For those debating whether the zone-change exception applies to this scenario: It is worth noting that the wording of this exception changed recently (in the July 2013 update). The previously vague wording was updated to the current wording, with the note:

Originally posted by IPG Appendix C:

2.5: More clarity on the zone change exception.

What does this tell us about the intent of the current wording?

Originally posted by Vincent Roscioli:

What does this tell us about the intent of the current wording?

Not much without knowing what the old wording was.

In that case, if the current version is the clarified version, the letter of it does not apply, and the Mouth of Ronom stays where it is. The intent of the wording is to fix situations where you moved an object to zone X instead of zone Y, whereas our problem is something that didnt move zones at all.

Assuming being on board with not rewinding, and having ruled out “shady operations” via the investigation in the original question we end up with
GPE-GRV for the Mouth Player
GPE-FtMtGS to the other player
Everything else stays as is and play continues

The old wording just said “If an object is in the wrong zone”.

It honestly doesn't tell me much about intent, but regardless, I really don't want to use obsolete, historical versions of a document to be able to interpret the current version. There's a reason the old version has been replaced, after all.

Originally posted by Vincent Roscioli:

Originally posted by IPG Appendix C:
2.5: More clarity on the zone change exception.

What does this tell us about the intent of the current wording?

Regardless of what the old wording was, this tells us something very important - that a lot of thought and care has gone into the current wording, and that we should be precise in our reading and application of it. It says exactly what it's meant to say, and thus we should follow it exactly.

Which is to say, it doesn't apply, for the reasons Ben stated above.

So:
GPE-GRV Warning for Nathan.
GPE-FtMGS Warning for Alex.
Can't rewind, no partial fix applies, remind players to play more carefully, play on.
(double check list of penalties from event so far to ensure Nathan hasn't done this before).

Edited James Winward-Stuart (March 21, 2014 03:47:51 PM)

Even in the case Alex had only the Sphinx's Rev in hand, what happened if he drew an answer but had no mana to cast it? Now he can just pay a bit less for his Sphinx's Rev and hope that the answer is not on the bottom of thee cards that were undrawn.

I think “the gamestate should match what both players agree on” is a good rule of thumb for this.

Edited Nathanaël François (March 21, 2014 07:53:37 PM)

I think everyone has gone through the same series of thoughts: “I know that IPG doesn't allow us to move MoR to the graveyard unless we rewind. Leaving MoR on the battlefield *feels* wrong, and is clearly exploitable. The partial fix seems right. Rather than looking to the IPG for guidance, I want to implement the partial fix and look to the IPG for a way to justify that result.”

I think that we all need to resist that impulse. While getting a feel-bad ruling here is undesirable, having inconsistent rulings is much more damaging overall. If I were the player casting Sphinx's Revelation, I would know and expect either the MoR to remain in play, or the match to be rewound. While I would like the partial fix as an outcome, it would surprise me and would make me think that the judging staff was playing it fast and loose and being a bit unprofessional.

The IPG was designed to balance the minimization of exploitable scenarios, and the consistency of rulings. While it could certainly be improved upon, the tournament floor is not the place to be writing new policy.

While this was an exploitable scenario, that should only be a factor while looking for possible Cheating, and not for applying a solution for the board state.

As has been pointed out in this and other threads, the “wrong zone” partial fix doesn't cover things that never changed zones (Dryad Arbor not dying to Wrath of God), or things that shouldn't have changed zones but did (Dryad Arbor being destroyed by Ratchet Bomb).

Personally, I don't think this was too complex of a board state to back up. While there are several steps to back up, there wasn't much information revealed and it is likely that the players would quickly get back to the “partial fix” state rather quickly.

See, I'm on board with the warnings, but applying the letter of what the recommended fixes are is a problem. Here, I'd apply a fix as to what both players “expect” the game state to look like. Mouth of Ronom in the bin, proceed whilst I take your match slip and doodle on it for a bit. For all we know, this was a simple oversight from the Sphinx's Rev.

That's how I would handle it.

While I agree that the game state should look like what the players expect it to look like and that it's very counter-intuitive to just leave Mouth of Ronom there, I don't think the IPG's philosophy is wide enough for this kind of thinking and justification.

However, I still think the partial fix fits into the GRV's text and that it could prevent corrupting the current board state. Leaving Mouth is a way to big advantage for Nathan. Imagine if it was the same case but Tectonic Edge was involved, the potential to abuse this GRV would be insane.

What about any accountability on the part of Alex to notice that Mouth of Ronom was still on the battlefield as he cast Sphinx's Revelation? Isn't part of the reason the game state is “corrupted” that BOTH players didn't notice Mouth hadn't been put in the graveyard until well after everything took place?

Why should we fix the game state to what is the “expectation” when neither player did anything to ensure the game state was actually maintained properly?

Good work everybody! Let's get the easy part out of the way first. Nathan will receive a Warning for Game Rule Violation and Alex will receive a Warning for Failure to Maintain Game State. The fix comes down to if you as the head judge feel that you can back-up to the point of the error or not.

If you decide to back-up, you will be putting a card at random from Nathan's hand back on top of his library. Return Celestial Colonnade to the battlefield. Put 4 cards at random from Alex's hand back on top of his library. Reduce Alex's life total by 4. Untap the lands used to cast Sphinx's Revelation. Return the Sphinx's Revelation to Alex's hand. Then complete the activation of Mouth of Ronom by having Nathan sacrifice it. Then the players may carry on.

If you decide NOT to back-up, then you will be leaving the game state as-is. The partial fix in the IPG is specifically worded for cards that do move zones, but just go to the wrong zone. Good examples of this would be a card that is supposed to be Exiled going to the graveyard or a card being bounced to the hand is put on top of the library. This is not for objects that were supposed to move and did not move.

Some of you gave some good reasons for backing up; for example, one person suggested that if Sphinx's Revelation had been the only card in Nathan's hand when he cast it it would be ok to back-up. I would also be closer to allowing a rewind for this in a format where there is not much in the way of library manipulation.

Some of you also gave some good reasons for not backing up. This is a lot that has happened. Alex has drawn 4 cards, he then made decisions based on the game state afterwards. He took the actions of resolving the Mouth of Ronom and then passed the turn. Nathan has untapped and drawn a card. One thing to also consider in such a scenario is that in Modern there are a lot of fetch lands. That could prove to be especially disruptive if we were to rewind the Sphinx's Revelation allowing Alex to potentially shuffle away cards that have been put back or making him choose to not use a fetch because of cards he knows are coming up.

There was also some discussion this week about the value that Nathan gains by leaving the Mouth of Ronom and about “expected game state” of the players. These are not exceptional or unusual reasons that would allow us to deviate from written policy. There is often a feeling of trying to do something that in your mind is “fair.” However, what you think is fair, might not be what others think is fair in every situation. You have more leeway to do so at an FNM, but it's important that you follow the IPG and MTR and the philosophies laid out in those documents when you are judging a Competitive REL event. This allows for consistent rulings around the world and more confidence in judges from the players.

In Knowledge Pool's collective opinion, we would not back up this board state. Too many actions have happened, particularly the card draws of Sphinx's Revelation. Coupled with the other considerations about the format in general, we feel that it would be too disruptive to back up and would leave the game state as-is. The partial fix also would not apply to this situation because the Mouth of Ronom didn't move at all.

For those of you who are interested in a little additional reading on this subject, Knowledge Pool ran two scenarios on when to apply or not apply this same GRV partial fix back in October. You can find the blog forms of those scenarios and solutions here:

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/2013/10/23/save-the-bestowaway/
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/2013/10/30/irrelephant-ambush/