What exactly qualifies as stalling

[Komatteru]

The point is that time isn't inherently a part of Magic like it is sports games; the only reason Magic rounds are timed is because of time constraints. This is why T8s are untimed - to allow people all the time they need. T8 games often stretch hours long.

Tournament Magic induces a time constraint.  Anything induced upon a game becomes part of the game.  Weather was not designed to be an essential part of a football game, but, often, it makes a huge difference.  The crowd is not in the rulebook either, but it becomes a large factor in the game as well.  There's nothing in the rules of the game of football about home field advantage either.  However, securing home field for the playoffs has become a very important part of pro football, and a stategy that teams often use to their benefit.  Like time in Magic tournaments, home field advantage is a creation of the governing body of the sport.  The original rules of football surely had nothing to say about playoffs, cheering crowds, hostile environments, etc.

Tournament Magic is different from pure kitchen table Magic.  The abundance of tournament-specific rules alludes to this.  Because rounds are timed, time is very much an important part of the game.  You don't see many decks with a single Mishra's Factory as their win condition and nothing else because those decks can't win in time.  If time were not meant to be part of a tournament, then the rules would be structured so that decks like that could be viable.  Time constrains the kinds of decks that can be built, and also becomes a strategy because it is there.

If anything, I find that T8 games go faster than the swiss rounds.  Long rounds are generally created by players who make mistakes and allow far more turns than there should be, and players who find themselves in some strange game state and aren't good enough to figure out how to get out of it without taking forever.  T8s (usually) feature the best players in the tournament, so both of those things tend to happen a lot less.  Games that stretch hours long are very rare, and usually pretty unacceptable when they happen.  (Exception: Mark Biller vs. Kevin Cron, Gencon 2004, Game 2--a game for the ages!!)

[dicemanx]

So I take it that we don't have any concrete examples of stalling that would lead to a DQ?

All we have so far in this thread is my original link describing without detail the DQ of Bracht, who supposedly tried to run out the clock via mulligans. What I'd really like to know is how the judge came to that conclusion if Bracht didn't actually admit to such a strategy.

[Anusien]

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

[dicemanx]

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

What was the proof of his intention to stall? Asking for time and mulling down to 1 card might be suspicious, but doesn't sound like sufficient proof.

[Godder]

This isn't a court of law - the level of proof is substantially lower.

Nonetheless, if Slow Play and Stalling were put within concrete rules, say, I could see players who are one game ahead simply slowing right down, but within the rules. If game one takes around 30 minutes of a 50 minute round, it should be entirely possible to stall out simply by making sure mechanical actions take as long as mandated by the rules. Another option could be to decrease the time limits substantially, and then allow judges to determine that the pace of play is legal, rather than determining that it's illegal as is currently the case.

This would be the worst possible solution of all in my opinion. Reason being is that, plain and simple, some decks are just inherently harder to play and require more time to make larger decisions. You cannot give the guy playing zoo with nothing but creatures, and the guy playing gifts the same value of time here.

This line of reasoning is part of the current problem - players don't have an inherent right to more than half of the allotted time limit for the round just because they have a more complex deck than their opponent. In a 50 minute round, you get roughly 45 minutes of Magic-playing, and taking more than 22.5 minutes is putting the burden on your opponent to play fast so that the match finishes within time.

[Komatteru]

What was the proof of his intention to stall? Asking for time and mulling down to 1 card might be suspicious, but doesn't sound like sufficient proof.

The official judge guideline is 51% sure.  At least, that's what I was told.

[Fall-Titan]

Your misunderstanding my point.

This isn't a court of law - the level of proof is substantially lower.

This line of reasoning is part of the current problem - players don't have an inherent right to more than half of the allotted time limit for the round just because they have a more complex deck than their opponent. In a 50 minute round, you get roughly 45 minutes of Magic-playing, and taking more than 22.5 minutes is putting the burden on your opponent to play fast so that the match finishes within time.

Im not arguing that a more complex deck deserves more time, So much as im saying it IS going to take mroe time in a matchup as i described. A zoo Player is not going to take 22.5 minutes in a match, A) because his goal is to win quickly, B) the decisions he makes are not very complex, C)his deck revolves are the combat step.

He should recieve the same amount of time on paper, but when a game is in progress, and the zoo player exhausts his hand in 3 turns, and then is in top deck mode, ripping a creature every time, he pure and simple is not going to take very long. So this in point gives the opponent playing gifts more time, which just so happens to be what he needs. Expecting every player to take up half of the time exactly is ignorant of the fact that some decks won't take up that much time, and others are going to take up more time.

If time was set as stated, we would be promoting the dumbing down of magic players in building decks for the sake of time. Basically, we are then saying that time equality is more important than the progression of the game. In NO other timed sport is time meant to be equally distributed. And chess is the only game where this is seen.

Also their becomes a huge problem in limited formats where one could argue that the player did not have such a choice to play a more simple deck because the cards for one did not come his way. So hes then punished because of the bad luck of the draw? Seems not like a fun game at that point.

[The Atog Lord]

Fall Titan,

If a Long player is spending longer playing his deck than a RGBeatz player, that is the fault of the Long player. Are the decisions involved in playing Long more complex than those found in playing RGBeatz? Of course -- but by no means does that entitle the Long player to spend longer than the Beatz player, or even give a reason for his doing so. Rather, when you show up at a Magic tournament, you are expected to know how your deck works and to have the experience necessary to make quick decisions. Be that deck combo or aggro, it is incumbent upon the person who has selected the deck to understand how to play the deck.

In other words, if you are spending twenty minutes on your turn, you don't know what you are doing and a judge should intervene. I wish this intervention happened more at Type One tournaments.

[Khahan]

So I take it that we don't have any concrete examples of stalling that would lead to a DQ?

No, and the point that so many people seem to be failing at grasping is this:
We never will have CONCRETE examples.  The reason, plain and simple, is that there is not a game action that is considered stalling. There is not a set of actions taken by a player that is considered stalling.  What IS considered stalling is INTENT and intent is inside somebody's head.

I may take 1 full minute on turn 1 to decide if my fetch land is getting a volcanic island or an underground sea because I have a duress and a goblin welder in hand.  Which do I want?  Is that stalling?  No. I'm trying to advance the game state to the best of my ability.  The actions I am taking are cracking a fetch.

I may take 1 full minute to decide if I want a basic island, underground sea or volcanic island with no other cards in hand and at least 1 of each on the board. Is that stalling?  Not necessarily. It could just be stupidity.

I could take 1 full minute to make the same land decision knowing that if I can stretch out the clock, this game will go to turns in about 4-5 minutes and since I won game 1 and this will most likely be a draw because my opponent probably won't win with those constraints...is that stalling?   YES. 


Debating if this act or that inaction is stalling is pointless. The floor rules and game rules will NEVER indicate specifically what stalling is because they can't.

In the same examples above, what if its game 1, turn 1 and I'm on the play?  Hmm, if Im playing pitch-long, I'm probably not trying to abuse the clock.  If I'm playing some kind of long-drawn out control variant, possibly from the outset of game 1, I am abusing the clock. Even the game state alone can't tell a judge if a person is stalling.

For the people who are looking for a black & white answer so they know what is going on...you will not get one.  And if you are worried that you'll get busted for stalling when you are, in fact, not really stalling, all I have to say is this:
Play smart.  If you look at the people who have gotten DQ'd this year, you'll see many of them have a history of infractions.

Another thing to consider is the level of rules enforcement. At your typical local T1 event, its usually a lower level of rules enforcement. You can get away with a bit more than you could at say, GenCon, Waterbury or Richmond.

There are just so many different factors that come into play and each factor affects how you look at and interpret the next factor. And if you do reach the conclusion that there is some underhandedness of some kind, there are a lot of factors that go into the level of penalty.


So please, stop asking for specific examples (and Dicemanx, this is not directed at you specifically, you just happened to be the last one I saw asking about examples) because they cannot be given. Sometimes you have to accept that 'rules'  and 'justice' are in the hands of a human judge, not in the text of a book.

[Godder]

Your misunderstanding my point.

I didn't misunderstand your point, I disagreed with it. One can say that Gifts should be allowed to take more time, or one can say that Zoo should take less time to play, but either way, the more complex deck is being allowed to take more time than the less complex deck.

If time was set as stated, we would be promoting the dumbing down of magic players in building decks for the sake of time. Basically, we are then saying that time equality is more important than the progression of the game. In NO other timed sport is time meant to be equally distributed. And chess is the only game where this is seen.

Chess is a sport (but let's not get into that here), and they're called Digital Game Timers, not chess clocks, these days, with games other than chess using them when played competitively. Zvi made the point once that if a constructed match goes to time, someone must have been playing too slowly. I agree with TAL's point that playtesting and practice before an event will make slow play at an event much less likely, and is strongly desirable. It's well worth noting that draws are worth less than wins, and that one could consider that a punishment in and of itself, particularly if a player can't win in the allotted time because of their own slow play.

Also their becomes a huge problem in limited formats where one could argue that the player did not have such a choice to play a more simple deck because the cards for one did not come his way. So hes then punished because of the bad luck of the draw? Seems not like a fun game at that point.

Limited goes to time because of ground stalls and bad play more than slow play. There's not much to be done about that.

[andrewpate]

Another option could be to decrease the time limits substantially, and then allow judges to determine that the pace of play is legal, rather than determining that it's illegal as is currently the case.

This is exactly what I was suggesting.  There should be a set of actions I can take in a game, if I choose to take it, which makes it impossible for a judge to say that I am stalling.  If I get 1 minute to shuffle, I should be able to shuffle for 59.5 seconds and know 100% for certain that I will not be penalized.  If I need longer, and take longer, and a judge decides that I was stalling even though I wasn't, I will at least know that I did, point of fact, exceed the alotted shuffling time.  But a judge could also agree that I needed 1.5 minutes in this case and allow me to continue.  "Long time limits... maybe" should be replaced with, "Short time limits always, and maybe more."  The current rules are just begging for inconsistent rulings.

[dicemanx]

No, and the point that so many people seem to be failing at grasping is this:
We never will have CONCRETE examples.

Well, you are missing MY point - I am aware that there are no concrete non-trivial examples. I'm asking because if there aren't any, doesn't that flag a problem with the rules? Are we not exposing a flaw in the system that is rather easily corrected?

Am I to expect a small chance, for instance, that the next time I decide to mull down to 2-3 with time running out and have a time piece in front of me or ask a judge for time I might be accused of cheating and get DQ'd? Or, similar to JDizzle's example, if I'm trying to establish a bluff with lands in my hand to discourage my opponent from playing spells late in the game, there's a chance I could be labeled a cheater?

I won a match in exactly this way previously - I bluffed business when I had none, and all of my win conditions were removed so I had no way of winning, and I made the game time out winning 1-0 because my opponent played timidly thinking that I had action in hand. Was I cheating? I wasn't slow playing - I was using my alotted time for turns but it was critical to make my opponent believe that I had outs and make him play too cautiously. He did exactly that - he walked into my bluff. But wait, wasn't I stalling?

On another occasion, I was locked under a moat with no outs, but I was up 1-0 with time winding down. Each turn, I cast whatever spells I drew (creatures without flying). Time ran out. Was I cheating? Casting creatures knowing that they had no consequence on the game still made my opponent slow down their play because they still had to debate whether I was setting things up for some alpha strike if I ever managed to remove that Moat. This helped me reach time and not lose. Again, am I cheating? I was casting spells without knowingly progressing towards a win. Howevber, was I not making progress in slowing down my opponent? If they played faster they would have won.

I could see getting randomly nailed in either of these examples, and in both cases it would be grossly unfair. The game of Magic isn't just a game of cards, libraries, and mechanics. It's a battle of wits, a bluffing game, a game where time management is critical. If my opponent mismanages his time because he didn't concede when he should have in the previous game, or he played too slowly or not aggressively enough, or he selected a deck that didn't give him a good chance to win matches if he lost the first game, these are things that I should be allowed to exploit and punish.

In fact, in my opinion, Bracht's purposeful stalling via mulligans SHOULD be viewed as a valid strategy, and the rules should receive some sort of amendment. If one doesn't take into consideration that his opponent can take a legal amount of time for certain plays (ie there's no slow play) to time out the game, such as a mulligan, then tough luck for him.

[Khahan]

Well, you are missing MY point - I am aware that there are no concrete non-trivial examples. I'm asking because if there aren't any, doesn't that flag a problem with the rules? Are we not exposing a flaw in the system that is rather easily corrected?

I don't think it flags a 'problem with the rules' at all. Rather I think it shows that the rules were designed well enough to take reality into consideration.

Am I to expect a small chance, for instance, that the next time I decide to mull down to 2-3 with time running out and have a time piece in front of me or ask a judge for time I might be accused of cheating and get DQ'd?

Consider it a small chance? Yes. Consider it a realistic possibility? No. But again, what kind of tournament are you in?  How much time is left, how much time are you taking for each mulligan decision, what is the reason for your mulligan decision, how fast/slow is your deck, how fast/slow is your opponents deck.  Have you had a lot of games recently go to time and you won them 1-0? Have you avoided losses recently by games going to time? Have judges or other players noticed this?  There are a myriad other questions that need to be asked. Some of those answers are merely 'red flag' responses that may tell a judge he needs to investigate. Others answers may help the judge deduce that cheating is occuring or not occuring and to what degree.
As a player, do you need to be worried about this? No. If you prepare and play properly and fairly, the issue should not come up, even if you do happen to end up with 2-3 matches in a 6 round tourney go to time. Why? Because its not uncommon for games to time out. Maybe you happened to play 2 MUC players in the first 3 rounds. Whatever. You do not need to worry about it, because there is so  much information that a judge takes into account that it is very difficult for them to decide that you are cheating if you really aren't.

Or, similar to JDizzle's example, if I'm trying to establish a bluff with lands in my hand to discourage my opponent from playing spells late in the game, there's a chance I could be labeled a cheater?

Step aside and tell the judge that you are keeping lands in your hand to represent possible counters, or instant speed draw or whatever. Judges are there to help, not direct how to play.  How long have you been playing this game?  A long time? Keep on doing what you've always been doing.


I won a match in exactly this way previously - I bluffed business when I had none, and all of my win conditions were removed so I had no way of winning, and I made the game time out winning 1-0 because my opponent played timidly thinking that I had action in hand. Was I cheating? I wasn't slow playing - I was using my alotted time for turns but it was critical to make my opponent believe that I had outs and make him play too cautiously. He did exactly that - he walked into my bluff. But wait, wasn't I stalling?

You answered your own question: You weren't slow playing...you were using your alotted time and you were playing on each turn. That particular game was advancing and evolving. Just because you know it cannot evolve into a W for you is irrelevant. Nothing says you have to try and win. The only things you must do to avoid these kinds of penalties is a) not slow play and b) advance the game state.   B does not mean move it to a win for yourself.  In this case, advance is synonomous with 'change.'

On another occasion, I was locked under a moat with no outs, but I was up 1-0 with time winding down. Each turn, I cast whatever spells I drew (creatures without flying). Time ran out. Was I cheating? Casting creatures knowing that they had no consequence on the game still made my opponent slow down their play because they still had to debate whether I was setting things up for some alpha strike if I ever managed to remove that Moat. This helped me reach time and not lose. Again, am I cheating? I was casting spells without knowingly progressing towards a win. Howevber, was I not making progress in slowing down my opponent? If they played faster they would have won.

You keep coming back to 'progressing towards a win.'  Please, show us in the floor rules where it states you must play to win?   Guess what, you can't because the rules don't dictate that.   You are under no obligation to concede at any time for any reason. If you no creatures on the board, no cards in hand and 5 cards in your deck and you know they are all lands you do not have to concede and no judge  will force you to concede.  If it gets to that point with 15 mins left in the round and you take up 12 of those minutes just for your turns...you can expect a judge to investigate and you'll have a tough time defending yourself depending on the other factors we've discussed. If there are only 6 mins left and you take 4 of those minutes, you'll probably have a very easy time defending yourself.

I could see getting randomly nailed in either of these examples, and in both cases it would be grossly unfair.

I agree it would be grossly unfair. And I think a judge who DQ'd you in those circumstances would have a tough time defending himself to the DCI and tournament organizer and head judge. The examples you gave show no abuse and I don't even think they are close.
There is a big difference between those situations and what Bracht did. Bracht took up time w/out advancing the game state with a purposefull intent to have the time run out so he could win.

You are taking up time by using the game state and the advancement of the game state to your advantage.  If you are advancing the game state, you are allowing the game to continue and that is what the rules care about.

The game of Magic isn't just a game of cards, libraries, and mechanics. It's a battle of wits, a bluffing game, a game where time management is critical.

I agree 100%. Time management is critical and time IS a resource in the game of Magic. However, you can no more manipulate time to your sole advantage than you can manipulate your opponents deck when you shuffle it.
In your examples, you are not manipulating time or the clock. You are simply playing the game. Knowing you cannot win is irrelevant because  no rule says you must concede game 2 to save time for game 3 to be played. No rule says that you must play with the intent of winning your current game. The rules just basically say, you must play the game and advance the game state in a timely manner. They do not say to what are advancing the game state. Just that you must advance it.

If my opponent mismanages his time because he didn't concede when he should have in the previous game, or he played too slowly or not aggressively enough, or he selected a deck that didn't give him a good chance to win matches if he lost the first game, these are things that I should be allowed to exploit and punish.

They are things you can exploit...as long as you are staying within the rules. But jsut to touch on your first point...he didn't concede when he should have?  Who says he should have concded at all?

In fact, in my opinion, Bracht's purposeful stalling via mulligans SHOULD be viewed as a valid strategy, and the rules should receive some sort of amendment. If one doesn't take into consideration that his opponent can take a legal amount of time for certain plays (ie there's no slow play) to time out the game, such as a mulligan, then tough luck for him.

Its your opinion and you are entitled to it.  I think its a course of action that would be bad for the game of magic as a whole, though. I also think its an opinion that is in the minority.  But until your opinion becomes fact, just follow the rules and you should be fine.  I have a lot of matches go to time and I've never once worried that I would be called for stalling/cheating.  I've called a few people on it in 2 cases. In 1, it was a kid in the finals of an FNM draft. It was the first time he had ever t8'd much less gotten to the finals and it was very obvious. I called him on it, but not to a judge because it was a little kid and it was only FNM.

The other time was at a pre-release with somebody who I know had been playing for a while (I had played him at other release and pre-release tournaments). It happened early and I called a judge over. The judge warned him and and his stall tactics stopped. 

I've been playing competitively since 2000 and in 6 years, I've been involved in a whole 2 incidents. I think that is pretty typical.  I have nothing to worry about, even if I ever would get a judge called on me.

[dicemanx]

Well, here is my problem then.

You say:

You answered your own question: You weren't slow playing...you were using your alotted time and you were playing on each turn. That particular game was advancing and evolving. Just because you know it cannot evolve into a W for you is irrelevant. Nothing says you have to try and win. The only things you must do to avoid these kinds of penalties is a) not slow play and b) advance the game state.   B does not mean move it to a win for yourself.  In this case, advance is synonomous with 'change.'

Apollyon says:

Stalling is INTENTIONALLY doing actions that DON'T ADVANCE THE GAMESTATE for the sole purpose of RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK.

My two examples can qualify as stalling based on the fact that I was performing actions that didn't advance the game state, and I WAS in fact aiming to stall out the game, because I had no way to win and my plays had no impact purely from the perspective of the mechanics and card interactions. I won in both cases because of my opponents' weakness and timid play, but the game plan WAS to stall since I had no way to win. And as you point out I'm under no obligation to concede.

What you're seeing as "advancing and evolving" another judge can see as "stalling and cheating".

Am I missing something? Did I cheat or did I play fairly and attempt to skillfully exploit my opponent's weaknesses? Or are you proving my point in showing me that judges fail to agree on what's acceptable and what isn't? I just admitted to you that my plan in both games was to stall and win on time - why wouldn't you DQ me? You tell me that there's an inquiry by the judge if such cheating is suspected, and give me some examples of questions:

what kind of tournament are you in?  How much time is left, how much time are you taking for each mulligan decision, what is the reason for your mulligan decision, how fast/slow is your deck, how fast/slow is your opponents deck.  Have you had a lot of games recently go to time and you won them 1-0? Have you avoided losses recently by games going to time? Have judges or other players noticed this?

What if I was winning 1-0 every match with all of my matches timing out without slow play? Would that change your response? What difference would it make? According to a possible interpretation of the rules, I was cheating, regardless of whether there's a "pattern" or if there are prior infractions.

Can you, for instance, construct a scenario where certain responses to specific questions will ultimately result in my DQ in a hypothetical inquiry? I want to know how a judge might arrive at a DQ - what would sufficent evidence be for him?

[Komatteru]

Step aside and tell the judge that you are keeping lands in your hand to represent possible counters, or instant speed draw or whatever. Judges are there to help, not direct how to play.  How long have you been playing this game?  A long time? Keep on doing what you've always been doing.

Now the bluff is ruined.  My opponent isn't going to actually think I have something to worry about if a judge says "I think you're stalling" and then I have to go to a sidebar to explain what I was trying to do.  A purely speculative assumption just wrecked a perfectly good game.  Remember that a correct conclusion does not justify an assumption made without ample evidence.  Take this: a policeman walks up to a man randomly on the street, and sees a bulge in his pocket.  He searches the man, and finds a firearm.  This constitues an illegal search and will not be admissable in any court because there wasn't enough reason for the police officer to search the man: the bulge could have been a cell phone, a CD player, a really big set of car keys, etc.  The officer attempts to say that he saw the bulge from across the street and thought it was a gun immediately, but that won't fly because it is unreasonably difficult for an officer to determine whether a bluge in a pocket is a firearm from 25 feet away.

And I think a judge who DQ'd you in those circumstances would have a tough time defending himself to the DCI and tournament organizer and head judge. The examples you gave show no abuse and I don't even think they are close.

Like I said, 51%.  There would have to be evidence of gross misconduct for the DCI to take action against the judge.  There's always a DCI investigation whenever a person is DQed from a sanctioned tournament, but if the judge made a judgment call based on evidence, even if the judge could possibly be incorrect in this one situation, then likely nothing will happen.  There's generally no way to know for sure the true intent of a player, so it's hard to fault the judgment of someone who was actually there unless there is gross evidence of negligence or misconduct (bias, etc.).

A head judge will only overrule a lower judge in extenuating circumstances (for example, there's a posting on the mailing list that directly gives the answer, and the one the first judge gave did not agree with the official resolution, or the matter is a rules interpretation--those tend to be pretty objective).  I gave out a game loss at a prerelease once, and while that was the official penalty, that was not the one that the head judge would have handed out because we were being a little more leniant because it was a prerelease.  The game loss stuck because I had made a judgment call, and the power of floor judge's decisions is something that's important to the tournament.  If a floor judge does a reasonable investigation, and reaches a conclusion, and that conclusion is always going to be reviewed by the head judge, then why have the floor judge do the investigation in the first place at all?

[Apollyon]

I think that something that you are missing is that the HJ is the only person allowed to DQ someone from a tournament.

Floor judges do not have that authority.

[Anusien]

Stalling requires the judge to determine intent, which means that inherently there cannot be concerete formula to determine stalling.  You can do any number of game actions that are normally legitimiate but because your intent is to use the game clock to your advantage, you're stalling.

[dicemanx]

So am I to understand that the two examples I gave were examples of stalling?

If a player has no win conditions left in his deck, does any action he makes then qualify as stalling?

[Moxlotus]

Stalling requires the judge to determine intent, which means that inherently there cannot be concerete formula to determine stalling.  You can do any number of game actions that are normally legitimiate but because your intent is to use the game clock to your advantage, you're stalling.

To build on Diceman, there are 10 minutes left in the match.  I am up 1-0.  I want to win this match 1-0 and to do so I board out my win conditions so I have a higher chance of going to time.  This strategy clearly uses the clock as an advantage.  How is that not illegal?

[Godder]

You intend to play Magic.

The judges determined that Max Bracht was trying to avoid playing Magic.

[Vegeta2711]

Stalling requires the judge to determine intent, which means that inherently there cannot be concerete formula to determine stalling.  You can do any number of game actions that are normally legitimiate but because your intent is to use the game clock to your advantage, you're stalling.

To build on Diceman, there are 10 minutes left in the match.  I am up 1-0.  I want to win this match 1-0 and to do so I board out my win conditions so I have a higher chance of going to time.  This strategy clearly uses the clock as an advantage.  How is that not illegal?

Nothing in the rules says you have to try to win the game. It's only if your slowing down your decision making processes or taking an inordinate amount of time with in-game decisions that it will typically matter. I boarded out all of my win conditions or my U/R WIldfire at Regionals this year going for a 1-1 draw with 10 minutes left with a judge basically sitting over me the whole time because of earlier incidents with nearby players. I didn't slow down the pace of my game, I was simply playing not to lose, which is a legitimate strategy.

[dicemanx]

Stalling requires the judge to determine intent, which means that inherently there cannot be concerete formula to determine stalling.  You can do any number of game actions that are normally legitimiate but because your intent is to use the game clock to your advantage, you're stalling.

To build on Diceman, there are 10 minutes left in the match.  I am up 1-0.  I want to win this match 1-0 and to do so I board out my win conditions so I have a higher chance of going to time.  This strategy clearly uses the clock as an advantage.  How is that not illegal?

Nothing in the rules says you have to try to win the game. It's only if your slowing down your decision making processes or taking an inordinate amount of time with in-game decisions that it will typically matter. I boarded out all of my win conditions or my U/R WIldfire at Regionals this year going for a 1-1 draw with 10 minutes left with a judge basically sitting over me the whole time because of earlier incidents with nearby players. I didn't slow down the pace of my game, I was simply playing not to lose, which is a legitimate strategy.

Agreed, although you were being careful not to play slow, which seems to be related to but still a separate issue from actual stalling. As far as the rules are concerned, you can still cheat by stalling even if you're not slow playing.

You intend to play Magic.

The judges determined that Max Bracht was trying to avoid playing Magic.

I agree that what I was doing was engaging in a battle of wits with my opponent, but it still seems like what Max and I did isn't much different at all. Both of our game plans were to eat time on the clock. Max's case was different in that his opponent never got a chance to "assist in stalling" by falling for bluffs or getting worried about phantom threats. However, the rules as I understand them don't make for such provisions:

Stalling is INTENTIONALLY doing actions that DON'T ADVANCE THE GAMESTATE for the sole purpose of RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK.

In this respect, what Max did and what I did are the same. This is why I am confused.

[Godder]

You intend to play Magic.

The judges determined that Max Bracht was trying to avoid playing Magic.

I agree that what I was doing was engaging in a battle of wits with my opponent, but it still seems like what Max and I did isn't much different at all. Both of our game plans were to eat time on the clock. Max's case was different in that his opponent never got a chance to "assist in stalling" by falling for bluffs or getting worried about phantom threats. However, the rules as I understand them don't make for such provisions:

Stalling is INTENTIONALLY doing actions that DON'T ADVANCE THE GAMESTATE for the sole purpose of RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK.

In this respect, what Max did and what I did are the same. This is why I am confused.

Your plays were intended to make the opponent choose not to win. Your opponent could have called your bluff and won at any time (from the sounds of things at least), but he chose not to. Max attempted to avoid losing by preventing his opponent from even playing.

[kirdape3]

No, no.  You have to actually play the game.  Whether or not you can actually win is irrelevant - what IS relevant is that the game proceeds at a pace that makes it look like you're not actively trying to manipulate the clock.  It's entirely legal to board out all of your win conditions and play a game of Magic with no win conditions... so long as you're playing a game of Magic.  You can't go into the tank for several minutes with nothing but Island/Volcanic in your hand just to eat up time and try to bluff your opponent, you can't mulligan down to 2 just to eat up time on the clock, and you certainly can't make it look like you're doing so in front of a judge.

I agree that what I was doing was engaging in a battle of wits with my opponent, but it still seems like what Max and I did isn't much different at all. Both of our game plans were to eat time on the clock. Max's case was different in that his opponent never got a chance to "assist in stalling" by falling for bluffs or getting worried about phantom threats. However, the rules as I understand them don't make for such provisions:

If you allow your opponent to assist you to stall him out, by letting him play badly, this is fine.  He however HAS TO have that opportunity.  You can't just eat up all the time trying to bluff him, but if he's able to be bluffed you can certainly let him get bluffed.

[andrewpate]

So a player should never be DQed for stalling if a game is in progress?  Slow play is an entirely different penalty?  Or slow play can become stalling, but no in-game action is stalling but not slow play?

[Jacob Orlove]

So a player should never be DQed for stalling if a game is in progress?  Slow play is an entirely different penalty?  Or slow play can become stalling, but no in-game action is stalling but not slow play?

Slow Play and Stalling are different, and you can be guilty of either one without being guilty of the other.

[kirdape3]

Stalling: Intentionally playing slowly
Slow Play: Unintentionally playing slowly

Slow play is almost always just somebody being bad when the play is complicated.  It's a lower-level offense and an automatic 3min extension in the round.  Lots of people get slow-play warnings even in untimed rounds (Nassif got one at Worlds just yesterday in his Top 8 match v Tiago Chan because he had to figure out a very complicated board state - the situation was exacerbated by the fact that each game took about 50min to resolve and the whole match went for 3 hours).  If the judge thinks you have a real advantage though by playing slowly, then you're going to be investigated for stalling.  They ALWAYS should be investigating the situation before dropping TEH BANHAMMAR on someone's tournament, so if you're trying to manipulate the clock with nothing then it's not good for you.  If you're just bad at Magic and can't figure out complicated plays in a timeframe that would allow both players to play their game, you'll end up with a Slow Play warning.  Those warnings do get more severe though, so you can't just slowplay your way through a tournament.

[dicemanx]

If the only form of stalling is via slow play, then how did Max Bracht end up with a DQ? If we assume that he did not take an unreasonable amount of time for each mulligan, how did he violate the rules? It seems that he was an example of someone who stalled without slow playing.

[kirdape3]

Because it was determined after an investigation as well as several different instances in the final game that the slow-play was intentional.  He was disqualified for taking mulligans specifically to grind down the clock as well as slowing his play significantly in the final game.

During Max's final match of Day One, he was found guilty of intentionally playing in such a way as to ensure that the game could not finish by abusing the time limit. The key for this one was intent. Among several other things, Bracht clearly made decisions like taking several mulligans strictly for the purpose of running out the clock. This one caused some confusion initially, as players were mixing up the infraction with slow play, which is different. To be clear, a "slow play" infraction is when a player is inappropriately causing the match to go too slowly, but unintentionally. Stalling, on the other hand, is when a player is found to be intentionally abusing the clock. Over the course of the final game of this match, the judges observed many instances of intentional abuse of the clock, which is why the infraction was Cheating - Stalling as opposed to just Slow Play.

He was observed to just be slow-playing the last game as well as trying to just grind out the clock by repeatedly taking mulligans.  It's up to the judges to determine intent to differentiate between a slow-play warning and a Stalling DQ.

[dicemanx]

...grind out the clock by repeatedly taking mulligans.

If he was taking an alotted amount of time for his mulligans, then what relevance is his intent behind mulliganing, so long as he shuffles quickly enough?

As I understand it, taking too long to mulligan to run out the clock is the issue, not the actual act of mulliganing itself - correct?