In response: Judge!

[Manhattan]

Player A has a nonblack creature and casts Shriekmaw for its Evoke cost. Player B has a Wild Mongrel in play. Player B discards a card in response (doesn't say in response to what) and makes his Mongrel black. Player A puts his Shriekmaw into his graveryard and both players want to continue.

If the Mongrels ability was used in response to the ability then the ability would fizzle upon resolution and player A could keep his creature. However if player B used the Mongrels ability in response to the Shriekmaw itself then the Mongrel would be an illegal target as the Shriekmaws Cip goes on the stack, thereby forcing player A to kill his own creature.

The issue is how do I as a bystander or judge determine when the Mongrel was activated? If I just ask player B then I might be aiding him with outside assistance since he then can figure that there has to be a trick hidden and he might realize the opportunity to kill his opponents creature before answering the question.
My other option is to take the players actions as indicators. These however can be contradictory. Both players were contempt with the game state when player A put his Shriekmaw into the graveyard. This indicates that the ability fizzled. However player A didn't announce the Wild Mongrel as target for his Shriekmaw's ability before player B responded. This indicates the ability wasn't on the stack yet and therefore shouldn't fizzle.

[DrJones]

You shouldn't say anything in that example. He clearly activated mongrel after shriekmaw entered play, because that way he obtains the outcome he was expecting.

[quicksilver]

You don't call the judge here. What happened was perfectly legal, there was nothing that happened against the rules. Just because a player made a poor play, doesn't mean you call the judge.

[Nessaja]

If he called a judge then he feels like something went wrong, let him do the explaining of what went wrong.

If both players are fine with the game state apparently everything happened as expected.

[Manhattan]

What happened was not necessarily legal. If he responded to the Shriekmaw itself but both players overlooked the consequences of this action then I clearly have to call the judge. The problem is, how do I find out wether that was the case?

[Brushwagg]

Let it go, not that big a deal. There was some stuff that was unspoken, but it seems both playaers knew what was going on.

[cdr]

If (as in your example) nothing was clearly indicated, you're a spectator, the end result is legal, and neither player has a problem with the outcome, nothing is amiss and you should not call a judge.

It's not your responsibility as a spectator to find out or determine anything - only to tell the match to wait and to call a judge if something illegal happens.

[Manhattan]

If (as in your example) nothing was clearly indicated, you're a spectator, the end result is legal, and neither player has a problem with the outcome, nothing is amiss and you should not call a judge.

It's not your responsibility as a spectator to find out or determine anything - only to tell the match to wait and to call a judge if something illegal happens.

The way you say that it seems to indicate that this is not necessarily true for a judge.

[Nessaja]

If player B specifically announced that he was reacting to the Shriekmaw being cast and the same thing went down you should call a judge.

In this scenario, it seems more likely that it was just a sloppy play and some shortcuts were used.

[cdr]

The way you say that it seems to indicate that this is not necessarily true for a judge.

The second sentence was in general, not about your example. A judge is not going to intervene in your example either.

In general, if you think it's likely something illegal happened, call a judge and let the judge sort it out.

[tivadar]

Player A has a nonblack creature and casts Shriekmaw for its Evoke cost. Player B has a Wild Mongrel in play. Player B discards a card in response (doesn't say in response to what) and makes his Mongrel black. Player A puts his Shriekmaw into his graveryard and both players want to continue.

If the Mongrels ability was used in response to the ability then the ability would fizzle upon resolution and player A could keep his creature. However if player B used the Mongrels ability in response to the Shriekmaw itself then the Mongrel would be an illegal target as the Shriekmaws Cip goes on the stack, thereby forcing player A to kill his own creature.

Ignoring the whole "you're a bystander, it's not your place to interfere..."

When Shriekmaw is cast, player B gets a chance to respond. If player B has said "ok" then player A had said "ability targets..." then it could potentially target mongrel. Given that it sounds as if player A just announced shriekmaw and player B responded to it, the only thing he could be responding to is the casting, as he hasn't receive priority yet and would need to pass before the CIP ability would trigger.

What happened actually sounds like the exact correct plays to me. Player B responded to the spell. Maybe player A was hoping they wouldn't. Maybe they just wanted them to use the mana. Who knows.

EDIT: Ahh wait, player A had another creature... Yeah, that's not a legal outcome if reacting to the spell... However, if it's not a big big tourney and neither player cares, I'd say just let it go. As it is, rules are too insane without bystanders enforcing them.

[cdr]

Ignoring the whole "you're a bystander, it's not your place to interfere..."

If you're a spectator, it's your place to "interfere" by calling a judge - but only if something illegal happens.


When Shriekmaw is cast, player B gets a chance to respond. If player B has said "ok" then player A had said "ability targets..." then it could potentially target mongrel. Given that it sounds as if player A just announced shriekmaw and player B responded to it, the only thing he could be responding to is the casting, as he hasn't receive priority yet and would need to pass before the CIP ability would trigger.

What happened actually sounds like the exact correct plays to me. Player B responded to the spell. Maybe player A was hoping they wouldn't. Maybe they just wanted them to use the mana. Who knows.

EDIT: Ahh wait, player A had another creature... Yeah, that's not a legal outcome if reacting to the spell... However, if it's not a big big tourney and neither player cares, I'd say just let it go. As it is, rules are too insane without bystanders enforcing them.

It's not that we're "letting it go", we are assuming the players agreed that the Shriekmaw had been played in a certain way (which was legal) to arrive at the legal conclusion that they did, and were simply sloppy or shortcutting the sequence of events.