This is a situation I was in at a recent competitive event and I'd like some guidance at what I could have done differently. Thanks!

I was watching a game between “Andy,” a first time competitive player, and “Nat,” an experienced level 1 judge. Andy attacked with a 6/6 creature, Seeker of the Way. Nat blocked with Brimaz, King of Oreskos by physically placing it in front of the Seeker of the Way. He put a 1/1 Cat Soldier token into play, placing it with the rest of his creatures that were not blocking. Andy then asked something very close to, “Brimaz dies and I gain 6 life right?” and Nat responded “Yes.” They adjusted the life totals and moved Brimaz to the graveyard.

At this point I asked them to pause the game because I felt something had gone wrong. Nat said that he assumed the Seeker of the Way was assigning more than lethal damage to Brimaz because of the wording Andy had used, which I agreed with. Andy did not realize that the Cat Soldier was blocking because he didn't know what Brimaz's ability does. I still thought something was wrong but in the moment I wasn't sure, so I went over and explained the situation to an off-duty level 3 judge who had offered to give a hand if needed. The off-duty judge thought there was no infraction and no problem and I should let the game continue, so I gave the players a 2 minute extension and let it go on.

In retrospect, I think a violation was committed because Andy did not place the Cat Soldier token in order of damage assignment. Since an ability Nat controlled caused the violation, I think I should have given both players a warning for Game Play Error: Game Rules Violation* and brought the head judge over to back up to the resolution of Brimaz's triggered ability.

So I have two questions for you:
1) Do you think the pair of GPE: GRVs and backup I am suggesting are appropriate?
2) Should I have stepped in earlier and how would that change the infractions given?

Edited Alexander Traplin (Feb. 2, 2015 10:47:13 PM)

Originally posted by name="Alexander Traplin":

He put a 1/1 Cat Soldier token into play, placing it with the rest of his creatures that were not blocking.

So that sentence there makes me think that Nat is doing something fishy if he understands how his Brimaz works, which it appears that he does based on his statement of how he thought damage was being assigned. It seems that he is trying to take advantage of his opponents lack of understanding by misrepresenting the game state. Inquiring for what reason Nat placed the blocking Cat token among other creatures that are not blocking, seems important here. Did he just assume that his opponent would want to kill his Brimaz and the Seeker was not large enough at the time to kill both? However, the Seeker has Prowess and the opponent may have cards in his hand that he could cast, so the situation seems to me slightly different and a little more complicated than simply assigning a GRV to Andy for failing to order blockers.

To your second question I would not have stepped in sooner as we do not want to step in to prevent problems, we want to step in once we have noticed one. You were watching the game noticed a problem and then you stepped in, I would say that was the appropriate time. If you take action before hand then you might tip off one of the players to some strategic advice and that is not something we want to be doing as judges.

Originally posted by Nicola DiPasquale:

Nat is doing something fishy if he understands how his Brimaz works

Nico, you're right - that sentence concerns me most of all. And Nat should know how Brimaz works, it's in his deck. :p

I'm going to ask Nat about that - maybe “Why didn't you indicate that the token was blocking, too?” - and if I'm satisfied with this investigation, then I'd be very tempted to give Nat a GRV for not blocking with the token, and back up to that point.

d:^D

As the level 1 in question I would like to clarify a few things. Andy attacks with a 2/2 not 6/6 seeker of the way and a 1/1 Goblin token. The seekers becomes a 3/3 later but I will get to that.

Firstly I control only one creature, Brimaz, so before I start the topic of placing a token with my “other creatures” is entirely incorrect.

I am tapped out, I block the 2/2 seeker with a Brimaz and go to get my token, Brimaz immediately gets lightning struck while I am riffling through a deckbox looking for a token. I place it beside Brimaz infront of the seeker, not separate as was described in the other account. I don't believe Alex was there at this point so this might just be case of hearing it second hand. I then ask where the damage from seeker is going to which the answer was something along the lines of. “All of it at Brimaz”. I say “Damage?” “Yes” and confused I question, “So the token survives?”. To which the answer came much to my amazement yeah.

Now this is where the judge intercedes and its kind of where I had a bit of a problem. This is a competitive event and I am aware that this player is newer than most (its not a huge Island you get to know the players) and that these guys ie the player and the judge are friends. There is kind of a line where an investigation and coaching begin to cross and in this instance I think the line became a little blurred. This was a month back so forgive me if its a little foggy. There were talks of rewinding, was he sure that this was the way he wanted to assign damage etc. The judge explains to Andy that there is 3 damage on Brimaz and that the token is blocking again and asks him again where he wants to assign damage. The player again says all of it to Brimaz. I am aware that the player made a mistake but this is not an FNM, the judge should investigate the issue not coach the player into making the right choice. I felt I should clarify the actual occurrence of what happened at the very least. Players lose games because of mistakes and in this case it likely cost him the game, but I don't think it is a judge concern.

I know Alex is a relatively new judge and having since worked with him I know he is very capable but learning the line between investigation and coaching is definitely an important one to learn, which I am more than comfortable in saying that he has.

Thanks for your time guys and I look forward to the comments.

Originally posted by Dave Tuite:

I look forward to the comments

given the nature of this “discussion”, I do not look forward to comments, nor any further public discourse that should be handled in private. Closing this thread…