From a Modern PTQ this weekend:

During a PTQ you receive a judge call from a table. You're told by Nicholas that Storm-player Angie announced a Manamorphose and Pod-player Nicholas allowed it to resolve. Angie added UR to her mana pool and then, instead of simply drawing a card she looked at the top two cards and put one of them into her hand and one of them on the bottom of her library. You quickly determine that while she intended to cast Manamorphose she brain farted into the Sleight of Hand halfway through resolution. The Sleight of Hand is in her hand.

Angie tells you that the card she put into her hand is still on top of the pile of cards on the table for her hand. Nicholas can't verify that since he was looking at a Serum Visions in Angie's exiled zone. Nicholas thought she was casting Serum Visions (because of the “scry”) and then was surprised when Angie put a card into her hand.

You have determined that Angie isn't cheating.

What is/are the infraction(s), what is/are the penalty(ies) and what fix, if any, is applied?

I feel this falls under GPE-L@EC. Angie looked at the top two cards of her library before putting one in her hand and the other on the bottom. I feel this doesn't fall under DEC because she was supposed to draw a card, just got her choice. For a penalty, Angie gets a Warning for what happened. Also, we ask both players if any cards in Angie's library are known. We take one card at random from Angie's hand (since both players cannot verify the card she drew) and shuffle the random portion of her deck (including the bottom card that was placed there). Then, we have her finish resolving the spell by drawing a car.

One thing I do question here is whether or not Nicolas deserves a FtMGS since he lost track of what was going on (he thought she was casting Serum Visions). I would give him Hima Caution at the very least.

Originally posted by James Butler:

I feel this falls under GPE-L@EC. Angie looked at the top two cards of her library before putting one in her hand and the other on the bottom. I feel this doesn't fall under DEC because she was supposed to draw a card, just got her choice. For a penalty, Angie gets a Warning for what happened. Also, we ask both players if any cards in Angie's library are known. We take one card at random from Angie's hand (since both players cannot verify the card she drew) and shuffle the random portion of her deck (including the bottom card that was placed there). Then, we have her finish resolving the spell by drawing a car.

One thing I do question here is whether or not Nicolas deserves a FtMGS since he lost track of what was going on (he thought she was casting Serum Visions). I would give him Hima Caution at the very least.

2.2. Game Play Error — Looking at Extra Cards
Definition
A player looks at a card they were not entitled to see. Players are considered to have looked at a card when they have been able to observe the face of a hidden card, or when a card is moved any significant amount from a deck, but before it touches the other cards in their hand. This includes errors of dexterity or catching a play error before the card is placed into his or her hand. Once a card has been placed into his or her hand or if a player takes a game action after removing the card from the library, the offense is no longer Looking at Extra Cards.

Not DEC, as

2.3. Game Play Error — Drawing Extra Cards
Definition
A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand

It's not illegal to put one card, since Manamorphose allows for that.

So, we fall into GRV. We “undo” the scry, bottom card to top, and then a random card is returned to top (not needed: she's gonna draw anyway that card). Warning for Angie. I'm fine with a FtMGS for Nicholas, since it's a minor penalty and he should be aware of what's casting his opponent. Things would have gone better for everybody.

I'm not really fine with my ruling, though. The “scry” can't be truly undone, since we don't know if bottom card was first or second place in top, and can't trust Angie nor Nicholas on this issue. In fact, it may be better to just leave things as they are. Angie has scryed for free, but otherwise everything is legal. Yeah, I'm going with this one :) Keep everything as it is, GRV and FtMGS, let's continue playing :)

How about fixing this GRV as you described, but also applying the L@EC
remedy?


2014-08-24 15:38 GMT+02:00 Joaquín Pérez <

This situation is not significant or exceptional and does not require
deviation from policy. GRV we either back up or we do not I am personally
in the camp that we do not. We have a game state that is legal except for
one card on the bottom and I believe the disruption caused by trying to fix
this is far greater than just leaving it alone.
Applying another infraction's fix when we are giving the infraction a
different name is very awkward. It cause some problems with consistency
with other judges rulings.

In my ruling, I took into account that the player legally “drew” the card but had not done the action prior correctly. I did not realize that we were not able to overlook the card touching her hand since the draw was legal. I apologize for the mistakes in the ruling posted.

“Then, because that Game Play Error resulted in an extra card being seen,
we apply the LEC fix of shuffling the random portion of the library, even
though we are not assigning a Warning for that exact infraction.”

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/2014/05/14/better-late-than-never/

That's my basis for issuing a L@EC fix.


2014-08-24 19:54 GMT+02:00 James Butler <

It's very important that we do not issue penalties or applying infractions just because we feel the situation warrants something that the IPG doesn't cover. Issuing a Caution to a player for not paying attention or adding a fix for one infraction to the fix for another leads to some very wonky game states and a lack of consistency.

Originally posted by Chris Lansdell:

t's very important that we do not issue penalties or applying infractions just because we feel the situation warrants something that the IPG doesn't cover. Issuing a Caution to a player for not paying attention or adding a fix for one infraction to the fix for another leads to some very wonky game states and a lack of consistency.

While this is true (and I'm as yet undecided about the ruling in the original question; it bears some thinking about), it's also very important to recognize that a single issue may result in multiple infractions being committed. When we issue penalties, we only issue the penalty for the root cause of the infraction, because it is singularly unhelpful to give out more than one. But we should still apply the fix for those infractions, such as when a player illegally casts a spell that results in them seeing an extra card.

Originally posted by Chris Lansdell:

It's very important that we do not issue penalties or applying infractions just because we feel the situation warrants something that the IPG doesn't cover. Issuing a Caution to a player for not paying attention…

Since the illegal action was looking at the 2 cards, and Nicholas called the judge for the subsequent card going into the hand rather than the picking up and looking at 2 cards, Nicholas has technically committed FtMGS (as a result of his not paying attention). As such, a Warning for Nicholas would be supported by the IPG - but given the narrowness of the timing involved, it would be understandable for the judge to want to downgrade it to a Caution instead.

Which is to say, when it comes to Nicholas, I think that the choice is not between nothing and an (unsupported) Caution, but rather between a FtMGS Warning and an (unsupported?) Caution.

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Aug. 24, 2014 03:34:48 PM)

Lets get the easy one out of the way.

Warning - Failure to Maintain Games State for Non-Active player.

Ask Head Judge for rewind. Should be ok to rewind, because it happened with in the turn and before any other spells where cast. The for the Active Player Warning - GPE- GRV.

back up each step until the point of error.

1) Return the card on bottom of library to the top.
2) Return one card at random from hand to top of library.
3) Draw card for Manamorphose.

Give time extension as necessary.

If the judge is called right away, I would not be assigning a FtMGS penalty to Nicolas.

Originally posted by Kenneth Woo:

Lets get the easy one out of the way.

Warning - Failure to Maintain Games State for Non-Active player.

Ask Head Judge for rewind. Should be ok to rewind, because it happened with in the turn and before any other spells where cast. The for the Active Player Warning - GPE- GRV.

back up each step until the point of error.

1) Return the card on bottom of library to the top.
2) Return one card at random from hand to top of library.
3) Draw card for Manamorphose.

Give time extension as necessary.

I'm not sure on the FtMGS for Nick. He caught it pretty quick, so I don't see it as appropriate given the situation. While the rewind is supported by tournament policy, this assumes the bottom card was the one drawn second, and I don't like that we're assuming information that can't be verified.

I, as a rule of thumb, find putting a random card back on top does more damage to the game state than just letting the extra card be seen. We can still apply the fix for the L@EC part of this mess, and have the unknown portions of the deck shuffled away, keeping in mind the “correct” position of cards that were sent to the bottom by stuff like Serum Visions or Sleight of Hand. Leave the game state as is, instruct both players to continue playing. Assign the proper penalty to our active player, GRV - W, and move on.

If such a situation does come up at an event you're judging, just deliver a ruling confidently. Chances are your gut instinct is not wrong here.

Edited Todd Dalton (Aug. 27, 2014 03:19:07 AM)

I would lean more onto LEC rather than DEC here. I mean, Manamorphose tells you to draw the card - the player did. He just happened to get a free Scry off of it too, which is where I'd feel the LEC comes into play.

As far as NAP, no penalty. The way the description reads is that he called the Judge whenever he noticed that there was an issue.

As for a fix, couldnt we see what portions of AP's deck is legally known, if any, and then randomize the bottom card and the unknown portion?

AP - Warning GRV LEC
NAP - NADA
FIX - Randomize

Originally posted by Kenneth Woo:

Lets get the easy one out of the way.

Warning - Failure to Maintain Games State for Non-Active player.

Ask Head Judge for rewind. Should be ok to rewind, because it happened with in the turn and before any other spells where cast. The for the Active Player Warning - GPE- GRV.

back up each step until the point of error.

1) Return the card on bottom of library to the top.
2) Return one card at random from hand to top of library.
3) Draw card for Manamorphose.

Give time extension as necessary

The bolded part feels like it can't be right; Angie gets to know the top card of her library, which could be a significant advantage. We need an LEC fix–the known card needs to get shuffled in.