[quote="GayNProud":3oa2jw1h]https://www.duelingbook.com/replay?id=623896-55246648
Posting this in-spite of all the DB judge apologists and ass kissers. DB judges are nothing but human beings, so get over yourself. I say let's make the "Judge Corruption" series a thing! Post your replays.
This is in game 3. Player1 starts coaching my opponent on a gamestate and a set of rulings that were never brought up to the match between my opponent and I at any point. Although I still ended up clapping my opponent's cheeks, this could very well have helped my opponent beat me.
The only question I will leave you with: How would you rate the appropriateness of what took place, if it had happened in real life? Once you answer that, you can think about the appropriateness of what actually happened.[/quote:3oa2jw1h]
Here's the current coaching policy (page 9-12):
[url:3oa2jw1h]https://img.yugioh-card.com/ygo_cms/ygo/all/uploads/KDE-E_TCG_Tournament_Policy_2_1.pdf[/url:3oa2jw1h]
It explicitly says a player is allowed to ask questions about things he or she must know in order to maintain a proper game state. This is not coaching.
The example Konami gives is: a player is allowed to ask a judge if
Sky Striker Mecha - Widow Anchor can target a monster, whose effects are already being negated by
Infinite Impermanence.
The judge is not only allowed, but required, to answer this question in order to help maintain a proper game state. Otherwise that player will attempt to activate Widow Anchor targeting an already-negated monster, leading to the game state being damaged due to an illegal activation occuring.
The example Konami gives, of what would be considered coaching, is: telling a player whether his
Ash Blossom & Joyous Spring's effect or
Infinite Impermanence's effect would stop an opponent's
Trickstar Candina if said opponent also had Trickstar Lycoris in hand — a card that can be used to help dodge certain interruptions.
Answering this question would be considered coaching, because it's not a question that needs to be answered in order to maintain a proper game state. This is because it's perfectly legal for either Ash Blossom or Impermanence to activate in response to Trickstar Candina's effect, even if Trickstar Lycoris would end up helping dodge one of them. Activating the "wrong" response to Lycoris in this scenario would lead to a misplay, sure, but it wouldn't lead to the game state being damaged, since that misplay was still legal; so as a judge, all I would tell these players is that either of those can be chained to Trickstar Candina. I wouldn't provide any further information than that, such as which of those effects would stop her effect from going through.
Player1 did nothing wrong in my opinion. The game state at the time involved your opponent having a "Danger!" monster in his hand, meaning your opponent's "Danger!" ruling question was in fact related to the game state. Also, since knowing under which conditions a "Danger!" monster in the hand can and can't activate its effect is necessary to help maintain a proper game state and to help prevent any illegal monster effect activations, your opponent had every right to ask that question in that duel.