(Hopefully it's the right forum)

First off, I saw the situation on stream and it kept me wondering why this judge call concluded in a Rewind.

Now to the situation(as I saw it on stream):
Round 7 - Reid Duke(Miracles) is playing vs Chris Anderson(Lands)
It's game 2 and Anderson is on the play.
He casts Boil tapping 4 Lands, one of them a Boseiju. He graps a pen and corrects his life total(Boseiju costs 2 life to activate, making a sorcery or Instant spell uncounterable)
Duke casts Force of Will pitching Jace TMS and corrects his life total.
As Anderson is fine with the resolution of Force of Will he wants to resolve Boil.

And now the Judge call happens, stream goes to the commentators and as the camera returns to the match Force of Will and Jace is back in Reid's Hands.

For me(and some friends of mine) it looked like Reid messed up, trying to counter an uncounterable spell losing two cards in the process.
Now, my question to someone who was involved in this call or can give some input why the Force was rewound.


Thanks.

Edited Johannes Wagner (Nov. 29, 2015 02:56:45 PM)

Posting on behalf of Rob McKenzie, who is currently busy head judging day 2 of the tournament in question.

Both the Force and the Boil were rewound due to Chris failing to correctly pay life for the activation of his Boseiju. This error lead directly to Reid's “bad play” that you've described.

We handled this as a Game Rules Violation- failing to pay life for Boseiju is clearly a problem- and decided to rewind with our head judge's approval. Since the error occurred during the casting of Boil, the entire Boil was rewound, as you saw.

While rewinding through a Force of Will is often pretty disruptive, in this case, it seemed likely that Chris would just cast the Boil again anyway, but make the activation of Boseiju more clear in doing so. So, this seemed like a reasonable back-up.

Just a quick aside, for those who may be wondering why we allowed this thread at all, considering this line in our Forum Protocol:

If you weren’t involved in a specific ruling or situation, do not speculate about the actual ruling; do not challenge the decisions of judges involved.

Johannes' question is really more “I don't understand what I saw on coverage, can someone explain?”, and not questioning or challenging the ruling.

d:^D