Had a real brain buster at a modern PPTQ yesterday that I was head judging no idea how to answer it. So I went to the match, I arrived I n. I was approached by the other judge at the event, and he said that he answered a call and that he had noticed that both players had shuffled their decks and was getting ready to start a game had and asked how I would help them. They then informed me that they was starting game two and that each player thought that they both won game one. This was confusing to me so I asked each player what happened in the last game and they each informed me that they had dealt lethal damage to each other in the last turn of game one by separate sources. Each player agreed that one player was at 6 (player 1) and they differed on the life total of the other player, that player (player 2) said that he was at 12 and his opponent said he was at 9. I reviewed each players life total pages and they player that was at 6 had his opponent taking a fetchland damage and a shockland damage that they other player did not have, and his opponent said that he did not take those damages. What went down was during player 1 turn he cast a Skullcrack bringing player 1 down to 3 life and player 2 had a suspended Rift Lightning that would kill player 1 during the start of the next turn, during combat player 1 attacked player 2 for 7 damage and then cast Kolaghan's Command which player 1 thought would kill player 2. When they shuffled up for Game two player 1 asked player 2 if he was playing or drawing and Player 2 said that he won. I could not look at their board state and I could not get either player to admit that they scooped first and no one else was watching the game, So what do you think the best thing to do here? I told that they needed to restart the game and they could not sideboard and I have them a 15 minute extension.
Billy

In my opinion, if neither player can agree on who won Game 1 and there is
no board state for us to examine and make a conclusion from, I would rule
Game 1 as a draw. Per MTR 2.2, the player who had the option of going
first in Game 1 would have the option again for Game 2. Per MTR 3.15,
since a game of Magic was played, I would allow sideboarding.

Lastly, I would only give a standard time extension for the judge call (and
impending appeal). I would not re-extend the round to full duration.
There was definitely a game of Magic played here. To me, poor
communication between the players and life total discrepancy without
involving a judge are not grounds for a time extension. I do not believe
these behaviors should be “rewarded” with a completely reset clock.

Thanks,
Jason Daniels

I only gave the extension for the time it took for the call.

In addition to what was suggested would grv-ftmgs apply for the incorredt life total tracking?

I agree with Jason - if players disagree about who won (and you believe neither is lying - they both have a reasonable argument), it's a draw.

Originally posted by Billy Gilmore:

I only gave the extension for the time it took for the call.

The call took fifteen minutes to resolve? That seems excessive - why so long?

Robert Langmaid
In addition to what was suggested would grv-ftmgs apply for the incorredt life total tracking?

I wouldn't GRV for tracking life incorrectly. The player sounds like he announced (and acknowledged) the life loss, he just didn't jot it down. If we infracted here, we'd have to infract for every life total dispute, which would make players less likely to ask us to help resolve them.

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

I wouldn't GRV for tracking life incorrectly. The player sounds like he announced (and acknowledged) the life loss, he just didn't jot it down. If we infracted here, we'd have to infract for every life total dispute, which would make players less likely to ask us to help resolve them.

I'm sorry, but that's why we're here right? Some penalties are a way of educating players, it's not to punish them and backups are not often made, meaning a player got some small advantage at a given moment anyway.
Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't GRV-FtMGS neither. But that's because I don't know what happenned, which one of them is right about the damage dealt by lands (since it looks like there's a disagreement).

Otherwise yeah, I agree with Jason about the draw and the sideboard. I guess it was a delicate situation and there was some questions going on, and that's why it took you a long time to resolve the situation. But I also agree on only giving the standard time extension.

Originally posted by Àre Maturana:

I'm sorry, but that's why we're here right? Some penalties are a way of educating players, it's not to punish them and backups are not often made, meaning a player got some small advantage at a given moment anyway.

A life total dispute doesn't mean that a rule was broken; it means someone took bad notes! It's entirely possible (an, in my experience, probable) that the player did take (or not take) the correct amount of damage, but someone just forgot to include/doubled up on the damage on their scratch pad. Nothing in the IPG covers this, except possibly for a CPV depending on the circumstances. It's certainly not a GRV for failing to remember a legally resolved game action earlier in the game.

To those who want to issue an infraction for a life total dispute: first, find the infraction where it fits. (Hint: there isn't one.)

d:^D

In this particular situation, we don't know how the life total dispute arose anyway. Remember, if we think that player A did lose the life but forgot to write it down…well, then player A lost, didn't he? The dispute comes from player A's contention that he did not lose the life, and the entire scenario comes from our inability to determine who is right.

I would agree that in most cases a life total dispute comes from someone forgetting something, but if that's what occurred here, then we don't have a scenario, do we?

Sent from my iPad

well, I can tell you Billy has it 100 percent correct he did the appropriate thing. I would have been ok with the draw as well. The way that it happened was that my opponent hit me for 7 and then cast Kolaghan's command for 2 and returned a creature to his hand. At the end of his turn he motioned to me and scooped up his cards, so I assumed he was acknowledging that I had won the game.

Edited justin tierney (Aug. 14, 2015 11:35:36 PM)

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

The call took fifteen minutes to resolve? That seems excessive - why so long?

15 minutes seems fair to explain the situation without a board state to look at. You have to figure out the problem, check life pads, let them argue about what happened, sit in the tank on it for a bit, give a ruling, have it appealed, then do it all over again. If Chapin's appeal can be 15 minutes on camera I can see this far more complex situation taking equally long. It's not ideal, but I can pretty easily imagine this taking that long.