At a recent SCG IQ, I was approached by a player who felt the HJ had ruled incorrectly with one of his games. After explaining to the player that I was not affiliated with the event, and that my opinion could not affect his results, I got his story. I'm just wondering how everyone else would handle this.

Adam is playing Naomi in a Comp REL Legacy event. It is Game 2. Adam is playing UWR, Naomi is playing BUG. Naomi has a Swamp and a Forest on the battlefield. She taps both and plays a Tarmogoyf, then passes turn. Adam untaps, draws, and casts a Brainstorm during his Main Phase. Adam “immediately” draws his first card. Naomi, “JUDGE!!! He didn't give me a chance to respond! I'm playing Blue, Game Loss!”

Now, some backstory. Apparantly, “Naomi” has a reputation for trying to rules-lawyer in Game Losses. According to the HJ, whom I spoke with after the event, “Naomi” had no instants that could be cast without mana in hand. Also, “Naomi” tried to hide her hand from the judge when he came over to investigate.

The fix that the HJ applied was to put a random card from Adam's hand back on top of his library, allow Naomi to respond, then resolve the Brainstorm. (Naomi's response was “no response”.)

How would you handle this? Game Loss Adam? Rewind through the draw? Let it go, no penalty? USC:minor for Naomi? Something else?

Separate players. Naomi: Did your opponent give you any time to respond to the Brainstorm? Did you in any way acknowledge the Brainstorm being cast? Do you wish to respond to the Brainstorm? Adam: Did you give your opponent any time to respond? Did they acknowledge it in any way? Have you previously waited for any acknowledgement from your opponent before beginning to resolve a spell?

Assuming players' stories are consistent, remind A to allow their opponent to respond to their spells, remind N to clearly acknowledge whether a spell is being allowed to resolve or not, and advise N that since she doesn't wish to respond, no backup is necessary - though it's OK that she called, because it gives us an opportunity to educate both players and hopefully avoid a more complex problem later on. N should avoid lobbying for or demanding a specific penalty, but in this case she hasn't crossed the line into USC-minor, A has not drawn extra cards, no infraction, no penalty.

Of course, if N had a response rather than passing priority, we would have to game loss A. This leads to some awkward situations (“why OF COURSE I would have Forced that Brainstorm/Stifled that Top!”) but that's the best we can do. We're not going to make a judgement call on whether a player was really going to respond, and we're not going to allow a player to request priority and then not do anything with it. I certainly don't see how we rewind this.

Edited Dan Collins (June 24, 2014 12:05:35 PM)

Originally posted by Corey Sanders:

At a recent SCG IQ, I was approached by a player who felt the HJ had ruled incorrectly with one of his games.

and why does that player feel that way?
did he share with you, what he “felt” should be the right ruling?

I won't give Adam DEC - Game Loss, although he did draw a card, but that was preceded by resolving brainstorm prematurely (without passing priority to Naomi), if there's any infraction happening, that would have been GRV, definitely not DEC.

While Adam did “rush” the resolution of Brainstorm, but seeing the swamp and forest on board, there's no indication that Naomi played blue. And about her claiming that "I'm playing Blue, Game Loss!” I'd like to check her deck to see if she actually plays blue, or else that would be lying to a judge.

and about Naomi's back story, I'd take it into consideration if there's any investigation. But so far, she didn't commit any infraction (unless she persistently insist for me to give Game Loss to Adam, that will be USC - Minor, like the example B in IPG)

I agree with the remedy that the HJ applied..
rewinding the draw (randomly put a card back to the top of library and not shuffling), allow Naomi to respond, and let them play on.

about the infraction and penalty, I'd hesitate about giving Adam a GRV-Warning, but that is what I'd do.
no infraction nor penalty for Naomi, she called the judge immediately so no FtMGS

after rechecking,
MTR 4.2

MTR 4.2
A player may not request priority and take no action with it. If a player decides he or she does not wish to do anything, the request is nullified and priority is returned to the player that originally had it.

If Naomi decided that she has no respond, there's no need to rewind just like Dan said. We should just let them continue resolving Brainstorm.

Edited Maykel . (June 24, 2014 12:26:23 PM)

There are many subtleties that are not included in this scenario that would help clarify and make rulings easier.

With that being said. If I walk up to a table to answer a call and the first thing i hear is “He didn't give me a chance to respond! I'm playing Blue, Game Loss!” After I settle the dust of the matter at hand I am absolutely issuing USC - Minor to this player.

Questions I would ask Naomi also would include. How long did Adam take to resolve Brainstorm? Did you wait until after Adam had finished resolving the brainstorm to say something or did you try to stop him before he reached for his deck? These seem like minor details but I'm looking for what is Naomi's intent, what is she trying to accomplish. This information would be used to have a talk with Naomi about what her responsibility is during an event as a player. What good sportsmanship is like and why what she did is bad sportsmanship.


The fix that the HJ performed was correct no matter the actions taken by Naomi.

Originally posted by Nick Rutkowski:

With that being said. If I walk up to a table to answer a call and the first thing i hear is “He didn't give me a chance to respond! I'm playing Blue, Game Loss!” After I settle the dust of the matter at hand I am absolutely issuing USC - Minor to this player.

I think this would be my course of action too. The fact that Naomi is, in essence, telling you - the Judge- how to rule is wrong.

I know I've been on the wrong side of a call (as a Judge) before and the player handled it EXTREMELY well. If I had that dude's name, I would give him an ‘attaboy’. But when a player DEMANDS a game loss in any situation - something about that doesnt sit right.

Assuming we ask all the relevant questions and are confident nothing too serious is happening on either player's side, what's the actual policy support for a rewind?

If we do call Adam's rushing a GRV (which doesn't seem to be the popular opinion so far), then we have a remedy that involves a rewind, sure. But we already know that a something that looks like a GRV whose first chance to be detected is the actual drawing of card, then it's a DEC. And we're in GL territory since we don't have the downgrade options available to us.

If we don't call it either of those, is there an infraction at all? (If I've learned anything, I've learned it's almost never CPV, and this isn't CPV.)

If it's not an infraction, what's the policy support for rewinding? CR 717 talks about rewinds, but in this context it's hard to arrive at an illegal player action that doesn't involve a GRV.

And this really doesn't seem to be an edge case, or significant/exceptional. So it feels like I'm forgetting something simple somewhere. (And doing it publicly, let all the other silent folks learn from me, yay!)

To be clear, during an event, with what I'm thinking of right now, I'm in the rewind camp (and I could post more on why I don't like the ‘no rewind if they don’t want to respond' option). But since we've got time to think it through, getting at the policy support seems a nifty thing. I know what feels right to me, but that's murky territory.

Is this really a “J” means use your judgement thing?

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

if N had a response rather than passing priority, we would have to game loss A.

It seems strange to me that the penalty depends on N's options. What qualifies as a response? Tapping and untapping Basalt Monolith? Cycling Street Wraith (and not doing anything else)? Exiling Simian Spirit Guide (and then not using the mana)?

Theoretically, your Legacy opponent could have double Simian Spirit Guide, Manamorphose and Stifle, so even cracking a fetch on the play warrants at least token confirmation.

That's assuming it's a format where a tapped-out opponent could theoretically do something. Not, for instance, Theros draft.

Maykel .

MTR 4.2
A player may not request priority and take no action with it. If a player decides he or she does not wish to do anything, the request is nullified and priority is returned to the player that originally had it.

Isn't this to prevent the following scenario?

AP is in his second main phase.
NAP: “Can I do something?”
AP: “Uh, OK.”
NAP: “Never mind, pass.”
AP: "Oh, well… Grizzly Bears, go.“
NAP: ”Judge! My opponent is trying to cast Grizzly Bears during his end step!"

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Dan Collins
if N had a response rather than passing priority, we would have to game loss A.

It seems strange to me that the penalty depends on N's options. What qualifies as a response? Tapping and untapping Basalt Monolith? Cycling Street Wraith (and not doing anything else)? Exiling Simian Spirit Guide (and then not using the mana)?

Theoretically, your Legacy opponent could have double Simian Spirit Guide, Manamorphose and Stifle, so even cracking a fetch on the play warrants at least token confirmation.

I certainly think that players should get confirmation before assuming the ability is resolving. However, it is extremely undesirable to game loss a player in the case where they know their opponent is not going to want to respond, and they're trying to play at a reasonable pace. If the opponent has a response that could conceivably be played in response to a brainstorm, that's a different story. Cycling Street Wraith because they were hoping to get to a counterspell, sure, the others, not so much. Claiming you wanted to tap and untap basalt monolith in response to the brainstorm is not sporting conduct, and demanding that your opponent receive a game loss for that reason is unsporting conduct.

Also - this is a difficult call any time it comes up. The best answer is to separate the players and involve your head judge early. It may very well end with the DEC game loss. It may also end with no infraction, and the players being educated. If the non-brainstorm player becomes insistent on a penalty, or if spells like brainstorm have previously been cast and resolved without pause for response and it is apparent this player is fishing for a penalty, they will likely be penalized with USC-minor. It's entirely possible that a player will give us cause to disqualify them for cheating. The “but what if”s and “theoretically”s only serve to illustrate that there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer, so lets give OP the best answer we can by sticking to the details he provided.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Of course, if N had a response rather than passing priority, we would have to game loss A.

I'm not sure I'm following you: you would rule Game Play Error - Drawing Extra Card here, because A didn't confirm pass of priority before performing an action?

For me, we have there miss-communication issue, so, without details, I would ask N if he want respond to brainstorm. If so, I would backup game by putting random card from hand at top, if not, proceed further. In both cases, explain A that he still need confirmation because opponent can play FoW or respond in any other matter. If N insist on game loss for DEC then I would give him warning for UC-Minor.

I think the first step I'd take is to ask Naomi - probably away from the table - what her response is going to be. If she doesn't actually have one, I'd tell her about MTR 4.2, and that I feel she's very close to crossing the line into Unsporting Conduct - specifically, the example that others have mentioned (“inappropriately demands … a penalty”).

If she does have a response, I have no problem backing up the draw, as described, and leaving Brainstorm on the stack, so she can respond at the appropriate time.

And finally, I would explain to her that assessing infractions and penalties is our responsibility, and that she should focus instead on game play.

Many years ago, I overheard a player belligerently demand a DEC Game Loss for his opponent, and he basically intimidated the inexperienced store judge into giving that penalty. Some time later, when I first started judging, that same player started trying the same thing with me. I simply read him a “story”, out loud - the example of Unsporting Conduct that included (back then) “loudly & inappropriately demands a penalty”. He started to argue that he wasn't being loud or inappropriate, then realized that wasn't helping his cause … he shut up, and played in a far more sporting manner. I never had another problem with that player!

d:^D

“If she does have a response, I have no problem backing up the draw, as
described, and leaving Brainstorm on the stack, so she can respond at the
appropriate time.”

Ok, so could someone point me to the statement somewhere in official
documents, that we are allowed to do that? I know it's the right thing to
do, but it's nice to be able to point players somewhere when accusations
would arise. Or is it a deviation?


2014-06-25 17:23 GMT+02:00 Scott Marshall <

IPG 2.5: If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error. Each action taken is undone until the game reaches the point immediately prior to the error. Cards incorrectly placed in hand are returned to the location in the zone from which they were moved (if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not known to all players, a random card is returned instead). Once the game is backed up, it continues from that point.

Casting of Brainstorm and putting it on the stack was legal, so no need to back up past that. Starting to resolve it might be illegal, so we back that part up.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

IPG 2.5: If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error. Each action taken is undone until the game reaches the point immediately prior to the error. Cards incorrectly placed in hand are returned to the location in the zone from which they were moved (if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not known to all players, a random card is returned instead). Once the game is backed up, it continues from that point.

Casting of Brainstorm and putting it on the stack was legal, so no need to back up past that. Starting to resolve it might be illegal, so we back that part up.

But the error - the actual, visible action that we are saying is illegal - is drawing the first card for brainstorm. DEC is the more specific violation, GRV is the catch-all for when nothing else fits. Why isn't this DEC?

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

But the error - the actual, visible action that we are saying is illegal - is drawing the first card for brainstorm. DEC is the more specific violation, GRV is the catch-all for when nothing else fits. Why isn't this DEC?

As Emilien suggested, technically I would argue the rule being broken was not passing priority before resolving the spell, which doesn't fit into anything other than GRV. We wouldn't physically catch it until the player started to resolve this spell, which in the case of Brainstorm involves drawing 3 cards. That's literally the first sentence of Brainstorm, so it's the first thing to happen during resolution.

DEC should really be applied more to errors of dexterity and lapses of thinking, like drawing a 3rd card for turn when there's only one Howling Mine in play. It's so easy to miss, so hard for the opponent to catch, and so disruptive if discovered later, let alone the obvious advantage gained.

In this case, both players know why 3 cards were drawn and we can back that up, so we should fix that.

tl;dr, if they have a legit reason for drawing the cards, another game rule violation or communication problem occurred.

“Oops”, “I don't know where that came from”, and “I thought there was an invisible Howling Mine” = Game Loss
“I thought my Brainstorm was resolving” = fix it