My take on this situation: players are unclear about what is the game state, and call a judge to clarify that.
We first look at pre-established shortcuts, to see if the Magic Tournament Rules can clarify that situation for us. We find none relevant.

So we move to the next step: ask each player what they understood was happening. If I understood correctly, Ponza wanted to target an Urza's Tower, but there is none on the battlefield. I'm not sure what Tron understood was happening, but that doesn't seem to match what Ponza was believing. If they are adamant that they think Ponza really wanted to destroy their Mine, they would need to clarify why they think that, especially after the verbal exchange that occured.

Then we look for potential for advantage, and what are the responsibility for the confusion - do we have reasonable expectations on what players did do that they did not fulfill? Let's make sure a player don't get potential advantage by being sloppy. While we don't use these factors for applying fixes and issuing penalties (and we're not there yet), that's sill a part of every call - the investigation.

Here, Ponza took an extra step for clarity by announcing clearly what he was doing, while Tron didn't communicate much before the situation, but I appreciate they provided clarification as soon as they noticed their opponent was mistaken.
Ponza revealed hidden information and intent (they have a Molten Rain and intended to play it on an Urza's Tower), Tron revealed that they don't have an answer with their two generics. Ponza is clearly the one who revealed the most there and took the most efforts to prevent any issue.

Based on that, I'd most clarify the situation: Ponza did want to target something that is not on the battlefield. That cannot happen, and we cannot let that spell resolves. It's not a strategical take back (which, as pointed by Scott, we don't do as judges), Ponza didn't make a strategical mistake and have second thoughts: their initial line of play is simply impossible to perform.

- Emilien

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

It's not a strategical take back (which, as pointed by Scott, we don't do as judges), Ponza didn't make a strategical mistake and have second thoughts: their initial line of play is simply impossible to perform.

so the fix is to reverse the spell, without issuing an infraction?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

It's not a strategical take back (which, as pointed by Scott, we don't do as judges), Ponza didn't make a strategical mistake and have second thoughts: their initial line of play is simply impossible to perform.

so the fix is to reverse the spell, without issuing an infraction?

I agree with Emilien here, and yes this is what I would like to do.

There are many situations that come up where the two players are confused about what's going on and typically the way to fix this is to reverse the game to the point noone is confused and let them play on while being explicit about what's going on.

I would also note that everyone has been saying there has to be a GRV to back up, but I think we're forgetting about CPV. Layout issues and card ID issues now generally fall under ‘CPV if it causes an issue for the opponent, but nothing otherwise’. I don't think I would issue a CPV here, but I do think it's closer than GRV - and also permits us to back up.

An interesting discussion, but I just want to add a couple observations.

1) Judges do not do take-bakcs. Period. Ever. That's not something in our toolkit - only opponents can approve a takeback, and once the judge is involved, it's pretty clear that's not what's desired.
Judges only rewind when it's called for as part of the Additional Remedy section of any infraction(s).

2) There is nothing illegal about the actions taken so far by Ponza and Urza.

d:^D

Sorry for poking at this post. But considering the latest policy update are we safe to assume that judges now DO take-backs?
I think this change is the perfect solution to the scenario.

Edited Arman Gabbasov (Nov. 13, 2018 10:03:24 AM)

Please consider than when you necro a thread, you're making hundreds of judges read again a whole discussion that may no longer be relevant - as it's the case here, because, as you pointed out, there was a policy change.

I'm locking this thread to avoid spreading confusion.