Shady judge ruling.

[schizophrenicwhispers]

I played at a sealed deck today at a place I will refer to as [grow up.]. and, during game 3 of a round that was extremely relevent to my chance of placing in top 4, the following occurs:

Opponent: casts sage owl
Me: sure.
Opponent: Looks at the top 4 cards of his library, thinks a moment, then throws 3 into the middle of his deck, and the 4th back on top.
Me: "umm... what are you doing?"
Opponent: It says I can place the cards in any order...
Me: "...Judge!"

When the judge arrives I explain, and he asks my opponent this question. "do you remember what the top 4 cards of your library were?" Alarm bells start ringing in my head, as that is not at all what I expected to hear. My opponent replies that yes, of course he remembers what the 4 cards were, an onlooker, another local, I assume, mentions that he saw the 4 cards, and can verify what they were as well. The deck is searched, the 4 cards are found, and my opponent re-organizes them on top. He gets a warning.

Now, I'm loathe to rules lawyer my way to a game win, but this seems like an EXTREMELY shady ruling, and a local judge agrees that there was no real way to recover the game state in a guaranteed accurate fashion, as such, I should have received a win.

Which judge is in the right here?

and, at least as importantly, if the other judge was in the wrong, what can I do to bring this to the attention of the DCI?

[cdr]

The judge that tried to fix the library is less wrong than the judge that told you that you should've received a game win.

The infraction is Game Rule Violation - basically he did something he wasn't supposed to that doesn't fall under a more specific category. The penalty is a warning.

The Head Judge can opt to "back up" the game to the point where the error occurred. This is only done if backing up is not very complex, does not involve many decision points having passed, and does not involve hidden zones like the library.

In general, I would say that you should not attempt to back up in this situation, and just leave the game state as is. The only exception might be if a judge was watching and could verify what the cards were.

There are ways to bring egregious problems to the attention of the proper people, but this is a zero on a scale of one to ten.

[schizophrenicwhispers]

The judge that tried to fix the library is less wrong than the judge that told you that you should've recieved a game win.

How so? There is absolutely no way to verify what the top 4 cards were, except for a random bystander.

[Jaynel]

I think what cdr is trying to say is that your opponent wouldn't get a game loss for his actions. So the judge that would have awarded that would have been VERY wrong, whereas the judge who tried to back up the game state was only partially wrong.

[schizophrenicwhispers]

and how would one go about backing up the gamestate when 3 of the top 4 cards were randomly dispersed into his library? what would be the "proper" ruling in this case?

Edit: saw the rest of CDR's post, however, I do not understand how you could leave the game state as is? I'm fairly certain sage owl does not have some sort of scry variant, and playing it like it does seems like it could lead to unfair advantages?

[cdr]

Advantage is not a consideration barring cheating. Leaving things as is is how situations are handled now. It's the only way to have consistency in rulings, and it's not the end of the world.

Years ago there was a concept of "irreparable game state" where you either "fixed" the game state or ended the game, but it caused a lot of inconsistency. We have moved past that.

If you were going to back up the game state - and as I said, it would be rare that you would - the judge could pull out the appropriate cards since no one saw the deck.

[schizophrenicwhispers]

it seems like a rather flawed system, if the punishment for potentially altering a game in a rather drastic fashion, results in nothing more than a warning, I would think. The judge, also, could not pull out the appropriate cards, as he would have no real way of knowing what the cards were. Thank you for the response though, it's chilling to know that shady play can result in nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

[cdr]

The way you presented it - and what it's going to be 99% of the time - is a simple newbie mistake, not understanding what "rearrange" means.

What would be flawed would be giving a game loss for something like that. It's not shady (absent other behavior) and it may be drastic (I don't think it is), but you'll live.

If the person in question is actually judge, you can PM me and I can talk to him about the situation.

[schizophrenicwhispers]

I suppose if it were a friday night magic, I could understand erring on the side of the new player, however, I don't feel that handing my opponent a potentially massive amount of card quality, particularly in a sealed format, simply because he does not understand a rather common wording, should be an event that's likely to happen.

Frankly, if you don't grasp the rather simple mechanics of a game, perhaps a tournament setting isn't the best place to be. Were in a complex interaction of some kind, I could understand a lot more readily.

As a side note, he played ponders as well, and never once put any of the three cards anywhere but on the top, would that detail change things?

[cdr]

People will inevitably do stupid stuff. Correcting them and giving them a slap on the wrist is better for the game than ruining their day. Magic sales are way up and tournament attendance is way up - and I think improvements in penalty philosophy is part of that.

The fact that he played Ponders correctly is something you could bring up with the judge - but again chances are the guy just did something dumb.

I understand you're emotionally invested in the event, and somehow feel like you were "cheated" - but in the scheme of things, it was nothing.

[schizophrenicwhispers]

it was the loss of limited rating, and potentially a decent amount of prize support due to the ignorance of my opponent, the fact that we can both go to a tournament, and one of us gets to play cards how he interprets them, up until someone corrects him, while the other is forced to play the cards the way they are supposed to be played, is significantly more than "nothing" in my eyes, and I can't imagine many other players that would feel different in this situation.

With the current running theory, an immoral player would be able to get a "scry 4" out of a sage owl every once in a while, assuming he was careful about it, the potential for abuse in that situation seems like the ruling would be rather flawed...

[cdr]

I've tried to get my point across. You've never made a dumb mistake?

99 times out 100, it's not cheating. The benefit of penalizing innocent players vastly more appropriately outweighs penalizing the rare shady cheater slightly more. If someone's cheating, they're going to get caught eventually.

[schizophrenicwhispers]

I've made my fair share of dumb mistakes, however, I've never made a dumb mistake with the end result being any sort of advantage for myself.

While I get the general idea, that it's better to assume players are not trying to actively gain an advantage through unfair means, not taking any action against a player that has created a significant advantage for himself, intentionally or otherwise, with no way to truly verify if it was intentional or not, seems unfair to that players opponent. While I admit I am biased in this situation, I can honestly say that I would feel the same way on either side of the table. It should not fall to my opponent to make sure I'm playing my cards correctly.

As bad as it is to receive a game loss for something that was potentially unintentional, it's far worse to sit across from said person, as he gets to "repair" the game state, in a way that could, in actuality, allow him to stack the deck in his favor. As the judge allowed him to "fix" it by replacing the cards he claimed made up the top 4 cards of his deck, with no real way to verify short of the person standing behind him, who may or may not be a friend of his...

I most definitely feel that it was handled incorrectly, as I can not fathom the logic behind letting the opponent somewhat stack the top 4 cards of his deck as he sees fit from his library, regardless of how he decided to interpret a card.

[cdr]

Let me be clear - in none of my comments was I in any way referring to the incorrect "fixing" of the situation. I was responding to your professed problem with leaving the game as is - with the cards in the middle of the library. You seem to be mixing them up.

The "fix" the judge applied was wrong/bad, but again, ridiculously minor.

The chance your opponent was cheating was, again, approximately zero. I think you know this, too.

[schizophrenicwhispers]

my apologies, apparently raiding and rules discussion don't mix particularly well. I fail to see how his handled fix, or, for that matter, allowing it to stand as is, is a minor thing, as it had the potential, and, at least on my end, seemed to, swing the game in a rather ludicrous fashion.

Sealed formats find card quality/card advantage at even more of a premium than constructed formats, and the fact that someone would get a slap on the wrist for generating card advantage through illegal play, intentionally or not, makes very little sense.

While I am not at all suggesting you are wrong in this matter, I would be extremely interested to hear others thoughts on the matter. As the ruling is, I'll be honest, somewhat baffling to me.

[schizophrenicwhispers]

The chance your opponent was cheating was, again, approximately zero. I think you know this, too.

As I am not a local player, I most certainly do not know if it was intentional or not, while I am inclined to believe it was likely not intentional, the fact that he managed to play Ponder with none of the inaccuracies leads me to believe that there was a reasonable chance that it was done with the intent of creating an edge of some sort.

[GreenOne]

Couldn't be better to just shuffle the deck and let him watch other 4 cards? Seems better than letting him search his library for whatever.
You said the judges were wrong and quite wrong. What was the correct ruling on this? What would you have done?

I don't know what "baffling" mean, but I'm probably with this guy on this matter.

[MMogg]

Couldn't be better to just shuffle the deck and let him watch other 4 cards? Seems better than letting him search his library for whatever.
You said the judges were wrong and quite wrong. What was the correct ruling on this? What would you have done?

I don't know what "baffling" mean, but I'm probably with this guy on this matter.

"Baffling" means you cannot understand, even a little. (English teacher to the rescue!)

Actually this was one thing I was thinking as well. It's a lose-lose situation for the OP because a game loss is not acceptable and no matter what happens the player who violated the rules, wins.

That judge's ruling is kind of crazy. He pretty much said, "would you like to Vampiric Tutor for four?" :eek:

[scrumdogg]

Couldn't be better to just shuffle the deck and let him watch other 4 cards? Seems better than letting him search his library for whatever.
You said the judges were wrong and quite wrong. What was the correct ruling on this? What would you have done?

I don't know what "baffling" mean, but I'm probably with this guy on this matter.

Bad idea "Didn't like your top 4, well shoot, try again, maybe these 4 are better!' Even if the random local was a friend, this would be an easy investigation - take the 'local' aside, ask what the 4 cards were, move said local away, ask the player what the cards were...if there is sketchy play involved you will be able to tell fairly quickly. Also, if this is a 'local' and a 'local player', chances are the judge has some experience with them (are they acquainted? are they friends? do they make n00b mistakes or play at a decent level? do they have an honest or sketchy reputation?) which may have factored in without being explained to you. Also, did he play the Ponders before or after this little fiasco? That might make a difference as well.

[paK0]

That judge's ruling is kind of crazy. He pretty much said, "would you like to Vampiric Tutor for four?" :eek:

This, a judge ruling should never turn out to be favourable for the one that was responsible for the game state error.

I'm not a judge myself but afaik the judges are held to give out a warning and recreate the gamestate as far as possible which would most likely be one of of these possibilities:

- Shuffle the deck, then let him use the Owl.
This creates the state before he could abuse the Owl.

- Shuffle and let him know the for top cards.
This would be the state after the Owl use (i guess this is the most unlikely to happen)

- Shuffle and just play on


A Shuffle HAS to happen, since your opponent was obv. not pleased with the cards he saw. Maybe the game was well evolved, putting three Lands away from the top might have had a biiiiig influence, so the only way to guarantee a more or less fair ongoing is to shuffle.

[Ewokslayer]

I think everyone can agree that the solution used, putting 3 cards of the players choice on top under the 4th card, is incorrect.
The only way that can be correct is if the 3 cards are known for certain by someone that isn't the player or a biased party.
As for the penalty of a game loss, that is harsh considering the infraction. Teams don't get game losses for offsides in football. They get a 5 yard slap on the wrist and the game moves on.
A few of you have been talking about a need to shuffle the library.
Why?
A shuffle does nothing to make the library more correct. It takes the library from
W , ? , ? , ?

to

? , ? , ? , ?


How is that closer to how it should have been after the sage owl (W, X, Y, Z)?

The best most consistant solution is to leave the game as is.
The fact that they are resolving Ponder correctly is interesting and might require an investigation into cheating by talking with the player as to why in the world they thought Sage Owl worked that way and how they had resolved Sage Owl previously in the tournament (assuming this isn't rd 1). The wording of Sage Owl is simple English.

[RoddyVR]

I agree with Ewokslayer, that shuffling doesnt make any sense. It doesnt improve anything from either player's point of view.
If you're gonna try "fixing" it in a way that isnt beneficial to the player who screwed up the game, then do this:
have his opponent (ie the OP in this case) pick a group of cards (like lands, expensive spells, or blue cards), and then the judge pick 3 cards of that kind and put them as cards 2-4. Clearly the guy who misused Sage Owl didnt want the other 3 cards, so give him 3 cards that he wouldnt want.

But ofcourse that sollution is stupid, because it requires either the judge influence the game in an undefined way, or (if you let the OP chose the 3 cards directly) gives a player much more information then he should have had (let him look through opponent library).

Which leaves us with only one real solution. Leave the game as is, because any fix is pointless or worse then the original problem. Give the player a warning, and if he gets this warning again later, then start handing out game loses and bannings for cheating.

Also, the whole "he knows how to use ponder, so he should know how to use Sage owl", doesnt completely ring true for me. Yes the wording is the same. But few players realy read the cards that they think they already know. If the first time you see a card you misunderstand it (like if someone else plays it and uses it the wrong way, but its in casual or something so you have no real reason to double check anything), then you will remember that card as working that way.

[cdr]

This is why judges do not try to "fix" gamestates. If we did, you would have a slightly different "fix" invented for every different judge that saw it.

Once again, the correct thing to do in this situation (and in almost every situation) is to leave the gamestate as is. One known card on top and three in the middle. We do not care if the player may have gained an advantage from this since he was not cheating.

The only exceptions are specific infractions in the Infraction Penalty Guide - Looking At Extra Cards (shuffle the unknown portion of the deck), Drawing Extra Cards (put a random card back), Missed Trigger (put the trigger on the stack). Read the IPG (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/doccenter/home) if you want to know more.