> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://trg.gatcg.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://trg.gatcg.com/media-coverage/stream-judging.md).

# Stream Judging

For livestreamed games, judges should be proactive in assisting with making the game state communicable to production, commentators, and the audience. This may include labeling of named cards, furnishing tokens, dice, or counters, or assisting with the layout of the game. However, this does not give players permission to play with the assumption that it is solely the judge's responsibility to maintain the game and the cards/pieces within the game. **It is ultimately the player's responsibility** to ensure their contribution to managing the game state is maintained. If a judge at the streamed table feels a violation has been committed, they are to immediately pause the game and intervene to apply corrective procedures. If there is more than one judge dedicated to a livestreamed game, they should act in concert and discuss and violations, corrective procedures, or other matters to properly rectify a game. Additionally, penalties should be applied in conjunction with the infraction, regardless of the time point of the match; penalties should not be deferred and should immediately be communicated and applied when applicable.

{% hint style="success" %}
Judges are recommended to make a statement on whether or not an infraction was committed and what penalty will be applied. This helps ensure clarity for the judges, players, production, and audience as to the state of the game.
{% endhint %}

Judges need to be aware of media policies regarding what players are allowed to use for equipment and what they are mandated to use by the TO and/or the production team. This includes any policies governing allowable sleeves, playmats, or other peripherals. Judges should monitor and ensure players comply with stream table conventions, including the proper use and adherence to using a headset (if applicable). Please refer to any media policies on the floor of the event for specifics, as this may change depending on the organizer and venue.

{% hint style="warning" %}
The penalties that are issued for stream judge **should not** differ from those that would be issued if the same infraction ocurred during a regular floor match.
{% endhint %}

#### Judge Calls and Replay Technology

Stream judges may have the benefit of accessing prior or live footage of the matches played, in addition to having more information regarding the game state and player interactions, owed to their constant presence at the table. As such, judges should use whichever tools and methods are available and practical to assist in resolving judge calls. 

A streamed match, at minimum, will have an overhead view of the board where all game pieces and decks are visible. Players' hands may not necessarily be visible in frame at all times, if at all. While other views are helpful to consider for assisting in the resolution of a judge call, judges should not expect other camera angles to be present and recorded.\
\
Typically, a local recording in the production zone may be viewed for replaying footage to review information about the game and confirm details about an infraction and its source. Otherwise, a streamed match will typically be associated with a video-on-demand (VOD) recording on a hosted site. Judges should work with production in communicating that a match has been interrupted for reviewing footage and to obtain and review the footage, by whichever means are practical.

{% hint style="info" %}
"Practical" in the context of using video replays to assist in a call means any accessible videos that do not pose a significant delay or detriment to the tournament as a whole. E.g., delaying a game for more than 10 minutes to obtain footage should generally be avoided.
{% endhint %}

Video replay should not be used for every single judge call. Clarifications, rulings-based questions, bathroom breaks, etc., would not require any review. Video replays ***are*** recommended in situations where:

* A prior game state needs to be recreated as part of corrective procedures
* Information was tracked incorrectly, resulting in an infraction or incorrect life totals
* Track the location of certain cards\*
* Any judge calls where the penalty is, at minimum, at game loss where video replay can be beneficial and relevant in delivering the accurate and proper violation and penalty

Video replays can be foregone if the replay would provide no meaningful impact to both the corrective procedure or the degree of the penalty applied. This usually happens when a violation and its deserved penalty are clear with the given context of a call; there is no significant source of ambiguity for information. 

{% hint style="success" %}
Regarding the \* note above, using a video replay for finding where a card was misplaced on the board can help clear up Failure to Maintain, Game Rule Violation, Private Card Error, etc., infractions, but is likely not practical or helpful in contexts such as a Deck Issue that would result in a Game Loss, as the corrective procedure and the penalty outcome would likely be maintained.
{% endhint %}