Yes, that is a plausible method of cheating. And if judges are just
going to hand out “no fowl” why wouldn't you do this? The reason DEC
is a GL is that the potential for abuse is high, just as I'm
describing.

When presented with anything that resembles DEC you should make sure
you are confident the players are not cheating (well really when ever
you are called to a table or at a tournament in general). If they
aren't cheating the IPG will give an appropriate penalty to reflect
the potential abuse. This fits the litmus test we have for determining
DEC so we issue it. And I don't think about deviating here because the
level of potential abuse matches the standard DEC potential.

Drawing before untap isn't going be DEC when the opponent passes the
turn. The player is going to move to untap immediately after drawing
and we don't have an issue. Very few players are going to call a judge
in this situation (at least the first time).

I meant if the player draws before untap when they THINK they heard the opponent pass the turn. If untap is a GRV before DEC, I suppose if you draw first then immediately untap, you get a GL?

Probably.

Just another lesson for doing thing in the right order.

Look at it this way, the players who untapped first are getting a
lucky break from DEC to only get GRV.

I suppose. It's already a pretty uncommon situation anyway. Most of the time, people have something to untap. Most of the other times, people wait until they're sure it's their turn to start it. :P

Gareth,

Do you feel comfortable with the fact that the way you wish to rule it
means that there are two different penalties for doing essentially the same
thing?

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

Originally posted by Josh Stansfield:

Another consideration, what about sloppy players who draw before they untap? Does that also become DEC because they did it out of order, even if it was clear they were reaching to untap the instant after they drew a card?

That would be a DEC in my opinion because the card draw occured before illegally untapping the lands. If untapping the lands occured first, then a GRV was committed before the DEC and the opponent would have a chance to see that something already went wrong and call it out before the card is drawn.

What would you say if the NAP said they didn't remember whether they drew
before untapping and the AP said they weren't watching, since it was their
turn and they didn't expect the NAP to just start taking his turn? I
haven't done a study or anything, but I would suspect most players who draw
before untapping don't think about the fact that they're supposed to untap
first and so, upon being asked, won't remember which they did first.

What about if they untap and draw in the same motion (because they have no
upkeep effects, say)?

I have to say I'm a little uncomfortable with having such disparate rulings
in this case, particularly when the root cause is the same and the player's
execution of the error is what is determining whether they're getting a
warning or a GL.

-Justin Miyashiro
L1 Fort Collins CO

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Eric Paré
<forum-3263@apps.magicjudges.org>wrote:

I'd likely consider it OOS, and treat it as a preexisting GRV when executed in the correct order.

One of the key points that came up when I discussed it with other judges in my area was that untapping things that were tapped makes a change to the visual representation, and its therefore much easier for the AP to determine that something has gone wrong. This isn't the case when nothing had been tapped to begin with.

Justin, it is impossible to have perfectly consistent rulings in this case. This is always a “you had to be there” situation.

There are three stages to investigation when I've done it in the past:

1) Is this a non-CPV “player communication breakdown?” What was said? Meant? Heard? Understood? How plausible a mistake was this to make? If you are comfortable that everything here is on the up-and-up, you may conclude that a rewind with no infraction is appropriate. You can also conclude that AP did pass his turn based on existing Tournament Shortcuts, even if he didn't mean to. (I've only ruled this way once, but Tournament Shortcuts exist for a reason. Do not entirely close yourself off from this option.)
2) Did the player untap first, even if his reason for doing so was a bit spotty? GRV, rewind.
3) Did the player draw first for questionable reasons? At least DEC, investigation starts to focus on Cheating.

so, the conclusion i get is this:

opp-speaks, untap, draw > CPV
untap, draw > GRV
draw, untap > DEC

everyone agree with this?

No. This is never a CPV. Mishearing your opponent is not part of
Communication Policy.

> Gareth,
>
> Do you feel comfortable with the fact that the way you wish to rule it
> means that there are two different penalties for doing essentially the same
> thing?
>
>
> -George FitzGerald
> L2, Sarasota, FL

Yes, because ‘essentially the same thing’ isn't the same thing.

Heck real laws are the same. If I wander over to the park and use a
gun to shoot a sign I'll get charged with some minor firearms offence,
if some kid was hiding behind the sign and was killed by the bullet
I'd get charged with a version of murder/manslaughter. Same action,
different outcome.

Hello everyone.

I feel that from this discussion, there is a lot of disagreement over what
is correct. So I think the main thing to take away from it, is that no
matter your opinion, if you get the situation on the floor, it is probably
best for you to take it to the Head Judge to let them make their decision.
This way if it happens to occur more than once in an event, it can be ruled
consistently in the event.

Thanks for participating.

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

I disagree George. Every situation is going to be slightly different, so the best thing to do is listen to both sides and make a ruling. Then, if someone is unhappy, they can exercise their right to appeal. One of the reasons floor judges are out there is to make rulings (to the best of their ability). If you don't make rulings, then what are you doing on the floor? And if you skip the initial ruling, the players don't have the option to appeal. It's much better from a player's perspective to get a ruling, and go to a head judge who upholds it, than it is to just get one ruling and no second opinion if they're unhappy.

Mark, a quick reminder that if you're going to issue a game loss for DEC the head judge needs to be involved.