Boards›Esports

Competitive Ruling: Chris Shim, Geon-Woo “Ninja” Noh, & Jin-Yong “Fury” Lee

Riot·12/19/2015, 3:03:55 AM·1 votes·35,597 views

People: Chris Shim, Geon-Woo “Ninja” Noh, & Jin-Yong “Fury” Lee

Region: North America & Korea

Date of Ruling: 12/18/15

Subject: Penalty; Violation of Global Anti-Tampering Rule

TL;DR

Chris Shim, current owner of NACS team Team Dragon Knights (TDK) tampered with Jin-Yong “Fury” Lee, who was under contract with LCK team Samsung Galaxy, by soliciting him to join TDK. Shim communicated the details of an employment offer through TDK player Geon-Woo “Ninja” Noh, who willingly assisted in soliciting Fury. By tampering with Fury while he was under contract with SSG, Shim and Ninja violated the Interregional Anti-Poaching and Anti-Tampering policy. By engaging in employment discussions and signing with TDK while still under contract with SSG, Fury is also in violation of that policy. Due to these violations, Fury will be suspended for effectively 1 month, Ninja will be suspended effectively for 2 months, and Chris Shim will be ineligible to own any team in 2016. TDK will be fined $10,000 USD for Ninja and Shim’s actions.

FACTS

Lee “Fury” Jin-Yong was contracted to LCK team Samsung Galaxy through November 30, 2015. In Summer Split of 2015, Geon-woo “Ninja” Noh, per request by Chris Shim, owner of Team Dragon Knights (TDK), reached out to Fury to ask how long Fury’s contract would last and whether he was interested in joining an NA team. Then, Fury asked Ninja to meet in person to discuss the terms of the offer in more detail. During this meeting, Ninja communicated the details of an offer to join TDK. Fury declined the offer.

Finally, in November (while Fury was still under contract with SSG), Ninja invited Fury to the TDK bootcamp gaming house in Korea as a friendly gesture, unaware of any TDK plans to continue negotiations with Fury. There, Shim spoke with Fury about the prospect of Fury joining TDK. In that conversation, Fury agreed not to re-sign with Samsung Galaxy and join TDK once his contract was over. Despite being under contract through November 30, 2015, Fury then signed a contract with TDK on November 5.

This December, in a call with league officials, Ninja admitted guilt by confirming that he wasn’t forced, coerced, or misled by Chris Shim at any point and that he was aware that Fury was under contract when they spoke.

General Context

Engaging in discussions about a player’s present or future employment status is expressly forbidden in the Interregional Anti-Poaching and Anti-Tampering policy as well as the LCS, CS and LCK rulesets. Such conversations are damaging to the sanctity of contracts, which represent a commitment to a team for a predetermined length of time. Conversations that undermine those commitments create a chaotic environment for teams and players and undermine the stability of teams. Most importantly, poaching/tampering disincentivize organizations from signing players to multi-year, lucrative contracts -- something we encourage and see happening as our ecosystem grows.

In this case, TDK’s disregard for the rules also cheated rule-abiding interested parties of the chance to negotiate with and potentially sign Fury. Shim never reached out to Samsung requesting to speak with Fury.

Players’ contract end-dates are available on lolesports.com, which was communicated publicly in June, so everyone has insight without needing to reach out to a player under contract directly. Fury’s contract end date was included on that list ever since it was published on June 9. Players also go through training at player conferences where they are educated on what constitutes poaching/tampering.

By engaging with TDK in these employment conversations, Fury also violated the Interregional Anti-Poaching and Anti-Tampering policy. Specifically this section:

“...[P]layers under league-recognized contracts cannot solicit or reach out directly to other team members or affiliates of other teams. In the event of prolonged discussions of employment that aren't sanctioned by the management of both teams, both the party attempting to poach and the player being poached will be subject to penalties at the discretion of league officials.”

Penalty and Context: Chris Shim

The standard for owners has been clearly set for tampering and poaching and Shim unambiguously violated tampering rules. Suspending an owner from the league is not always sufficient as owners can still be affiliated with organizations outside of official league roles and have operational control or influence. To ensure that organizations are held accountable for the actions of their members, we will be issuing the following actions:

  • Chris Shim will not be accepted in any official position for any team in all Riot-affiliated competition until January 1, 2017.
  • TDK will be fined 10,000 USD.
  • In addition, Shim currently owns a stake of TDK. In keeping with this ruling, we will require TDK to replace or resell his stake in the team’s ownership -- if they do not do so by Jan 14, 2016, the team will forfeit its Challenger Series spot, including any spot in the qualifier.

Penalty and Context: Ninja

Ninja violated anti-tampering rules and admitted full knowledge of both the fact that Fury was under contract during the times of their conversations and that Ninja knew his actions were against the rules.

  • Ninja is suspended from all Riot-affiliated League of Legends competition until March 11, 2016.

Penalty and Context: Fury

Both LCK players and LCS players have been educated on what constitutes tampering, poaching, and violation of the applicable rules during various player conferences and summits, including a conference Fury attended on July 6 this year. In this case, Fury didn’t initiate the conversations but instead just participated in them. Due to this mitigating circumstance, he will receive a reduced punishment.

  • Fury is suspended from all Riot-affiliated League of Legends competition until February 11, 2016.

26 Comments

S2 700 ELO12/19/2015, 5:11:33 AM10 votes

I do not like the forced sell. It sets a standard that can hurt future investment in teams. Why would someone invest in a team knowing that Riot could make a ruling that forces them to sell that investment? I realize that he broke rules but I feel it disturbs the symbiotic relationship that exists between Riot and the team organizations.

TrollFan0112/19/2015, 4:33:48 AM7 votes

This is a darn shame. What's really sad is not many will care as TDK isn't even in the LCS anymore.

Reppuken12/19/2015, 6:11:37 AM7 votes

So teams like Roccat are totally cool to poach whoever they want and try and sell replacements for the people they poach, but a less popular team with less sponsors tries it and they get the book thrown at them? Very inconsistent and cloudy ruling.

Machadão12/19/2015, 6:35:25 AM7 votes

Meanwhile in Brazil...

I just love these rules. You can advertise ANY player, even if there is no contract between him and the organization, and NOTHING will happen.

But it was not only the paiN who did it ...

What kind of rules are these, Riot? Please explain! Otherwise, next season any team in Brazil will announce Faker just for the hype ...

b241212/19/2015, 8:00:57 AM6 votes

This anti poaching business is getting out of hand. A free agency season needs to be implemented where teams and players can talk to other players and teams about future employment opportunities without regards or fear of punishment under these haphazardly enforced rules.

What disturbs me even more is that if someone owns a stake in a gaming corporation/team, they should not and cannot be forced to sell their stake as a punishment under a competitive ruling handed down by the developer/organizer of the professional series of a game being played by said team as a condition of that team being able to remain as a recognized competitor for that game. I'm certain this has to be illegal, especially in the case of an organization like say C9 or FNC where the team is encompassing of more than just League of Legends.

I would not be surprised if Shim files an actual lawsuit against Riot over that particular part of this ruling. This is definitely something to keep an eye on, and I really hope that Shim and TDK don't take this sitting down.

Kord12/19/2015, 5:30:31 AM4 votes

So is there no way for players switch teams without being treated like property? Or is Riot chill with this?

owenstarkiller12/20/2015, 11:11:19 PM1 votes

Banned from owning a team? For a year? For one contract? That's insane. As it is the rules are so unclear that your own announcers have made mistakes. Hell, what is the draft period for the teams? There is no televised event. You draw tons of eyeballs for your championships but you are obviously unclear on what the rules for teams are.

What is the free agent status of individual players? How can you curtail their ability to negotiate while being a private enterprise without player input? This isn't the NFL where the players in bloc negotiate with the owners of the franchise/teams. You are a third party attempting to manipulate a market as if you were an actual legue. You aren't. And it is getting irritating.

aaIam12/19/2015, 10:07:09 PM1 votes

$10000 riot is a bitch

Blunts4Brekfast12/19/2015, 11:45:05 PM1 votes

"Lets grow esports by banning people who want to invest and contribute to the esports scene so badly that they pay to take their NA team to Korea to bootcamp and to recruit new talent. Fuck the people who have enough money and passion to do that, lets make them sell their shares and lets try to get some owners in here who give zero fucks about league and just want a quick turnaround on investment." - Riot games

SAFFATLOL12/19/2015, 4:49:39 AM1 votes

Isn't TDK Team Arena Online now?

potatoZev12/19/2015, 4:40:17 AM1 votes

RIP TDK

puerhista12/20/2015, 9:45:22 PM1 votes

So if i understand it well, players under contarct are basically property of the team management and are unable to speak with anyone outside about their future plans or actively looking for new team, if they want quit after season? Yes, you can encourage your management, but if they dont allow anything, you are in darkness to the end of contract. I also dont see, how this anti- poaching system help with the stability of roster. If is roster stability important for management or want to secure some key players, they can nagotiate about new contract long before the old one expire (i suppose). If they offer reasonable money and there is no toxic environment in team, players have no reason to run away, but if they want run away from various reason, keeping them in darknes wouldnt held them in roster.