What exactly qualifies as stalling

[Shock Wave]

Obviously this isn't going to change the minds of those who would like to be able to use such a rule, or those who feel any amount of splash damage is OK if it prevents even one unjust DQ, but the people who make the rules obviously think differently, and continuing to voice opinions here of how you feel things should be isn't going to accomplish anything.

We're not posting for the purpose of making noise. This is as much an opportunity for players to learn what they are entitled to do during a game and what actions are considered rules infractions, as it is for voicing an opinion about rules alternatives.

I doubt that the DCI is watching this thread or has considered changing the rules, but if nobody points out what they believe to be a problem, then there will never be any reason to change them. I'm sure basketball was played without a shot clock at some point in history.

[Komatteru]

I'm sure basketball was played without a shot clock at some point in history.

It was.  It was instated in the 50s or so. College basketball didn't have one for an even longer time (1986).  I heard that one team won a game 2-0 or so after stalling out the game for 40+ minutes running around just dribbling, but I can't find any such tale.  The NBA did it because the games were getting boring, and they wanted to speed them up.  It increased scoring by a good 20 points or so, so it worked.

[andrewpate]

Note also that Zvi created the new Legend rule and asked Wizards to change it several years ago.  They kept it in the back of their minds and used his version when they changed it for CHK Block.  Not to mention that Wizards has already pointed out in official articles that they do read and respect these forums.  If we have really good reasoning here and raise points they hadn't considered, I see no reason not to believe that they'll give it at least some small quantity of weight.  And if, in 2 years or something, they decided that it's being a problem (Consider the huge number of draws at Champs this year, about which many people complained.  Could a format get so slow that a change would be needed?), they may remember a suggested solution they read here.  Who knows.  It's certainly no reason to stop discussing.

[Norm4eva]

The shot clock came about in basketball by dividing the number of seconds in a game by the average number of shots per game (back in like 1956 it was approx. 120).  I don't really see a parallel between basketball and M:tG in this regard; even if we could agree that 45 minutes was 'long enough' to play out 3 rounds, by what merit would be establish 'shots'?
To ask the question a different way; how are issues of time handled in chess/poker/similar games?  I know there's a speed variant of chess, but I suspect that the constant passing of priority would make that a difficult alternative way of playing.  It would be most interesting to see a speed variant, however, as a compliment or corollary to a sanctioned version which allowed for 'deep thought', as it were.

[Shock Wave]

The shot clock came about in basketball by dividing the number of seconds in a game by the average number of shots per game (back in like 1956 it was approx. 120).  I don't really see a parallel between basketball and M:tG in this regard; even if we could agree that 45 minutes was 'long enough' to play out 3 rounds, by what merit would be establish 'shots'?

I wasn't implying that there was a relevant parallel between the basketball shot clock and timing in Magic. My point was that at one point in basketball history, the game was played without a shot clock, until it became evident that the lack of time enforcement had created a problem for the game. If enough players raise their voice so that there is a significant player indication that time regulations should be reviewed and possibly amended, it's also possible that the DCI may think about changing their rules as well.

[Godder]

To ask the question a different way; how are issues of time handled in chess/poker/similar games?  I know there's a speed variant of chess, but I suspect that the constant passing of priority would make that a difficult alternative way of playing.  It would be most interesting to see a speed variant, however, as a compliment or corollary to a sanctioned version which allowed for 'deep thought', as it were.

Poker doesn't really handle time because most decisions are very quick and because you would normally go until there's a winner.

In chess, you have a device, called a chess clock, with two clocks that are linked to buttons such that pressing one player's button stops his clock and starts the opponent's clock. Modern chess clocks are digital, and so have various different settings available to use. I believe they would work fine in Magic provided the current shortcuts continued to be used (minimising priority passing minimises issues).

[andrewpate]

But there are tons of implied priority passes that exist now and would have to be formalized.  Every time you cast a spell and wonder if it might be countered, you pause for a second before resolving it and kind of make eye contact.  Only sometimes you don't do that, you play Swords to Plowshares on their Goblin Welder and start to move on, but they say, "Hey, wait, Force of Will."  With a chess clock, you'd have to Plow the Welder, hit the clock, let them hit it right back if they aren't going to counter, then hit the clock to pass priority back (let's say it's their end step) in case they want to Ancestral Recall before you untap or something, then make sure they don't want to do anything during your upkeep.....  it seems like you could skip this, but then if they have to think for a second about whether they want to try to force something through before you draw or whatever, they're eating up extra seconds of your time, and if you try to shortcut and they want to play something, for example, during your draw step (wtf, who plays Funeral Charm?), they're like reaching across you to hit your clock button so they can do it.  It would not work.

[Norm4eva]

The shot clock came about in basketball by dividing the number of seconds in a game by the average number of shots per game (back in like 1956 it was approx. 120).  I don't really see a parallel between basketball and M:tG in this regard; even if we could agree that 45 minutes was 'long enough' to play out 3 rounds, by what merit would be establish 'shots'?

I wasn't implying that there was a relevant parallel between the basketball shot clock and timing in Magic. My point was that at one point in basketball history, the game was played without a shot clock, until it became evident that the lack of time enforcement had created a problem for the game. If enough players raise their voice so that there is a significant player indication that time regulations should be reviewed and possibly amended, it's also possible that the DCI may think about changing their rules as well.

I wasn't implied you insinuated such. ;)
It just serves to illustrate that chess clocks are just about impossible to apply to Magic the Gathering, with the exception of MtGO but the computer handles and prompts every action so there's no chance of anyone going "Tide, Tide, Turnabout, Meditate" and having the opponent go "Wait wait wait I'm going to counter that Turnabout, turn back the clock".  Shortcutting is so ingrained in the gameplay, I suspect very few people would have the patience or compunction IRL to 'play-out' a "draw, island, go" situation.  It would actually make the gameplay -longer-.  Sweet.

[Clariax]

Just a quick little weigh-in on chess clocks, and why they simply aren't feasible for IRL magic:

Priority gets passed back and forth an absurd number of times.  In a normal turn where neither player plays anything and no attackers are declared each player will get priority 8 different times.  Sure you can shortcut some of this, as you can on mtgo, but that also leads to problems.  You can't shortcut enough, and when you end up wanting to do something on opponent's upkeep, which you've been shortcutting past previously, you end up having to tell your opponent in advance of your plans.

Also there's various times when neither player has priority.  When state-based effects are being resolved, for example.  On mtgo this is handled by computer and happens nearly instantly, without any effect on the clock.  IRL it may take a bit of time to determine what is dead when you have a complex combat phase.  It would hardly be fair to either player to have their clock running while the players are determining what has taken lethal damage.

This is really just a short overview, not an all-inclusive list, of why chess clocks wouldn't work, so please don't make posts from the point that if you can find a way around those listed problems chess clocks can work

[Godder]

Excuse me, but that's the point of having a discussion board in general, or indeed this discussion in particular. It's a discussion, not a concrete proposal to the DCI. Such comments are thoroughly unproductive to the TMD community at large, and aren't useful here.

On the specific points raised, it's a player's own responsibility to ensure his time isn't being wasted by the other player. If the opponent says "I have something to do" at an implied priority pass, the first player can push their own clock button and wait. With a Bronstein (RIP) timer, that won't waste any of either player's time because pressing the button would add up to some pre-determined amount (2-3 secs would probably be enough) to offset priority shifts.

Indeed, there's no reason why Stalling couldn't remain, but now it would be for deliberately manipulating the clock (sound familiar?). Passing all priority shifts as actually mandated in the rules isn't done now, so why should Clocks make it any different? If you try to do that now, you'll get warned for Slow Play or DQed for Stalling.

Nobody has priority as such? Stop the clock while you sort out whatever needs sorting out, and then start it again once you're done. Need a judge? Stop the clock while you await their presence (and while they fix/answer whatever), just as in Chess.

[Khahan]

Another problem of the clock is the physical aspect of it.  We have a JSS player in our area with MS. Its mild, relatively speaking. But over the course of the game, he's going to lose 3-4 minutes just due to physically coordinating himself to reach out and tap the clock. It doesn't sound like much, but to him, it would be a big deal and would probably play a role in quite a few matches.

[Shock Wave]

Another problem of the clock is the physical aspect of it.  We have a JSS player in our area with MS. Its mild, relatively speaking. But over the course of the game, he's going to lose 3-4 minutes just due to physically coordinating himself to reach out and tap the clock. It doesn't sound like much, but to him, it would be a big deal and would probably play a role in quite a few matches.

How is hitting the clock any more of an inconvenience than physically manipulating your cards? If he can tap his cards, he can certainly hit a button. Players with disabilities could have someone appointed to do it for them if their disability makes it prohibitive.

[Godder]

As in Chess, they can have someone to do it for them e.g. a caregiver or even their opponent, or their clock can be set to add a bit more time per move to their side to compensate.

A classic complaint is that of cost, but digital chess clocks are available for less than US$25, and the standard US chess tournament practice is to require players to supply their own equipment (one board, one set of pieces, one clock). Such clocks are designed with short time limits in mind, and so are constructed to be able to withstand a hammering in the last seconds of a game (anyone who has watched 1-minute chess will know what I'm talking about) There's no good reason why that couldn't be part of Magic tournament practice either.

Another classic complaint is that it would be annoying for FNM and other casual players to have to own a clock. That's fair enough, so I'd suggest only using clocks for PTQs and above - Stalling and Slow Play only seems to be a serious problem at higher levels anyway.

[dicemanx]

I still haven't got any feedback on my proposal to deal with stalling via the mulligan above. Any thoughts on it?

[Norm4eva]

I still haven't got any feedback on my proposal to deal with stalling via the mulligan above. Any thoughts on it?

If you're talking about the "If time < 10 minutes then mulligans take no time off the clock" I don't know if I can get behind that.  As I stated before, the 'mulligan phase' now allows for its own share of effects and can decide how many permanents are in play before any player receives priority.  Dredge Return variants basically mull to Bazaar, using Serum Powder if need be; decks answer this games 2 - 3 with a mull to LLVoid.  Gemstone Caverns isn't doing a whole lot for anyone right now but that's not to say it won't; again I cite Serum Powder as a "How the hell did YOU become playable??"  The fact that the cards exist should set a precedent to treat the 'pregame phase' (or whatever it's really called) the same in regard to time restrictions as you would the main phase.  Just because you have less playable cards during that part of the game doesn't constitute treating it any differently.  In my mind you can't just treat it as this uniquely separate part of gameplay anymore; it's like saying you should get extra time during one of your main phases.

[dicemanx]

Well, the issue that it attempts to address is the ease with which the mulligan can abuse stalling for time, thus the proposal for special treatment. The problem, as some have cited in this thread, is that during the mulligan your opponent is left entirely out of the equation - the player who mulls can simply aim to run out the clock and his opponent has pretty much no say if the mull is done at a reasonable pace outside of the slim chance that the player will slip up and get somehow caught for stalling.

[Purple Hat]

While shuffling for mulligans, he twice asked the judge for a time check.  That was what tipped them off.

time remaining in the round is an EXTREMELY important part of mulligan decisions.  If game 1 takes 40 minutes, and you lose, you MUST search for more aggressive hands than what you would normally find acceptable because these are the only hands will allow you the oppertunity to win the match.  I see no reason why "he asked for time while mulling" should be cause for DQ.

[Harlequin]

Heres an interesting suggestion.

Supply each table with a stopwatch / egg timer.  Just a simple one, not a chess clock.  At the start of each round, one player at the table sets the clock for a set time (say 45 mins), and leaves it "paused."  now each player does the pre-game stuff... checking to make sure you de-sided, pile shuffle adiquately, present your deck, deturmin who is going first, draw your cards, and both players agree they have keepable hands.   Now right before Turn 0 effects are played, the player going first starts the clock and begins to play.  Now the clock stays running for the course of the game.   when game 1 is over, the clock is again "paused" giving players time to adjust thier deck via Sideboarding, count their deck, shuffle, draw cards, take mulligans, and arrive at a keepable hand.  Now they start the clock again.  and play game #2.  If it goes to game 3, they stop the clock re-board, shuffle present, draw cards, mull, and start the clock at the begining of game 3.

 Also If a judge is called, the players should stop the clock while the judge arives and "gets his judgement on."  When the judge is done, the clock is restarted... no need to record that table 67 gets a 2 min time extention... thier table clock will have already compisated for it.

So the 45 min clock is counting actual game time (including time spent shuffling durring the game itself).  But excludes: Sideboarding, pre-game shuffling, and Mulligans.   

Problem: what If a table forgets to start the clock.  Easy.  Have the TO have a "global clock" set to an hour (or 50 mins) to be used if a table malfunctions or forgets to start/restart a clock.  The table clocks should always overrule the global clock if the table clock has been used correctly. 
-The secondary problem to this is that a player is under no real time restriction to make boarding decissions.  So theoretically if you have a slowpoke, the clock may still be under 45mins, but the true time elapsed may be well over an hour.

What this does: 
1) Takes pressure off boarding and shuffling.  I'm sure we've all had games where we don't shuffle as much as we wanted to because there was only X mins left in the round.
2) Take the ability to mulligan the down the clock away completely.

What this doesn't do:
It doesn't take away completely the problem of 'slow play' or 'running the clock.'  Nor does it hold each player responsible for thier own braket of time (like a chess clock would).  But it would making policing a slow play call easier because it would be in the context of a game (rather than durring boarding or mulliganing).   

[Shock Wave]

What this does: 
1) Takes pressure off boarding and shuffling.  I'm sure we've all had games where we don't shuffle as much as we wanted to because there was only X mins left in the round.
2) Take the ability to mulligan the down the clock away completely.

What this doesn't do:
It doesn't take away completely the problem of 'slow play' or 'running the clock.'  Nor does it hold each player responsible for thier own braket of time (like a chess clock would).  But it would making policing a slow play call easier because it would be in the context of a game (rather than durring boarding or mulliganing).   

Unfortunately, while this does make a few positive changes, it also fails to address the primary problem we're trying to tackle here: slow play, in all its manifestations. A clock is not serving its purpose if it negates the possibility of slow play during the mulligan phase but does nothing to assist in identifying slow play during the actual match.