EU LCS Playoff Preview: Quarterfinals

Supa Hot Crew vs ROCCAT

Despite the fact that SHC has sat significantly higher in the standings than ROC throughout the LCS season these teams are actually a lot closer than they appear. The head to head between the teams is 2-2, ROCCAT has been improving as the split progressed and SHC has dealt with some issues and a bit of decline as the split came to an end.

When comparing the teams straight across it’s plain to see that SHC holds the better carry players. MrRallez has routinely performed strong in SHC games despite their revolving door of support players and seems able to comfortably use any ADC the team needs, where Celaver has had some noticeable gaps in what he’s comfortable on in the LCS as well as a larger number of lack luster performances. Mid lane is a similar story, Selfie often hits higher peaks on his limited champion pool, but Overpow is impossible to ban out and has far fewer low points than the somewhat tilt prone Selfie.

Meanwhile ROCCAT boasts what is arguably the best jungler in the EU LCS. It’s absolutely true that SHC’s Impaler has grown a lot from his poor showing last split but he simply pales in comparison to Jankos. Jankos has demonstrated incredible ability on all of the trinity junglers (Evelynn, Lee Sin, Elise), helped his team to generate the most first bloods in the entire LCS, and been the primary factor in ROCCAT’s tendency to have a strong early game. 

On top of their superior jungler ROC also boast a much better ability to adapt to the changing meta in recent weeks, remember ROC understood and showcased both Xerath and Maokai before they were picked up in Korea and made popular. ROC also has the better champion select phase showing similar champ select values to some of the teams with the absolute best champion selection in the world like Samsung Galaxy White, SKT T1 K, Cloud 9, and Fnatic, where SHC has repeatedly shown champion select mistakes from over valuing Jarvan to randomly defaulting back to old comfort picks like Mimer's Shyvana. 

If both teams come into this match on top form ROCCAT's superior champ select, adaptability, Jankos' ridiculous ability to generate first bloods, Selfie's tendency to tilt, and the fact MrRallez has rarely been able to solo carry a game for SHC should add up to a 3-0 result for ROCCAT. However, it's been awhile since we've seen ROC's best and I expect they'll still have some struggles with their mid game decision making. I expect SHC to take either game 1 or game 2 off ROC and make the series a close 3-1 in favor of ROCCAT.

SK Gaming vs Millenium

Just like the other quarterfinal match SK and MIL sit 2-2 in the head to head for this split, but unlike the other quarterfinal this one seems a lot more cut and dry.

SK has fallen off immensely from the start of the split where their map movement and ability to play the 2v0 double jungle meta was able to make up for their weaker laners. SK's champion select is abysmal often allowing the "OP" champions like Kass, Lee Sin, or Gragas to not only slip through but go completely unpicked even after it's become clear the "OP" champion would be a direct counter to the team comp their opponent was putting together. Similarly the meta shift towards immobile carries has had a disastrous effect on Candypanda who has demonstrated a serious issue with his team fight positioning making champions like Kogmaw even harder than it already is for SK to execute properly.

Contrast that with Millenium who spent their time between splits learning how to close games and came back a scary opponent for any team in the EU LCS. MIL has stayed rather consistent in their performances this entire split using their preference for pick comps to secure Kerp and Creaton places in the top 5 FantasyLCS scorers as well as a respectable amount of wins for the team.

I simply don't see a way for SK to win this series outside of a miracle and I'd honestly even be shocked to see them pick up 1 game. I expect MIL to sweep the series 3-0. 

Regardless of results the SK vs GMB rematch needed to happen.

UPDATE: Riot Nick Allen has confirmed in a follow up post that no decision was made by the referee and therefore 8.3.3 did not apply, and that the forceful remake was done to prevent SK falling under undue external pressure from the decision. He goes on to state that LCS rules will receive an update soon to make what happens in this scenario clearer and hopefully prevent another incident. 


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 

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. 

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.

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.