I'd like to get a discussion started on the role of the judge at tournaments.

I'm a first time Regional TO, and while I think I have a solid enough grip on the rules (hope so, at least), there's some matters related to officiating I feel unsure about, and I'd like the community's input on these issues.

Stalling: What is a judge supposed to do if complaints about stalling the game are brought before him? How do you determine if stalling is taking place? How do you reprimand the offending party?

Should judges interfere with a game if they witness irregularities (forgotten passives, incorrect application of rules etc.) without having been called to the table? For that matter, can - and should - regular onlookers (non-judges) remind players of forgotten passives or correct rules mistakes?

If a judge suspects foul play taking place at a table (e.g. a player unfairly taking advantage of an inexperienced opponent, or even outright cheating), can he assign himself to that table and keep a closer look at things? Should he?

At Stahleck last year, later rounds were refereed by a judge from beginning to end. How do you feel about that? Is that practiced at other tournaments, too?

Generally, what do you feel is the role of a judge at a tournament? What does, and what doesn't, a good judge do?

Thanks for your iinput.

You're going to get different answers from different people, but this is how I run things…

Stalling: It all depends on the nature of the complaint. If someone complains after the game, there's not much to be done. If I am made aware during the game, I'll keep an eye on the table and remind the offending player to pick up the pace whenever I think they are indeed slowing the game down. I doubt this would ever happen, but if I was constantly reminding someone to hurry up, I'd eventually tell them to get going or they're getting a loss for the round.

I prefer to let players run their own games. Both players should know the rules, and are responsible for knowing what's on the table. If there is something they cannot resolve on their own, they can call me over for a ruling. Interfering as a judge introduces it's own set of problems, and I'd prefer not to create the opportunity to be blamed for being biased, etc.

Other players can be biased, and may just be pointing things out to help their friend, and less worried about fair play. They should stay out of it, and keep the chatter to a minimum if they are close to any table.

An inexperienced player should know the rules, this is a tournament, not casual play. It's hard to prove when someone is intentionally cheating, but if you can, remove them from the tournament.

If I'm not participating in a tournament, I will watch the final rounds closely. However, I'm more often worried about what going on around the tables (crowding, loud talking, scouting, any talking about the game, etc.), than I am about what the actual players are doing.

Obviously, I prefer to take more of a "hands off" approach.

While I am personally a more libertarian guy in principle and thus appreciate Deathjester's philosophy of TO'ing, I believe a TO functions like a referee at a sporting event. He should be responsible to enforce the following of rules. If he sees a violation of the rules(passives being forgotten or ignored, key words forgotten ignored, etc) he should correct it. Now I know 1 judge cannot catch every infraction, but that doesn't excuse ignoring violations you do catch.

As to other participants pointing out violations they observe in games they spectate, I completely oppose any observers influencing game play.