the first guy offered the split, then made the mistake of offering to split by giving his opponent most of the prize money for the win, and then proceeded to offer to give him the money right then and there, well after going to the atm or such.

the second player is the opne that called a judge over and he made the right call. if someone else had over heard that conversation, the second player could have been d.q.ed as well.

while it seems to have been a really cruddy thing to do at first glance, looking a little deeper clearly shows that he made the best decision, and the decision that protected himself from vengeful other players that may have overheard the conversation.

No, what happened is that player 1 offered a split. Player 2 asked how they would split. Player 1 called a judge over and accused Player 2 of bribery, and then Player 2 got DQed.

Yeah, I was sitting one table up from these guys and Vash described what happened pretty accurately. Player 1 is actually an idiot though, because his mental set was "well, if I don't have to play him, that's a win for me!" but in actuallty that was a bad decision because his tie-breakers go down the drain.

If that is truly what happened (and I'm not convinced because it sounds ridiculous to me), then the entire incident should be reported to Upper Deck, the ruling judges severely reprimanded, and Player 1 banned from the game.

But again, the situation is so ridiculous, that I'm not convinced at all of what happened.

The thing is that they have no proof, and Player 1 is a Level 2 judge so they would trust him more than the other player.

Than again, I do not know that this happened for sure either. I do know that Player 2 did get DQed. I did not hear the whole conversation either.

The thing is, he had 3 losses, so he would win money no matter what if he won, regaurdless of his tiebreakers.

Sorry for the double post.

I'm not saying I don't trust you. The whole scenario seems sketchy to me.

Some of my questions (not to you) are:

Why didn't any players who were present at the match explain to the judge what happened? (This is the most important question I have)

Why did Player 1 decide to cheat to win in that way?

Why did the judge rule in favor of Player 1? (The fact that he's a Level 2 judge should NEVER be the reason to rule in favor of a player)

Why didn't the judge feel that Player 1 deserved a penalty? If the judge knew the mindstate of Player 2 (as he should), wouldn't it be clear that Player 1 may have misled Player 2?

Why didn't the judge who ruled know all the facts both players felt were true? Or if he did, why he felt his ruling was justified in light of the fact that there was no proof?

Why didn't Player 2 appeal to the head judge? Or if he did, how the Head Judge felt that the DQ was justified?

Since so many on this site are willing to believe that Player 1 wanted a free win, why wouldn't the judge consider that possiblity?

Those are all good questions to which I don't really have the answer to. I was thinking the same things, such as why no one around said anything. The fact that this scenario is sketchy is the reason this thread was created.

I don't think you guys got it right. I was a judge at the event but I was not involved in this particular call. I do however have faith in the judges that were involved. I know that they are not the type of people to make rash judgements or judgements that don't consider every side of the argument. I know that both players were interviewed and offered the opportunity to file a statement that is to be included with the judges record of the DQ, because that is UDE policy for disqualifications. I know that unless we hear from every side(judes and both players) we won't ever get the full story. Since we aren't likely to hear all the sides we can't make a truly informed opinion on the matter. Let UDE do its investigation and then deal with the appropriate people. This discussion serves no purpose other then to cloud the issue and possibly hamper the investigation.

well, i have really good intel, and player 1 was not the judge, player 2 was.

player one asked about a split. player 2 said what kind of split. player 1 described a bribe not a split. player 2 called a judge.

the previous statements don't add up to a clear picture, while these do.

if you offer a split, and then bait your opponent in to something, that is wrong.

if your opponent offers a split then describes a bribe, that is wrong.

a massage with a 'happy ending' still gets a cirtation or an arrest, even if you try to call it something else

And while I have no reason to doubt you, tchalla, I still can't say we know for a fact that happened. Especially since a lot of others contradict you.

hehehe, he said happy ending

Splitting and bribing are almost the same thing because splitting was not allowed.

EX: Someone "splits". They make 4th at the 10k. They win $1000, but since they "split" they give the person that they "split" with $500. It is pretty much like bribing your opponent $500 so they concede to you.

ok i knew what happened but didnt know who go dq. i didnt enter the 10k(i had a job there with crack a lackin) so i was watching vash playing and then i decided to go to the other vash(they are brothers) and overheard them talking as i walked by but i kept walking to 2nd vash.

heres what happened:
player 1 is the judge. player 2 is a random person.

player 1 asks player 2 if he wants to split
player 2 says, "sure, how do you want to split it?"(at this point i bump into a pole b/c im trying to hear them so i drop my backpack)
player 1 says, "i dont know. how do you want to?"
player 2 says, "how about i give you 500$ and i take the win?"
player 1 shouts, "JUDGE!"

that is when i got up and left

What you describe is a bribe. A split is only not a bribe when the outcome of the match is not on the line. So for example its ok for two players to sit down and say, ok we both have a lot on the line so whoever wins give the loser $500.00. Its not ok to say I'll give you the win if you give me $500 or to say I'll take the win and give you $500.

So in a situation like the one described by yimmy player 1 actually didn't do anything wrong. Things only went wrong when player 2 offered to give someone the win. When that happened player 1 wasn't left with a lot of options. People had heard the other player offer the win, so even if he explained that this is wrong and they make some other arrangement, people could still say that both players were coluding. Player 1 really had no choice but to call over a judge and explain what had happened. Unfortunatly for player 2 he had offered the win to someone for a specified amount of money and that's cheating. I'm not saying that Yimmy has the story right, or that this is even close to what happened, but if that is what happened then player 1 offered to split(something that might be allowable) and player 2 offered a bribe. If that is correct then only one of them would be DQ'ed but I'm sure the HJ would have some hard words for player 1, and would take a long time interviewing a lot of players to come to that decision.