I have a question to ask you.

I've read through one article of knowledge pool
Here's the link : http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/2013/12/11/setessen-something/

" You perform a mid-round deck check on Alex during round 6 of a Theros sealed 5k, of which you are head judge. You quickly discover that he is playing a Setessan Battle Priest in his deck, but no copies of this card are marked in the Total column on his deck registration sheet. When you investigate further, you find that a Setessan Griffin is marked in his Total column, but it is not in his pool. When you speak to Alex, he says he didn’t notice the error because the card wasn’t in his main deck, so he didn’t bother to check that it was right on his sheet. As usual, the players had been instructed to confirm the contents of their pools before beginning deck construction.

Based on interviewing Alex, you believe that the pool has always contained the Battle Priest and not the Griffin. What do you do? "

It's quite an old article but I sometimes have a weird mood to read the old articles. I just wonder that from this scenario like this, as Failure to follow official announcement doesn't exist anymore, which penalty should we give to Alex ?

Let me guess. For me, I will give the Unsporting conduct - Minor penalty as I've heard that this penalty replace some of the Failure to follow official announcement penalties. But, I'm also tempt to consider the Limited procedure violation penalty as it might be more close to this case but it doesn't state about this case in IPG's example or definition.

Thank you for your time.

I just compared two older versions of the IPG: one dated February 7, 2014, and the other dated May 2, 2014. During the time between these two articles, “Failure to Follow Official Announcements” was removed, “Draft Procedure Violation” had its name changed to “Limited Procedure Violation”, and example D. “A player does not note one of the cards she was registering before the deck swap” was added to the list of examples for “Limited Procedure Violation”.

Given this information, I believe that Sealed Deck registration violations were moved from “Failure to Follow Official Announcements” to “Limited Procedure Violation”. Further, I believe that one of the reasons for the change from “Draft Procedure Violation” to “Limited Procedure Violation” was to ensure that there would still be a penalty that could apply to Sealed Deck registration violations.

As such, I would apply the “Limited Procedure Violation” penalty if this scenario were to occur today.

Originally posted by Alexandra Yang:

I just compared two older versions of the IPG: one dated February 7, 2014, and the other dated May 2, 2014. During the time between these two articles, “Failure to Follow Official Announcements” was removed, “Draft Procedure Violation” had its name changed to “Limited Procedure Violation”, and example D. “A player does not note one of the cards she was registering before the deck swap” was added to the list of examples for “Limited Procedure Violation”.

Before the deck swap happens, who is registering the card pool? Is it Alex? Or is it someone else? What tournament policy was violated here?

When you have a deck swap, Alex's should verify the card pool he receives and properly register the sealed deck he's actually playing. The player who registered the card pool has the responsibility to register the card pool properly, as well as perform any additional procedures as covered by the announcements (i.e., sorting the card pool by color and then card name). The person who doesn't register the card pool properly has committed the error here, not the player receiving the card pool, just as a spectator who provides advice to a player has committed the error. See MTR 7.5 regarding these procedures.

While the player receiving the card pool didn't detect this error, most likely because he or she discounted that color as playable when constructing their sealed deck, this still does not fall under Limited Procedure Violation. You can certainly remind the player to be more careful when reviewing the card pool, but as with some “Oops!” situations, we shouldn't assess an infraction and penalty here.