When it was announced only hours before it would take place the remake of SK vs Gambit, caused in large part by this Aatrox bug, rustled a lot of feathers. Reddit and Twitter exploded with people railing against the decision, spurred on by a statement from Gambit blasting the decision. All the arguments were focused around the same flawed points the official Gambit statement used, a single rule example against the idea, and examples of other known bugs that did not result in remakes. Both are flawed arguments for different reasons so I'm going to tackle them one at a time.
First is the LCS rule book quote. Gambit's statement quoted a single rule which they thought proved Riot themselves were breaking the rules by having a remake. That quote in full from the LCS rule book is
On the surface Gambit sounds like they're correct in stating the remake shouldn't have happened, but it's ignoring a few key details. First is Rule 11 which states all rules and their interpretations are at the discretion of LCS officials. This is important because it means Riot already stipulated that theirs is the correct interpretation of the rules, Gambit may disagree but so long as Riot maintains the interpretation uniformly then no amount of quoting the rule book can make Riot's interpretation wrong.8.3.3 Finality of Judgment. If a referee makes an incorrect judgment during a match, the judgment cannot be reversed, as the decision of the referee is absolute and final and there is no appeal process.
The other important flaw with gambit's rule argument is that it fails to actually take into account why the remake was happening. Both the official Riot statement and Travis' interview with nRated make it clear that no referee decision was actually made. Roughly 4 minutes in SK paused the game and informed the onstage referee of the bug. Once the bug was verified rule 9.4.2 of the LCS rule book states that the game may be remade, a fact that the referee failed to communicate to SK at the time. The referee's failure to inform SK that they could remake the game, not a decision by the referee, was what Riot sought to rectify by forcing a rematch. As the referee did not make a judgement rule 8.3.3 had absolutely no bearing on the situation.
The other argument against the remake was in the form of citing other prominent bugs that did not get a remake. Most often cited was the semi-recent Coast vs Curse game which Saintvicious tweeted post game saying he experienced a bug causing him to drop Annie Tibbers on himself instead of the enemy team. Other popular references were made towards Xpecial flashing out of CC bug which hit the front page of Reddit a few weeks back and the Zed bug that occurred in the NA All-Stars vs LPL All-Stars match last year.
All 3 bugs, of which only 2 were confirmed, have one thing in common that sets them far apart from the SK vs GMB case. None of the bugs referenced resulted in a pause to challenge them with a referee. The Saintvicious and Xpecial bugs were complained about on twitter and Reddit, and the Zed bug was found by fans on Reddit. None of them were immediately paused after happening, none of them resulted in players having a conversation with the referee.
Without a stoppage of play to challenge the bug the players are by their continuing to play the game signalling that the bug is in line with acceptable play conditions. If the bugs used as counter examples had resulted in a pause and been verified they likely would have been given the option of restarting the game just like SK should have when they paused. We can see this in action during Team Alternate vs Wizard Club in the EU summer promotion tournament where a skill shot bug resulted in several game remake attempts and days of delays to fix the issue. While the Alternate vs Wizard example is far more extreme of a bug it is a much more applicable of an example, play was stopped, a bug was verified, and a rematch (though heavily delayed) was offered.
Not only did Riot not break their own rules, nor contradict themselves, they handled the situation in the best way possible. Once the referee's mistake was clear Riot needed to rectify the situation. They could not do that by awarding special treatment to SK in subsequent games, nor could they punish gambit in subsequent games, for something that was entirely the on stage referee's fault. The best course of action to ensure the situation was handled fairly was a rematch. Even more important is the decision to forcibly have the rematch rather than give it as an option to SK. Had SK been approached before the LCS started on Friday and asked if they wanted to have a rematch of SK vs Gambit their decision would have been heavily tainted by the potential blow back that a rematch would entail. SK suffered a large amount of undue hate for the rematch when it was forced upon them, it would have been a thousandfold worse for SK if they had chosen to play a rematch on Friday.
The remake being forced upon both teams was the fairest way to make up for the referee's mistake, regardless of how the original and the remake played out. While it is unfortunate for Gambit, it was also unfortunate for SK that the referee mistake happened in the first place. Riot handled the mistake as best as was possible to bring about an outcome that was fair to both parties.
How was this fair to Gambit when they were demotivated, the enemy knew their xin composition, and SK got a free pass after their bad strategy? "Once the bug was verified rule 9.4.2 of the LCS rule book states that the game may be remade, a fact that the referee failed to communicate to SK at the time." It's not the referees responsibility. You sign a contract, you need to know the rules. I know they are players but this is not solo queue, they are competing in the LCS. They need to know what they can and cannot do. Every player knows that he isn't permitted to talk, so they should know that they have the right to request a rematch. The Zed bug at Allstars affected heavily the game, more significantly than the Aatrox bug yet just because it wasn't paused it shouldn't have been remade? If Riot cares about the wellfare of teams then they shouldn't have clinged on the pause excuse, especially for such a big bug. Furthermore if SK had won the game it wouldn't have been remade would it? I'm just waiting for a moment in the upcoming weeks were a team will be losing heavily, a bug will occur, they will pause the game and ask for a remake.
ReplyDeleteIf it's not the referee's responsibility to communicate, interpret, and enforce the rules for players then the referee has literally no job. That's the only point of a referee. The argument that it's not the ref's fault the players didn't know is just wrong, it is entirely the ref's fault as that is their whole job description. The player's job is to play, the Ref's job is to know the rules, not the other way around.
DeleteAnd I'll reiterate what I said in the article, the Zed bug did not receive a pause, which is required if you want something done about it. The Zed bug was found later on reddit by fans, there was no pause for it during the match. IF there had been a pause it might have resulted in a remake, though unlikely as by the time Zed started gaining assists LPL was already so far ahead they were going to win with or without the bug barring a throw which never came.
Finally yes if SK won the game would have been remade anyways because of when the bug happened and the inability to tell how much of the game effected.