I think that if no trample damage is registered, irrelevant of the difference in P/T between attacker/blocker, on competitive REL means that all the damage would be assigned to the blocking creature, which is not an illegal play and thus, not a GRV.
Thus, intervening and pointing out that the creature tramples is OA.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, the +1/+1 on werewolves was registered and understood by both players, since there were more werewolfs in play, and they all dealt one more damage. Only one werewolf was blocked (and other irrelevant creatures).

Also no one is taking into account that these were two players/friends from another region who travelled to the tournament. Makes me harder to believe that it was an honest mistake.

Originally posted by Simon Ahrens:

Then A would have told N to take two damage instead of one. I do not see the relevance here.

Quite contrary, AP is under no obligation to assign leftover damages to player. He can assign more that lethal damages to blocking creature. It might because he forget about trample, but it might be because of tactical reasons. If AP say nothing in damage steps I would assume that he know about trample and choose not to assign additional damage and “overkill” blocking creature.

Originally posted by Simon Ahrens:

I do not understand what you are trying to tell me here.

I'm saying that I don't see GRV there. I would intervene if that Wolf creature would not be blocked. Then, if player is missing one damage, its clearly GRV. Same, if 2/2 would be blocked with 3/3 and blocker would not die in combat, then its GRV as well. 2/2 blocked with 2/2 and with no damages assigned to a player are for me just AP choise not to trample that one additional damage.

Originally posted by Simon Ahrens:

“You should have dealt 1 damage because of this static ability” Can by my definition never be OA because it is something that N should tell A otherwise we would investigate N for cheating. I know that the trample makes it awkward because we expect players to know that they can overkill the blocking creature but that is not how the players usually play the game.

Yes, but what static ability it is matter. Trample is specific, because player might “miss” it because how rules for assigning damages work and I don't we should go there with “how players usually play”. If there would be lifelink or deathtouch involved then yes, you should intervene, and I would not issue OA if this would be spotted by a spectator, but still I would tell him how to bring that kind of errors to our attention.

Also no one is taking into account that these were two players/friends from another region who travelled to the tournament. Makes me harder to believe that it was an honest mistake.

Then this should go not only with OA but additional investigation.

Edited Bartłomiej Wieszok (June 29, 2016 03:57:31 PM)

Originally posted by Simon Ahrens:

“You should have dealt 1 damage because of this static ability” Can by my definition never be OA because it is something that N should tell A otherwise we would investigate N for cheating. I know that the trample makes it awkward because we expect players to know that they can overkill the blocking creature but that is not how the players usually play the game.

N is not obliged to point out trample. One of the game's shortcuts used to be that damage was assumed to trample over. That shortcut was removed a long while ago. It is A's responsibility to assign trample damage to the defending player. Failure to assign trample damage to the defender is only an issue if the blocking creature is removed before damage and nothing is left blocking.

Hello,

Originally posted by Mark Litvak:

Also no one is taking into account that these were two players/friends from another region who travelled to the tournament. Makes me harder to believe that it was an honest mistake.

Do you think that it was DQ-worthy cheating made by the spectator? Is there anthing else to support your suspicion besides the friendship between the actors (and their intent to go abroad and “rob your tournament”)?

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

I think you damage tournament integrity in general if you punish me now by effectively DQ'ing me (yes, a Match Loss right before start of Top 8 in which I would play, that's effectively the same as a DQ

Interesting point. In case of a Limited Event, how would you do it?
Let's assume the case is clearly OA. Do you let him draft and then he loses, if so, when do you tell him? If you tell him before the draft, would he maybe manipulate the draft? Or do you remove him from the tournament and let the 9th player draft?

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Hello,

Mark Litvak
Also no one is taking into account that these were two players/friends from another region who travelled to the tournament. Makes me harder to believe that it was an honest mistake.

Do you think that it was DQ-worthy cheating made by the spectator? Is there anthing else to support your suspicion besides the friendship between the actors (and their intent to go abroad and “rob your tournament”)?

I believe that the player wouldn't have said anything if the roles were reversed, but it is impossible to prove. Friendship/nationality is in this case just a point that makes me look at the situation more critically, because of possible intentions.

I don't believe this is OA for one simple reason: The spectator didn't make a strategic recommendation until after the Defending player asked why a judge might need to be called. It sounds like he tried to pause the match, and when the players asked him why, he told them. They then proceeded to resolve the matter on their own in a fair manner.

Originally posted by Jeff Phillips:

I don't believe this is OA for one simple reason: The spectator didn't make a strategic recommendation until after the Defending player asked why a judge might need to be called. It sounds like he tried to pause the match, and when the players asked him why, he told them. They then proceeded to resolve the matter on their own in a fair manner.

Cool point of view… I think this can be the phylosophical stone of all this.
Thinking under this, I now will not mark this as OA.

@Mark: if I would issue ML for first round of the TOP8 I would do just that, Issue ML for 1st round of TOP8 ;P If it were limited event with TOP8 in draft then player in question have his right to participate in that draft.

As for cheating investigation, it always depends on answers, but if I would come to conclusion, that he broke rules knowingly, then its a DQ.

Originally posted by Jeff Phillips:

I don't believe this is OA for one simple reason: The spectator didn't make a strategic recommendation until after the Defending player asked why a judge might need to be called. It sounds like he tried to pause the match, and when the players asked him why, he told them.

His answer should be like “I can't tell you, I will explain it to Judge”. I don't find this as a reason why now he can do something, that normally would be OA. It would create a way for providing assistance just by saying “I want you guys to stop, I'm going for a Judge because of XYZ” Especially, that players often misjudge situations and stop the game in situations where I would just roll my eyes (mentally only ;) on how dumb misplay that was but legal.

This explanatory blog post was written by Toby Elliot when the default trample assignment rules were removed: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2012/11/20/trample/. It gives some insight in how to handle the situation with the trample damage. The conclusion is:

we do the only thing possible: default to what actually changed in the game

If there was a disagreement and I had to resolve it, I would rule that since life totals changed as if no trample was assigned, that's what I we default to. In this case though, it seems as if this minor situation had already been resolved by the players to their mutual satisfaction, so there is little reason to interfere.

As for outside assistance, I'd say it also falls under the same “already handled minor situation” clause. If it had not, it originally looks like outside assistance. However, there's an important detail in that the spectator did not reveal the actual problem until prompted by the NAP. If giving this information is OA for the spectator, is soliciting it not OA by the NAP? It would probably depend on exactly what was said, but I'd be tempted to call it a borderline situation and not give anyone a match loss.

Originally posted by Simon Ahrens:

He is not allowed to forget the ability. It is not a missed trigger. If he did not say anything about trample we assume he “really wanted to kill the blocker” and that would most probably be my ruling if the spectator had called us instead of talking to the players and this is something I would have told the players after they had fixed the problem by themselves.

Simon I think that you have missed a change in policy. Back in 2012 when we introduced the verbal confirmation of life total changes we also removed the “assume trample happened”. Read Toby Elliots article about the changes here.

Thus if the attacking player said a life total that did not include the trample and the defending player confirmed it, that is very much a legal play. The change made it so that remembering trample is now a skill, the same way as remembering triggers is.

EDIT: I clearly can't read.

Edited Jonas Breindahl (July 1, 2016 12:39:56 AM)

Jonas, that's exactly what Simon said. ;)

Originally posted by Mats Törnros:

However, there's an important detail in that the spectator did not reveal the actual problem until prompted by the NAP. If giving this information is OA for the spectator, is soliciting it not OA by the NAP?

That's good question, but I think spectator still should know what he can and what he can't say to the players.

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

Jonas, that's exactly what Simon said. ;)

Mats Törnros
However, there's an important detail in that the spectator did not reveal the actual problem until prompted by the NAP. If giving this information is OA for the spectator, is soliciting it not OA by the NAP?

That's good question, but I think spectator still should know what he can and what he can't say to the players.

The original scenario didn't mention NAP asking anything. But even if they did, it was probably something like “why do we need a judge?” That's not soliciting OA :)

@Mark: while writing that post, I was thinking about something like issuing OA for NAP because of that question but now I think this was overthinked

I would say that this was not OA because no one sought play advice or hidden information, gave play advice, or referred to notes created before the match.

A player is assumed to have assigned all combat damage possible to the defending player or planeswalker from an attacking creature with trample unless stated otherwise.

Both players would receive a penalty for incorrectly recording life totals, and the spectator should be reminded that if they see an error, they should ask players to pause the match, and seek the nearest on-staff judge.