Originally posted by IPG:

If a minor violation is quickly handled by the players to their mutual satisfaction, a judge does not need to intervene.

In a recent thread, there was some discussion about a rule being broken, but ending with a legal board state. My initial thought was that I would not step into this game if I were watching, as I thought this fit the idea of a “minor violation, quickly handled by the players.” Another judge disagreed, so I wanted to see what other judges think about this line, and what kinds of things others think it does or does not cover.

– (the situation from the original thread) If a player plays a shockland tapped while the opponent controls a Blood Moon, then says “go”, would you think this has ended at a legal game state and we have no problem, or would you step in because AP has violated a rule by not announcing they had a floating mana / appeared to misunderstand the new shockland/Blood Moon interaction?

– On AP's end step, NAP casts Opt, and their sleeves are sticking. They try to pick up one card, but accidentally draw two cards. They say “oops – I'll just not draw for my turn,” and AP says “Ok.” NAP untaps, doesn't draw a card for the turn, then goes to their first main phase. Would you step in here, or is this covered by that sentence in the IPG?

How do you decide where the line is for exactly what this sentence covers, and what it doesn't?

In the First situation, I would still give a GRV/FTMBS as this is a new rule and technically, the player controlling the Blood moon should have been aware of the interactions with his own cards. It is very possible that the shockland player has no idea of the new rule, and the blood moon player is gaining an advantage through not correcting the error. Allthough it is a legal line of play, the fact that is does not reflect the intention or the understanding of the shockland player, I would step in and correct the situation.

As for the opt, this could be viewed under the “out of order sequencing” section of the MTR, which states “it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete.” Here we can say that the player drew for his opt, scried one, kept it on top and drew before untapping, which reflects his intent (probably) and, while being in an incorrect order, still results in a legal board state.

In the blood moon case, I'd want to ask what both players understood to be happening, but I'd be inclined to be “forgiving” if neither player was aware of the recent change.

Resolving opt as a sort of “scry 2, then draw 1” is the sort of behavior that we should be trying to discourage with a warning, though I'd be inclined to let the players' “fix” stand. It isn't OoOS since information is gained early, and knowledge of the second card may affect AP's scry decision (choosing not to scry if one of the cards is really good to avoid losing it, or perhaps calling a judge if both cards are bad so that one gets shuffled away).

Originally posted by Brook Gardner-Durbin:

… by not announcing they had a floating mana…

I think it's fair to say that this most definitely isn't what happened in the game. While theoretically, this is an error that a player could make, the reality is that the player put a permanent into play tapped when it should be untapped. We should avoid trying to retcon a players actual actions to better fit some other infraction.

So I'd step in because the player has played a land tapped that should be untapped. It's very clear that either they haven't heard of the new rule, or have forgotten about it.

As for the Opt question, I wouldn't step in to penalise anyone, but I would step in for customer service reasons. I'd suggest a method of ensuring you have the correct number of cards before you draw them. In the case of something like Brainstorm, I'd suggest counting out 3 cards, then picking them up. For Opt, I'd demonstrate how some people pick up a card, briefly set it on the table, and then draw it, thereby giving them enough time to spot there are too many cards. They use it ritualistically in their draw steps, just to be safe.

In general, a lot of this comes down to Judgement. A key factor for me is if the player who makes the minor error immediately spots it, and proposes a fix that leaves everyone happy, and prevents any potential for advantage for that player.

Originally posted by Brook Gardner-Durbin:

On AP's end step, NAP casts Opt, and their sleeves are sticking. They try to pick up one card, but accidentally draw two cards.

Originally posted by Andrew Keeler:

Resolving opt as a sort of “scry 2, then draw 1” is the sort of behavior that we should be trying to discourage with a warning

I may be mistaken here, but I thought that the played had already scried for the first portion of the spell, since the opening statement states that they draw 2 cards. So I assumed he scried 1 to the top, tried to draw 1 for opt, the sleeve sticked and he drew 2. In that situation no early information is gained, in my opinion.

IF the player did pick up 2 cards for his Scry, that's an entirely different story as outlined by Andrew. If the player picked 2 cards while resolving the scry portion of opt, that's definitively GPE-LEC, and shuffle the 2nd card, warn player to be more careful and maybe suggest a sleeve change if this is likely to come again…

Originally posted by MTR:

1.10 Players
Players are responsible for:
(…)
• Calling attention to any rules or policy infraction they notice in their matches.

Note that up until a few years ago it was this:

Originally posted by Old MTR:

Bringing to a judge’s attention any rules or policy infraction they notice in their matches.

Now, basically: if you realize something is wrong you have to tell your opponent, and then the both of you might come to an agreement on a fix, or at least one of you might prefer calling a judge. I'm fine with a lot, but there must be some communication (and the opponent MUST be alerted so that they could, if desired, call a judge).

Some common cases that are perfectly fine, in addition to GRV CR-style backups, are:
AP "On your turn you didn't pay for Thalia, Guardian of Thraben“
NAP ”Oops (taps an extra mana now)“
AP (nod in agreement).

AP ”I'll attack with, … wait, this creature wasn't supposed to untap because of your Watertrap Weaver (taps it now)"
NAP (nods in agreement).

To answer your specific questions: no the Blood Moon thing is not okay. Yes the Opt case is fine.

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

I'm fine with a lot, but there must be some communication (and the opponent MUST be alerted so that they could, if desired, call a judge).

I like this thought, that there needs to be explicit communication.

For everyone saying the Blood Moon case isn't ok and you'd step in, I'd like to ask a couple related questions about where you'd insert yourself into a match:

– On turn 1 of the game, AP puts a swamp into play tapped and says go, NAP starts their turn.
Does this feel different to you from the shockland/blood moon scenario? They feel pretty similar to me, and my feeling is that we have a legal game state, and I'm not going to insert myself into a match to give a GRV for not announcing floating mana. Maybe AP has a misunderstanding about the rules and how basic lands work, maybe they're trying tilt their opponent … I'm fine with not being 100% about what was going through their head here.

– NAP has a blood moon in play and AP puts a swamp into play tapped, says go, NAP starts untapping.
Do you step in, on the argument AP appears confused about the rules? Would you step into any match where one player was performing legal actions, but appeared to perhaps be confused over the rules?

Hi,

I would step into a game to confirm what was happening. When I see the land coming into play tapped and I do not see any reason at that moment, I want to have it clear, so everyone (players, me, spectators) understands what is going on.

Just by seeing a land which normally enters the battlefield untapped being put as tapped on the table, you can't tell whether the player is “performing legal actions”.

Edited Milan Majerčík (Oct. 12, 2017 06:02:01 PM)

Originally posted by Brook Gardner-Durbin:

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

I'm fine with a lot, but there must be some communication (and the opponent MUST be alerted so that they could, if desired, call a judge).

I like this thought, that there needs to be explicit communication.

For everyone saying the Blood Moon case isn't ok and you'd step in, I'd like to ask a couple related questions about where you'd insert yourself into a match:

– On turn 1 of the game, AP puts a swamp into play tapped and says go, NAP starts their turn.
Does this feel different to you from the shockland/blood moon scenario? They feel pretty similar to me, and my feeling is that we have a legal game state, and I'm not going to insert myself into a match to give a GRV for not announcing floating mana. Maybe AP has a misunderstanding about the rules and how basic lands work, maybe they're trying tilt their opponent … I'm fine with not being 100% about what was going through their head here.

– NAP has a blood moon in play and AP puts a swamp into play tapped, says go, NAP starts untapping.
Do you step in, on the argument AP appears confused about the rules? Would you step into any match where one player was performing legal actions, but appeared to perhaps be confused over the rules?

I step in on both occasions - they're all the same. A permanent has entered the battlefield wrong. The “floating mana” thing is a red herring - they're not floating mana so let's not try and penalise them for it. If they're trying to tilt someone, I recommend against making illegal plays.

Originally posted by Brook Gardner-Durbin:

Would you step into any match where one player was performing legal actions, but appeared to perhaps be confused over the rules?

If they're making legal plays, it's not for me to educate them on the rules (that's one of the advantages that a ‘better’ player should have). If they're not making legal plays (as in all these scenarios) that's different.