×
OR

By continuing, I agree to GINX' Terms and Conditions

OR
Please enter a valide email address

Already a GINX member? Sign in

CHOOSE YOUR USERNAME
›

Your username is how other community members will see you. Ever dreamt of being called JohnWick ? Now is the time.

Back
Call of Duty
News > FPS > Call of Duty
World

Nadeshot apologizes for "not knowing rules" of $100k Warzone event after controversial Swagg decision

The 100 Thieves CEO overturned a correct admin decision during a controversial but legal play during the Nadeshot $100k Warzone invitational.

Despite bearing his name, it seems Matthew "Nadeshot" Haag didn't know how the Nadeshot 100k Warzone invitational was being run, after overruling a correct admin decision that allowed FaZe's Kris "Swagg" Lamberson and Booya to earn a controversial game 3 victory over NRG's Isaac and Breadman.

The disagreement stemmed from a legal play made by Isaac which Swagg thought was forbidden as the NRG member crashed a helicopter with Swagg in it, killing the FaZe rep in the process. 

Swagg and Booya left the lobby claiming foul play, however, after an admin reviewed the play, they deemed Isaac and Breadman winners of the match as the event rules state that is perfectly legal to sabotage opponents in the manner it had happened.

faze swagg nrg isaac
(Picture: @IceManIsaac)

Despite making the correct decision, Nadeshot reverted the call, forcing teams to play a game 3, with the FaZe members coming out on top in the Winners Round 2 of the bracket. Soon after this, the 100T owned issued an apology, accepting his mistake.

"I hadn't been reading the rules from top to bottom, I've just been here coming in as a broadcaster and commentator, so I'd like to apologize for not knowing the rules," Nadeshot said on-stream.

"What I wanted to see was not game 3 end within the first minute cause Booya left the game, but from an entertainment perspective, you don't wanna see it end because someone leaves the game."

It remains to be seen if Nadeshot will compensate Isaac and Breadman for the incorrect ruling.