It's round 5 of a 6 round PPTQ and this occurs at table 1. It's very late in the game when you get called over. you arrive to the match to see Andrew has 8 lands tapped, 7 cards face down, a Dig Through Time to the side of them along with roughly 10 cards in the graveyard, and 1 card in hand. When you ask what the problem is the spectator(1) that called you over says that Andrew tapped aPolluted Delta to pay for dig through time with no Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth in play. This is where things get complicated. you then ask the players to explain what happened.

Andrew says that he cast Dig Through Time by tapping 8 of his 10 lands and not delving at all. After looking through the 7 cards he put 2 cards in his hand and that is when the spectator(1) called for a judge. Once he heard the call he realized his mistake and put the 2 cards back into the rest of the 7. A spectator(2) claims he can confirm the card that was originally in Andrews hand. Nathan says he can also say with high confidence that the card in his hand was the original one, and confirms Andrew's statement as what happened.

So what is the fix? what are the penalties? Do you let the fact that they can both say what the card is effect your ruling, that a spectator can as well? please discuss and share your thoughts and after some discussion has taken place I'll post what the Head Judge ruled.

Edit: details

Edited Walker Metyko (Feb. 10, 2015 02:56:51 PM)

My first question is, what hand? It appears he had the Dig Through Time and nothing else in his hand according to this description… (7 cards currently face down from DTT, no other cards face down or otherwise sitting conspicuously)

Sorry, he had a single card in his hand in addition to dig through time. He casts dig through time and that is where the scenario begins.

I don't think I would feel comfortable backing up through a Dig Trough Time, being able to confirm the card in hand or not. I would rule GRV, no backup, warnings where appropriate, move on with the resolution.

Andrew will receive a GPE-GRV warning.

I would not back up in this situation. There is no partial fix, and one key statement should stand out from section 1.4 in the IPG supporting no back-up:

For example, returning cards to the library when a player has the ability to shuffle their library is not something that should be done except in extreme situations.

Edited Matt Braddock (Feb. 10, 2015 03:00:17 PM)

Its imo definitely to late to rewind here - too much information gained from seeing the top 7

I would rule GRV for Andrew. No penalty for Nathan (assuming that the spectator called the judge relatively quickly, otherwise a FtMGS is likely warrented).

I could also understand some people slightly deviating here and having Andrew untap his Delta and tap another of his untapped lands

Why would you allow the partial fix? Maybe the opponent didn't counter the
DTT because of the lands left untapped. Partial fixes are never good, even
those that seem easy and unimportant like this one.

I said i could understand it Federico not that i supported it ;).

But a player could convince me that it was a dexterity error and they were actually intending to tap one of there other lands. Especially when you consider the arts of two cards are at least somewhat similar at a quick glance

Unfortunately Andrew has dug himself into an awkward hole: He
committed a GRV (spell with wrong mana/tapping a land, with no mana
abilities, for mana), then when called on it he mixed two cards from
his hand into the top 7 cards of his library.

If he hadn't done the later action I'd be happy to give the straight
GRV and then consider backing up. I never like backing up through a
scry then draw as it lets a random card go from hand potentially to
the bottom of the library. DtT is an even bigger boon to back up
through usually, but only having one card in hand makes it more equal
to that situation, so I'm against backing up as the disruption to the
match would be substantial.

But with the two cards from hand going back into the portion of the
library it becomes much much harder. Some cards are now in the wrong
zone having no (reliable) way of determining which cards are in the
wrong place. If we allow the player to replace 2 cards from those 7
back into his hand we've turned DtT into a mega Brainstorm. Clearly
putting two cards from your hand into your library is another GRV (but
we'll be combining the two of them and only awarding one Warning) and
once again the backup is messy and would provide a large advantage to
Andrew. I'm inclined to let the game state stand and instruct Andrew
to finish resolving DtT. He's done everything except putting the
remaining cards on the bottom of his library so now he does that. Yes
7 on the bottom is unusual but players need to be more careful in
playing and to learn to call a judge immediately when things go wrong.

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Abeed Bendall
<forum-16144-954f@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> Its imo definitely to late to rewind here - too much information gained from
> seeing the top 7
>
> I would rule GRV for Andrew. No penalty for Nathan (assuming that the
> spectator called the judge relatively quickly, otherwise a FtMGS is likely
> warrented).
>
> I could also understand some people slightly deviating here and having
> Andrew untap his Delta and tap another of his untapped lands
>
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/103510/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16144/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16144/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/



–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

Originally posted by Gareth Pye:

when called on it he mixed two cards from his hand into the top 7 cards of his library.

If he hadn't done the later action I'd be happy to give the straight GRV and then consider backing up.

Would you back up in this situation? I really think it is more detrimental to allow the player to see the top 7, put them back, then give them the opportunity to crack Polluted Delta and see a brand new 7. This is why the section of the IPG I quoted above exists.

Originally posted by Gareth Pye:

I'm inclined to let the game state stand and instruct Andrew to finish resolving DtT. He's done everything except putting the remaining cards on the bottom of his library so now he does that. Yes 7 on the bottom is unusual but players need to be more careful in playing and to learn to call a judge immediately when things go wrong.

Where are we getting 7 on the bottom from?

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Matt Braddock
<forum-16144-954f@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> Gareth Pye
> I'm inclined to let the game state stand and instruct Andrew to finish
> resolving DtT. He's done everything except putting the remaining cards on
> the bottom of his library so now he does that. Yes 7 on the bottom is
> unusual but players need to be more careful in playing and to learn to call
> a judge immediately when things go wrong.
>
>
> Where are we getting 7 on the bottom from?

The 5 that were about to go there + the two put back into those from
the hand after the mana issue was detected.

Originally posted by Gareth Pye:

But with the two cards from hand going back into the portion of the
library it becomes much much harder. Some cards are now in the wrong
zone having no (reliable) way of determining which cards are in the
wrong place. If we allow the player to replace 2 cards from those 7
back into his hand we've turned DtT into a mega Brainstorm. Clearly
putting two cards from your hand into your library is another GRV (but
we'll be combining the two of them and only awarding one Warning) and
once again the backup is messy and would provide a large advantage to
Andrew. I'm inclined to let the game state stand and instruct Andrew
to finish resolving DtT. He's done everything except putting the
remaining cards on the bottom of his library so now he does that. Yes
7 on the bottom is unusual but players need to be more careful in
playing and to learn to call a judge immediately when things go wrong.

This sounds like a punishment, which is a partial fix that I don't see supported by the IPG. You said your reason for putting all 7 on the bottom is because we can't be 100% sure that he didn't put back a different card from his hand, however if we can't be sure that all 7 of those came from the library, then we can't put them all on the bottom without it being a partial fix.

I agree that it would have been better if he hadn't put the 2 cards back with the other 5, but at this point the only thing we can do is allow him to continue resolving the spell, choose 2 cards, and put the rest back. If you honestly suspect that he's trying to cheat, then of course that's a whole different conversation, but assuming no cheating, I don't think putting all 7 on the bottom is supported by the IPG.

So you are allowing Andrew to have done his own (partial) rewind? He
had chosen the 2 and put them in his hand. Then when the mana was
discovered he started to rewind.

If we want to rewind the second GRV what is the IPG method of
reversing cards from hand to library? I'm pretty sure there isn't one.

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Joe Brooks
<forum-16144-954f@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> Gareth Pye
> But with the two cards from hand going back into the portion of the
> library it becomes much much harder. Some cards are now in the wrong
> zone having no (reliable) way of determining which cards are in the
> wrong place. If we allow the player to replace 2 cards from those 7
> back into his hand we've turned DtT into a mega Brainstorm. Clearly
> putting two cards from your hand into your library is another GRV (but
> we'll be combining the two of them and only awarding one Warning) and
> once again the backup is messy and would provide a large advantage to
> Andrew. I'm inclined to let the game state stand and instruct Andrew
> to finish resolving DtT. He's done everything except putting the
> remaining cards on the bottom of his library so now he does that. Yes
> 7 on the bottom is unusual but players need to be more careful in
> playing and to learn to call a judge immediately when things go wrong.
>
>
> This sounds like a punishment, which is a partial fix that I don't see
> supported by the IPG. You said your reason for putting all 7 on the bottom
> is because we can't be 100% sure that he didn't put back a different card
> from his hand, however if we can't be sure that all 7 of those came from the
> library, then we can't put them all on the bottom without it being a partial
> fix.
>
> I agree that it would have been better if he hadn't put the 2 cards back
> with the other 5, but at this point the only thing we can do is allow him to
> continue resolving the spell, choose 2 cards, and put the rest back. If you
> honestly suspect that he's trying to cheat, then of course that's a whole
> different conversation, but assuming no cheating, I don't think putting all
> 7 on the bottom is supported by the IPG.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/103552/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16144/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/16144/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/



–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

In this situation, we do not want to back up the incorrect playing of the
Dig Through Time.
(For a good understanding of how and when to back up, please read Section
1.4 of the IPG)
The player made two mistakes: Incorrectly playing the spell and incorrectly
resolving it. The latter one done in an attempt to mitigate the prior
one. I don't think I would tack on another penalty for it, but I would
remind the player that they should let judges correct mistakes, not the
players. Since we are not backing up, we want to finish resolving the
spell. The player needs to put 2 cards in his hand and the rest on the
bottom. Another way to look at it: the player did {look at 7}, {put 2 in
hand}, {put 2 back} instead of {look at 7}, {put 2 in hand}, {put other 5
on bottom}.

Edited Scott Marshall (Feb. 11, 2015 10:12:47 AM)

(edited Shawn's post, so his brackets became braces and thus visible…)

Agree with Shawn. Sure, it's tempting to say “well, everyone (but me) seems certain that one card is the one that was already in hand, we can safely back this up”; temptation tends to sabotage our goal of consistency and thus, fairness.

d:^D