OP rules about spectator interaction

During Worlds, I was watching my friend play and at some point, he rezzed a Spin Doctor and immediately drew 2 cards. There was another rezzed Spin on the board. His opponent didn’t say anything. Now, I’m a bit of a rule geek (I’m planning to volonteer to be judge next occasion) and I’ve seen my share of misplays, missed triggers and illegal actions, and I’ve always kept my mouth shut while I was spectating.
I know I should have go grabbed a judge, but I kinda forgot and told my friend about the rezzed spin. I was worried that he could get a game loss if it wasn’t fixed quicky. He asked his opponent if he could trigger the first spin, but I knew it was too late for that. They immediately called a judge who ruled to trash the first spin because of the unique rule.
I knew that was the proper ruling which is somewhat detrimental to my friend. If I hadn’t said anything, maybe his opponent wouldn’t have noticed and he could have used the recursion from both doctors. But I was worried that if this was discovered too late, he could get a game loss. Which leads me to a couple of questions.
If I had gone for a judge and let the game progress, would the ruling have been different? I think if the judge arrives and it’s still the same turn, the ruling is the same. The board was already in an irreversible state the moment he drew, so if he does more actions, that doesn’t really change. However, if the runner has started his turn and made any decision with an illegal board state, that’s a game loss, right?
If I’m right about this, I probable did the right thing. But what if his opponent had complained to the judge that I intervened and helped my friend? On one hand, I didn’t really helped him because the ruling was detrimental, but on the other hand, if he avoided a game loss, that’s a big help.
I checked the OP rules, and it seems should apply: “If a player did not solicit the outside assistance from another player, disqualify the player that gave unsolicited assistance”. I think that’s a bit harsh. If the opponent complains about it, I should definitely get at least a warning. We don’t want random spectators calling out illegal board states lightly. I could have been mistaken and disturb the players for nothing. But I think this part of the OP rules about spectator interaction could be refined a bit.

1 Like

It’s not my call anymore, but I disagree. The spectator rules are harsh on purpose to heavily discourage any interaction whatsoever with an ongoing game.

And it’s exactly to prevent this scenario. You potentially prevented a game loss for your friend because you were watching the game. You put undue influence on the game because of a relationship you had with someone in it.

Had you not been there, the sanctity of that game would have been different, and the responsibility of the gamestate fully on the players. That’s the point. If that means gameloss, it means gameloss.

A deeper point is that the rules also protect those players. The last thing we’d want is for their wins or losses to be questioned based on accusations of interference.

Is there nuance that the rules could allow for? Maybe. But rules are also logistical. It’s difficult for a judge to guage if you purposefully interfered with a game for advantage, or meant no harm. It’s logistically easier to tell you not to talk.

At the end of the day I’d say if you can’t observe games without interacting with the players, don’t observe games. You have to be fine with a friend misplaying and say nothing. Discuss the bad beats after; that’s half the fun.

1 Like

What, specifically, do you feel needs to be refined? The rules are clear for the reasons that @orbital_tangent mentioned, interventions by anyone other than judges are forbidden, to avoid the conflicts of interest that occur when selected games (those which are spectated). are affected by outside agency.

You made very good points. I understand why the rules are so harsh indeed. I’ll be more careful not to interact directly next time.
Thanks for explaining.