wrong and it changes who wins and/or what score they get, that affects the whole tournament.

If a spectator came up to me, as a judge, and said "one of the guys on table 6 is cheating", then morally I would feel obliged to investigate and observe , but I would only intervene if I actually observe the cheating act or I was asked to intervene.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I don't think anyone expects a judge to take the word of anyone that someone is cheating and DQ them. We all expect that the judge would observe the game and come to his or her own conclusion on if cheating was taking place.

That however is not the same thing as saying a spectator shouldn't inform a judge when they see something questionable. It may be nothing it may be something. Either way it's up to the judge to decide, but they can't make a decision if they're not aware of it happening.

There's something very wrong with the concept that it's ok to cheat as long as you don't get caught, which is exactly what happens when spectators are barred from reporting suspicious actions.

We have 3-4 referees watching each event, so we have enough eyes on an incident to make a decision without any biased views from outside.

Outside views aren't inherently biased they can be the most unbiased view possible in some cases. Plus at your typical X-Wing tournament there aren't nearly enough judges to watch even a minority of the games, so without someone pointing something out to them, they will will miss far more than they notice.

That's why spectators should report things they see. At the FFG regional I went to, there was 80+ games going on and like 3 judges...

It's amazing how the subject of passive judge versus active judge discussions transcend different games. .

Well I will be sure to report what i see in games the minute that the tournament regulations note for me to do so. Otherwise i will continue to act as a spectator in games that i am playing and keep my mouth shut.

Otherwise i will continue to act as a spectator in games that i am playing and keep my mouth shut.

Feel free. No one is going to demand that you get involved if you don't want to. But that also doesn't mean that someone else can't go inform a judge of what they see if they want to.

It's human nature, if you see people discussing rules and you observe that both parties can't agree, I think people naturally give their opinion if they are aware of the rules. Or if someone observes something that is against the rules and I'm not talking about missed opportunities then people will say something. If the person playing is not happy about someone observing telling the player a rule then it is appropriate to call a judge.