Judges do not prevent play errors from occurring, they only fix the situation when an error occurs.

However, I understand we are allowed to tell players not to forget to reveal morphs before they scoop. Are we also allowed to prevent them from making other errors?

For example, if a player with a Courser draws a card and then waits for a long while, can I remind him not to forget to reveal the top card of his library?
If a player casts a spell for too little mana and is about to begin executing its effects, can I tell him to tap additional lands?

This doesn't seem right and the judge could be accused of favouritism.
Where is the line?

I believe that we're allowed to remind players about morphs as sort of a ‘blanket announcement’ to the entire tourney. Personally I would make a similar sort of announcement if I wanted to remind players about courser or similar, but I would avoid anything directed at a specific match, even if you're sitting on the match.

Those both sound like situations where an error has already been committed (incorrect mana, failing to play with the top card revealed). I would be fine with correcting the error without issuing a penalty. If you want to be technically accurate, you're simply downgrading the penalty to a Caution. That said, if I'm watching a match and I believe the player will correct the problem on their own, I'll wait to step in to avoid interrupting someone's concentration.

From Section 1 of the IPG:

Judges may intervene to prevent or preempt errors occurring outside of a game.

Reminding a player to reveal Morphs before/as they scoop is outside of a game.

d:^D

I disagree with Dan, especially with the courser. I have heard a lot of different thoughts on whether to issue a warning for failing to flip the top card for a courser and this has created inconsistencies within the player base. An example is in the top 8 of a PPTQ I was at this Saturday a player failed to reveal the top card of his library and the HJ gave him a warning which was upgraded to a GL (it was his third GPE-GRV) which cost him the match. The player was very upset and started claiming that he had never received a warning for it before, only told to flip the top card. However the Head Judge apologized but he was going “by the book”. Scott pointed this out to me a few days ago, while it is tempting to be nice that is not our responsibility.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Reminding a player to reveal Morphs before/as they scoop is outside of a game.

Was this also a part of the recent policy change which changed the penalty for failing to reveal to a Warning? I ask because this does not seem consistent with the approach Toby described in the KTK policy updates here: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2014/09/23/ktk-policy-changes/

In the body of the post he writes:

So the new official way to handle a morph Game Loss is to always apply it to the game in which the failure to reveal occurred.

This suggests that the game has not in fact finished until morphs have been revealed. This is supported in one of Toby's replies to a question asked below the post:

Nobody has won the game until morphs have been revealed.

Although the game loss part is obviously no longer relevant, it does appear to me that policy still sees the game as being in progress until morphs have been revealed, such that we cannot reasonably conclude that reminding a player to reveal is “outside the game”.

The game is over; determining when any infraction & penalty should apply was, to say the least, an interesting discussion - but we concluded that it was best to be consistent and always apply it to the game that just finished (i.e., the game that was affected by the error).

Saying that the game isn't over until the Morphs have been revealed is a great memory aid. Technically, it's not true; the game is over when the Comp Rules say it's over (lethal damage, drawing from an empty library, etc., etc.).

d:^D

I would like to get some more answers on this topic, please.
Let's put the morphs aside and talk only about these two situations:

• If a player with a Courser draws a card and then waits for a long while, can I remind him not to forget to reveal the top card of his library?
  
• If a player casts a spell for too little mana and is about to begin executing its effects, can I tell him to tap additional lands?
  
• A player who controls a creature targetted by Condemn was already penalized with a Warning once during this game for putting the creature in his graveyard rather than bottom of library. When his opponent casts Condemn again, can I remind him - in advance - to put it on bottom of library, to prevent him from getting another (possibly upgraded) Warning?
  

This is important to me, because sometimes, an upgraded GRV can influence the result of a tournament. We could say that it is part of the game and you deserve not to win if you commit GRV's but plenty of such mistakes are ignored when a judge is not around - and many judges don't even step in to give penalty for “minor” GRV's. A player on a table where a judge is watching could thus be disadvantaged.

Originally posted by Petr Hudeček:

This is important to me, because sometimes, an upgraded GRV can influence the result of a tournament. We could say that it is part of the game and you deserve not to win if you commit GRV's but plenty of such mistakes are ignored when a judge is not around - and many judges don't even step in to give penalty for “minor” GRV's. A player on a table where a judge is watching could thus be disadvantaged.

When opponent cast spell with wrong mana, when opponent put a card in wrong zone or when opponent forget to reveal top of his library with Courser, player can (and should) call judge. (I know most of players don't do this)
When we are called, in these situation, we should award Warning based on IPG. It might be simple small mistake, but we don't know this without tracking these rule violation. That's why we record all penalties.

From this viewpoint, player on a table where a judge is watching is not be disadvantaged at all. If we help him, he get (unfair) advantage from us. This is not what we want in tournament.

I rule of thumb that I use is not to intervene in a match unless I intend to issue a penalty. If it's significant enough of an error for me to intervene (A player breaking a game rule by not having the top card revealed for courser, for example) Then it's significant enough for me to give a penalty. If this results in an upgrade, well, correct play is something that is tested at tournaments.

Elaborating on Kenji's statement that this could put matches where judges are watching at a disadvantage, the same thing could be said about players whose opponents know to call a judge whenever something like this happens in-game.

Could such assistance qualify as outside assistance? It isn't strategic advice, but it does seem to be a gray area that isn't really touched upon in the IPG.

Originally posted by Rich Marin:

Could such assistance qualify as outside assistance? It isn't strategic advice, but it does seem to be a gray area that isn't really touched upon in the IPG.

While the MIPG uses the phrase “play advice” rather than “strategic advice”, I am pretty confident that reminding players about any policies or rules falls well outside the definition of Outside Assistance. Perhaps offering a too detailed explanation about a rule, or even something suggestive about an outcome, qualifies… But I don't think any example previous listed goes nearly that far.

So, for instance, were I to be walking around and notice a match with a Courser on A's board with the top card not flipped; could I remind him to flip the card without it qualifying as “play advice”?

What about other Cards that implement Game Rules?
If I'm watching a match and B controls a Soulfire Grand Master and casts Lightning Bolt but forgets to tick up his life, could I remind him of the life gain without it qualifying as Outside Assistance?

I seem to be a bit lost on the subject.

Edited Ashten Fisher (Feb. 20, 2015 09:56:36 PM)

From the IPG

Caution
A Caution is a verbal admonition to a player. Cautions are used in situations of minor incorrect play or disruption where a quick word can easily correct the behavior or situation. No extra time is required for a Caution, as any Caution that takes more than a few moments to resolve should be upgraded to a Warning.

Warning
A Warning is an officially tracked penalty. Warnings are used in situations of incorrect play when a small amount of time is needed to implement the corrective procedure. The purpose of a Warning is to alert judges and players involved that a problem has occurred and to keep a permanent record of the infraction in the DCI Penalty Database. A time extension should be issued if the ruling has taken more than a minute.

A Courser that has just been played probably takes a second to remedy, so a caution would seem appropriate. One that has been on the table for several turns probably requires a warning (GPE-GRV plus a GPE-FtMGS for the opponent) because determining when the Courser entered the battlefield along with determining if you can back up (I almost certainly wouldn't had there been a draw step for the Courser's controller) will probably take more than a few seconds. Additionally I'm of the opinion that multiple turns of un-revealed Courser draws has a significant potential for abuse.

The fact that player's don't call judges for situations like this doesn't mean we shouldn't apply the correct remedy. A player not knowing (or deciding not) to call a judge creates a disadvantage for them but in the same way that not knowing all the cards of the format, the current meta or a particular rule does.

Edited Marc Shotter (Feb. 21, 2015 05:56:23 AM)

Originally posted by Ashten Fisher:

So, for instance, were I to be walking around and notice a match with a Courser on A's board with the top card not flipped; could I remind him to flip the card without it qualifying as “play advice”?

What about other Cards that implement Game Rules?
If I'm watching a match and B controls a Soulfire Grand Master and casts Lightning Bolt but forgets to tick up his life, could I remind him of the life gain without it qualifying as Outside Assistance?

In addition to Marc's quote, I would note the following…

MIPG 2
If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not issue any penalty.

…and would suggest that there are two kinds of intervention: Clarification of the game state, and actual assessment of an infraction.

For your first example, it is likely a simple “Why hasn't the top card of the library been revealed?” might get an “Oh, it was just cast. He's (opponent) thinking about responding.” In which case, you know nothing has happened and there's been no infraction. It could also get an “Oh, that was cast last turn and I totally forgot!” and then you might have to intervene with an infraction.

For your second example, you don't take any action until Lightning Bolt resolves. If at that time the controller doesn't change his life total, even though a creature dies, then you may ask “Do you need to adjust your life total for lifelink?” Again, you could get anything from “I would if he hadn't cast Skullcrack earlier.” to “Sorry, I was just getting to it.”

But neither of these things have anything to do with “play advice”, which was my point. “Play advice” in the MIPG refers to those decisions and assessments about the actions a player could take in the game, such as whether to attack, not to following the rules or policies required of them. Intervening to ensure a spell is properly resolved or that the game state is made accurate does not qualify as “play advice.”

Edits for various grammatical issues.

Edited Brian Schenck (Feb. 21, 2015 06:10:40 AM)