David McDarby VS. Giovanna Dimperio

[Snap_Keep]

David illegally brainstorms for 1 with a thalia in play

judge is called and the ruling is he shuffles his hand and puts 3 cards back ontop of his library at random....

HJ later explains you are allowed to cheat without getting penalized as long as its after a game rule violation (illegally cast BS, GRV takes effect over the more serious illegally drawing 3 cards)

Looks insanely bad on SCG for allowing such garbage calls and on having one of their buyers be a total douche and not scooping to her and going to G3.

[danyul]

That game was terribad. Twitter is raging. What makes it worse is David tried to Submerge Giovanna's stuff like three separate times. He missed 1)that she had no forest in play and 2) that the thing he was trying to Submerge had Pro:Blue.

So bad!

I dunno if she would have won if that Brainstorm never happened, but it definitely was a "feel bad" ruling by the judge. David was sitting on zero lands and none in his grip if that Brainstorm didn't go off.

A very awkward situation.

[NecroYawgmoth]

He also got a Fetchland in his hand due to this ruling, which gave him a "really unfair" advantage, because he knows what the top cards of his library are.

[danyul]

Yeah. Turns out Brainstorm is really good. But when it's illegal, its becomes godmode.

[theBloody]

Agreed. That game was super awkward. I don't know why he just didn't scoop to her. Karma will catch you brah.

[mrjumbo03]

^McDarby lost in the quarters.

[Kich867]

Joey Andrews doesn't really look like he's skilled enough to make it to the finals of a tournament to be perfectly honest. This feels a lot like "I got here because this deck is good" and not much to do with him, every game so far I've seen really, really awful decisions by him. And like, nerves are one thing, but I'm baffled that someone who is almost incapable of holding their own cards (at one point he couldn't shuffle his own cards from how badly he was shaking) could make it to the finals.

But on topic, I'm baffled by that judge call. That's absolute horse-shit considering that Giovanna was going to wreck him had that not happened. It almost looked intentional honestly.

What that really said to me was "Well look, if you cheat and act like it was a mistake, it's cool, because Brainstorm will let you draw 3 cards, then randomly put 3 on top of your library, AND COST NO MANA OR CARDS".

Am I wrong about that? I can't remember but didn't they let him draw the three, then put three back, then let him untap the land and keep the brainstorm?

Like how apeshit onesided benefit is that?? If you watched the brainstorm, he wasn't hitting another land for a long time, the play for her was to force the kill on thalia so she could drop an uncontested sylvan library and take over that game. She -easily- had that game.

[csy]

She got robbed.

As I said on twitter. "Love seeing women in magic. Hate seeing bitches."

[jam3sbob]

To the guys who disagree with the judge call, in your opinion what would have been the right call?

[Sloshthedark]

To the guys who disagree with the judge call, in your opinion what would have been the right call?

obv. gameloss; put back random 3 lose the BS at worst ... they seem too soft on the feature match players lately, SCG events have low REL i guess, bearing in mind half of the guys play horribly at first place

[rxavage]

obv. gameloss; put back random 3 lose the BS at worst ... they seem too soft on the feature match players lately, SCG events have low REL i guess, bearing in mind half of the guys play horribly at first place

Too soft on their employees, maybe.

[Kich867]

To the guys who disagree with the judge call, in your opinion what would have been the right call?

easily a game loss. After seeing three cards deep you know too much about the game state. You can't undo that. Not to mention, why was his submerge not binned after the first time he fucked it up? He failed with it like 3 times and the judge let him keep doing it..

[cdr]

I wasn't watching, but AFAIK the correct calls were made per the IPG. The ruling was 100% by the book.

1) The MTR prohibits judges from using video in rulings, supposedly because of time concerns. Putting 3 back at random was the correct remedy. If you don't like that, complain to the people who make the rules.

2) There was no cheating. If there was, there would have been a DQ. If you can cheat and fool multiple level 2-3 judges, good for you I guess.

3) You do not get Drawing Extra Cards/Game Loss for improperly casting a spell. The reasoning is that there is generally enough time for an opponent to notice an improperly cast spell that it is excluded from the more severe penalty.

[dsck]

3) You do not get Drawing Extra Cards/Game Loss for improperly casting a spell. The reasoning is that there is generally enough time for an opponent to notice an improperly cast spell that it is excluded from the more severe penalty.

From what I remember she had no chance to say anything. So they ruled it was her responsibly as well but she had less than a second to respond?

David also played submerge wrong 3 times, isnt that game loss also?

[cdr]

From what I remember she had no chance to say anything. So they ruled it was her responsibly as well but she had less than a second to respond?

David also played submerge wrong 3 times, isnt that game loss also?

There was no "ruling" involved, improperly playing a spell is a GRV and therefore cannot ever lead to DEC per the IPG.

I hadn't seen/heard anything about Submerges, but yes, a third or subsequent Game Play Error warning - for anything - on the day should be upgraded to Game Loss. Players are bad about calling opponents on errors, though, and even judges can be lax when they're watching a table.

[Linqed]

3) You do not get Drawing Extra Cards/Game Loss for improperly casting a spell. The reasoning is that there is generally enough time for an opponent to notice an improperly cast spell that it is excluded from the more severe penalty.

This is the problem. He tapped the land, played out brainstorm and drew the cards right after the brainstorm hit the table. Giovanna didn't reasonably have time to respond (imo).

You can watch the replay on http://www.twitch.tv/scglive. It's round 6, game 2 of legacy.

[cdr]

This is the problem. He tapped the land, played out brainstorm and drew the cards right after the brainstorm hit the table. Giovanna didn't reasonably have time to respond (imo).

You can watch the replay on http://www.twitch.tv/scglive. It's round 6, game 2 of legacy.

Again, I was speaking to the philosophy of the definition of the infraction. We have a separate Drawing Extra Cards infraction because the potential for abuse is higher and it's more difficult to catch. At the same time, we don't want to be overly harsh on common errors (the IPG has evolved consistently towards being less punitive). We don't put card draws resulting from game rule violations or player communication violations under Drawing Extra Cards because they are in general both easier to catch and have less potential for abuse.

[LennonMarx]

@cdr: The above point is very true. He sets the Brainstorm on the table then a second later the first card from the Brainstorm is in his hand. How the is onus of this supposed to be on Giovanna, or any player in that same situation? As much as it is every player's job to maintain the board state, a player also has to be able to play the game and make plans accordingly, which one can not do if their every thought is directed at making sure their opponent doesn't "forget" about some effect like Thalia. I'm not saying David cheated, but it is up to all players to maintain the game state. If that is the end result, there is no reason for David to not make the play he made. Worst case, you get perfect information to plan your next 3 turns and a brainstorm to cast at a later date, and best case, you resolve a brainstorm as normal. He clearly, either intentionally or not, broke the game state to a point where a rewind would give him a huge advantage. How is that not a game-loss?

Edit: You posted your above reply while I was still typing, and the philosophy is important, but I was under the impression that rewinds don't happen if they result in one player getting a substantial advantage?

[cdr]

@cdr: The above point is very true. He sets the Brainstorm on the table then a second later the first card from the Brainstorm is in his hand. How the is onus of this supposed to be on Giovanna, or any player in that same situation? As much as it is every player's job to maintain the board state, a player also has to be able to play the game and make plans accordingly, which one can not do if their every thought is directed at making sure their opponent doesn't "forget" about some effect like Thalia. I'm not saying David cheated, but it is up to all players to maintain the game state. If that is the end result, there is no reason for David to not make the play he made. Worst case, you get perfect information to plan your next 3 turns and a brainstorm to cast at a later date, and best case, you resolve a brainstorm as normal. He clearly, either intentionally or not, broke the game state to a point where a rewind would give him a huge advantage. How is that not a game-loss?

It's not that the onus is on the opponent to notice, but that a draw resulting from a game rule violation is considered less serious than one happening for other reasons. "Advantage" in terms of whatever a specific situation is is not considered.


Edit: You posted your above reply while I was still typing, and the philosophy is important, but I was under the impression that rewinds don't happen if they result in one player getting a substantial advantage?

That's incorrect. "Advantage" is not something objective and can't be considered. What is considered is the complexity of rewinding the game state to the point prior to the error - if too much has happened since the error, the game state is left as is.

IPG:
If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error.

[Snap_Keep]

It's not that the onus is on the opponent to notice, but that a draw resulting from a game rule violation is considered less serious than one happening for other reasons. "Advantage" in terms of whatever a specific situation is is not considered.



That's incorrect. "Advantage" is not something objective and can't be considered. What is considered is the complexity of rewinding the game state to the point prior to the error - if too much has happened since the error, the game state is left as is.

IPG:
If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error.

Something needs to be done to change these rules then. Whether or not the advantages are being considered or not, they still exist and because of this they make the game hugely unfair against one player, in this situation.

It boggles my mind to see that the rules don't take into account situational circumstances and context. I mean, judges have extensive knowledge of magic, so that judge should've known how badly his ruling fucked her shot at winning, the bottom line for me I guess is that the losing player won because they cheated/made a massive play error, and any good set of rules shouldn't allow this. It seems lazy to just have black and white, catch all rules for when something happens and to completely ignore the context (i.e. giovanna should have won, but because of the ruling she lost...)

[LennonMarx]

@cdr: How is that not implicitly putting the onus of maintaining the game-state on her? If she wants a fair result of the game, the second she puts Thalia into play she has to watch everything her opponent does, to the exclusion of planning her own game actions. I understand that it is always the job of both players to maintain a game-state, as it obviously has to be, but she (or anyone) would have be super human to do so there. Is there any option here for a judge to "upgrade" the penalty in a situation like there?

Related question: In your mind, do you feel that a player drawing 3 cards when he/she is not supposed to is a situation that "is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game." And if not, how would you suggest this situation be handled?

[Linqed]

McDarby would've drawn the land 3 turns from that point. That would've changed everything. The guy looted 3 cards for 0 mana, how can that be considered a 'fair' solution to HIS mistake? Even if he wasn't mana screwed, this would be unfair.

And to be honest, the sudden fast pace of his play made it pretty suspicious.

[Mr Miagi]

So a guy can resolve a brainstorm without passing the priority, asking the opponent if that is OK? And thus aloving him to check the game state?

Isn't that a violation by it self?

[cdr]

@cdr: How is that not implicitly putting the onus of maintaining the game-state on her? If she wants a fair result of the game, the second she puts Thalia into play she has to watch everything her opponent does, to the exclusion of planning her own game actions. I understand that it is always the job of both players to maintain a game-state, as it obviously has to be, but she (or anyone) would have be super human to do so there. Is there any option here for a judge to "upgrade" the penalty in a situation like there?

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're arguing. You should always be watching your opponent, and doubly so when you're playing with rules-changing cards like Thalia. There is an upgrade - you only get two warnings total for game rule violations for an entire tournament. The third and after are game losses.


Related question: In your mind, do you feel that a player drawing 3 cards when he/she is not supposed to is a situation that "is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game." And if not, how would you suggest this situation be handled?

Having cards in your hand you're not supposed to from a GRV is explicitly handled in the IPG, so yes it's regularly and simply backed up.

Cards incorrectly placed in hand are returned to the location in the zone from which they were moved (if the identity of the incorrectly drawn card is not known to all players, a random card is returned instead).

[cdr]

McDarby would've drawn the land 3 turns from that point. That would've changed everything. The guy looted 3 cards for 0 mana, how can that be considered a 'fair' solution to HIS mistake? Even if he wasn't mana screwed, this would be unfair.

And to be honest, the sudden fast pace of his play made it pretty suspicious.

Or he could've already had the land in his hand, and been forced to return it as part of the three random cards from backing up the Brainstorm.

The outcome of this one particular situation was maybe unfortunate, but having a consistent and objective way of resolving players' mistakes is more important than trying to avoid ever having a remedy having a negative effect on a game.

If you want to be angry, I would be angry that judges aren't allowed to use coverage/video to determine which cards a player drew to return them.


So a guy can resolve a brainstorm without passing the priority, asking the opponent if that is OK? And thus aloving him to check the game state?

Isn't that a violation by it self?

Not giving your opponent a chance to respond could be a Game Rule Violation, depending on the circumstance. It's could also be a shortcut issue, though, and backed up without penalty. Not giving your opponent a chance to respond when they're tapped out (and don't have free counters, etc) is not ideal but generally acceptable.

[LennonMarx]

@cdr: Regarding my first point, I think I should have said "placing the onus solely on her." Obviously you need to be aware of the game state and your opponent when you play complex cards, but in this case it seems that her opponent was allowed to not pay attention the game state, break it (in what many, myself included, seem to think in an unrepairable way), and then not only not get penalized but actually get an advantage out of it.

The contents of his hand is irrelevant to this issue. His hand and top 3 cards could be a combined 9 lands, and the problem is still the same. He made an incorrect and illegal play and gained information with which he shouldn't have. It doesn't matter that 3 random cards got put back or that the land he drew with the Brainstorm didn't. What matters is that he knows. It's not like the judge can say "All right, put these 3 random cards back and then play the game as if you didn't know what the top 3 cards of your library are." How is that not taken into consideration?

[LowBeyonder]

The ruling was correct, if awkward for that situation. I'm surprised Ms. Dimperio didn't instantly appeal it, though, and I'm not particularly happy that judges aren't allowed to use video when they have access to it.

The question I have is why multiple GRVs weren't upgraded into a game loss when he made plays like illegal Submerge after that. Did he not get actual GRVs for those?

[Kich867]

While the ruling may be correct I feel the ruling should change, knowing what you're drawing three turns from now for free is absurdly game breaking. If drawing three cards isn't considered drawing extra cards he really should have been canned after trying to illegally play submerge so many times. Once on a pro blue target and then at least one other time when his opponent didn't have a forest, that whole game felt a lot like he was trying to sneak something by, and the judges ignoring / giving him the advantage is a little absurd. At least make him spend the mana and lose the card, but a free burning inquiry is way too lax. Furthermore the judge didn't even make him bin the submerge, he had at least three shots in one game trying to make illegal plays..

[Tormod]

Back in day if you cast a spell improperly, such as not paying the correct Mana, or illegal target, or etc the spell would fizzle and go to the graveyard. They should bring back that rule.

So in those instances mcdarby would have lost the brainstorm and the submerge to the spell "fizzling"

[cdr]

@cdr: Regarding my first point, I think I should have said "placing the onus solely on her." Obviously you need to be aware of the game state and your opponent when you play complex cards, but in this case it seems that her opponent was allowed to not pay attention the game state, break it (in what many, myself included, seem to think in an unrepairable way), and then not only not get penalized but actually get an advantage out of it.

When a player screws up, someone is almost certainly going to get some advantage out of it that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Ten years ago practically everything was a game loss. Now we're more forgiving of human frailty and prefer to apply a remedy - even if it's not always perfect - and let the game continue rather than just end it. It's important that the remedy is defined by the IPG rather than something an individual judge cooks up because we want consistency across all tournaments. It's also important to keep infractions, penalties, and remedies as simply as possible so that they're consistently understood.

A sloppy player's penalty is getting warnings and then game losses. I challenge anyone playing a 7+ round event to not make at least one GRV - that's why you get two warnings. Your warning history is tracked, and exceptionally sloppy players can get warning letters and even suspensions from their history.

This does put an onus on players and judges to call infractions properly.


It's not like the judge can say "All right, put these 3 random cards back and then play the game as if you didn't know what the top 3 cards of your library are." How is that not taken into consideration?

Once he sees those cards, you can't do anything about it short of ending the game - and we've already decided that ending the game for such a common error (you'd have to do the same thing with Looking At Extra) is unacceptably punitive. We don't ask him to pretend he doesn't know. Errors changing the game is something you have to accept.

[alderon666]

If he had played the Brainstorm, paused, asked if was OK and then drawn 3, then I would agree with the ruling.

But he just snapped drew after putting the BS on the table. From watching the rest of the game you could notice that Giovanna was a decent player, but she didn't react quite fast enough like Kibler or some other more experienced player.

It's clear that the whole "guilt" of the mistake was on David for playing too fast and sloppily. And that just adds a bitter taste to the ruling, doesn't matter how many rules you throw at us, the worse player of the match won because he gained advantage from a mistake he made.

Maybe someday we will just sit across the table with 2 touch screen tablets on each side and play it on Magic Online. It even solves the stalling problem...

[Hardcore]

Errors changing the game is something you have to accept.
Indeed, but it is very unfair if making mistakes is to your advantage.
Not to mention the extra incentive this gives cheaters: "-you can get away with anything of it looks like a mistake!"

[alderon666]

Indeed, but it is very unfair if making mistakes is to your advantage.
Not to mention the extra incentive this gives cheaters: "-you can get away with anything of it looks like a mistake!"

Or even worse, you can play really bad trying to Submerge pro blue stuff all day and not get punished at all.

[cdr]

I don't disagree that it's an unfortunate outcome when you make a mistake and it allows you to win. I do think, however, that it was the right outcome considering the damage that would be caused trying to make this one outcome less "unfair".

The cheating argument is spurious, cheaters will cheat no matter what.

Not penalizing improperly played Submerges is definitely a concern, if that's indeed what happened.

[Kich867]

Indeed, but it is very unfair if making mistakes is to your advantage.
Not to mention the extra incentive this gives cheaters: "-you can get away with anything of it looks like a mistake!"

It's not so much that, it's specifically in regards to a thalia you can intentionally just brainstorm into it at will.

You don't have to pay for the brainstorm, you aren't punished for the brainstorm, you keep the brainstorm, and you know exactly what your next 3 cards are. You also get the chance to get cards you needed off the top of your deck if no cards in your hand are useful to the situation right now.

Something about this situation in particular seems incredibly off. Game rule violations--cool, but when you give someone an incredible amount of knowledge for free with absolutely no consequence then you're being way too lenient.

Also, how hard can it possibly be to cheat in front of level 2-3 judges when there was one sitting right there watching that go down? I'm sure some are more attentive than others, but it was the game he was watching and it's not like that whole decision wasn't telegraphed from his end. He could see David's hand, he could see what he was thinking, all he had to do was wait until he tapped and dropped the card and said "Stop."


I don't disagree that it's an unfortunate outcome when you make a mistake and it allows you to win. I do think, however, that it was the right outcome considering the damage that would be caused trying to make this one outcome less "unfair".

The cheating argument is spurious, cheaters will cheat no matter what.

Not penalizing improperly played Submerges is definitely a concern, if that's indeed what happened.

Feel free to watch the video, someone posted a link to it, but here's another: http://www.twitch.tv/scglive/b/334787576 at about an hour 20 minutes in. That game contains at least 3 grueling errors by David and the judge casually lets each one happen. At the very least, the misplayed Brainstorm, then playing submerge on a scryb ranger, then playing submerge when she has no forest. Which should be considered as not properly paying a cost for a card given that under that circumstance the spell should cost 5.

I'm also confused as to how that ruling is the correct ruling for the brainstorm--why is he rewarded by having his land untapped, brainstorm still in hand.

I'd also like to ask if it's normal for the player putting 3 cards back to rearrange the cards? The judge picks 3 cards and David quickly puts one on top, he coincidentally draws the land next turn. Why is he allowed to keep the brainstorm here? When I make mistakes at FNM judge rulings dictates that I lose the card if I cast it on an illegal target, but yet in an SCG Open, David can illegaly cast a brainstorm, rearrange the top of his library, cast 2 illegal submerges, and loses virtually no cards for this.

[alderon666]

I don't disagree that it's an unfortunate outcome when you make a mistake and it allows you to win. I do think, however, that it was the right outcome considering the damage that would be caused trying to make the outcome less "unfair".

The cheating argument is spurious, cheaters will cheat no matter what.

Not penalizing improperly played Submerges is definitely a concern, if that's indeed what happened.

But why didn't he get punished for the mistakes with the Submerge? Trying to use it on a pro blue creature and them trying to use when she had no forests out... didn't that just add up to 3 GRVs grating him a game loss?

I remember when some kid got a game loss, in the freaking finals, when he tried to attack with his Mishra's Factories with a Moat on the table (third GRV he had on the tournament).

[cdr]

It's not so much that, it's specifically in regards to a thalia you can intentionally just brainstorm into it at will.

You don't have to pay for the brainstorm, you aren't punished for the brainstorm, you keep the brainstorm, and you know exactly what your next 3 cards are. You also get the chance to get cards you needed off the top of your deck if no cards in your hand are useful to the situation right now.

Something about this situation in particular seems incredibly off. Game rule violations--cool, but when you give someone an incredible amount of knowledge for free with absolutely no consequence then you're being way too lenient.

Also, how hard can it possibly be to cheat in front of level 2-3 judges when there was one sitting right there watching that go down? I'm sure some are more attentive than others, but it was the game he was watching and it's not like that whole decision wasn't telegraphed from his end. He could see David's hand, he could see what he was thinking, all he had to do was wait until he tapped and dropped the card and said "Stop."

Feel free to watch the video, someone posted a link to it, but here's another: http://www.twitch.tv/scglive/b/334787576 at about an hour 20 minutes in. That game contains at least 3 grueling errors by David and the judge casually lets each one happen. At the very least, the misplayed Brainstorm, then playing submerge on a scryb ranger, then playing submerge when she has no forest. Which should be considered as not properly paying a cost for a card given that under that circumstance the spell should cost 5.

I'm also confused as to how that ruling is the correct ruling for the brainstorm--why is he rewarded by having his land untapped, brainstorm still in hand.

I'd also like to ask if it's normal for the player putting 3 cards back to rearrange the cards? The judge picks 3 cards and David quickly puts one on top, he coincidentally draws the land next turn. Why is he allowed to keep the brainstorm here? When I make mistakes at FNM judge rulings dictates that I lose the card if I cast it on an illegal target, but yet in an SCG Open, David can illegaly cast a brainstorm, rearrange the top of his library, cast 2 illegal submerges, and loses virtually no cards for this.

As far as the judge being at the table, the judge at video feature matches is usually working for coverage and not as a judge. That judge is usually concentrating on communicating with the commentators and not on closely watching the game for rules violations. Also again, there was no "cheating".

As far as the Brainstorm, he is not "rewarded". That is how illegally played spells have always been handled - rewind to the point of error. Untap whatever was used to pay it, return it to your hand. If anyone has been doing it differently, they've been doing it wrong (eg whoever is running your FNM).

Cards returned from a GRV are supposed to go back in a random order.


But why didn't he get punished for the mistakes with the Submerge? Trying to use it on a pro blue creature and them trying to use when she had no forests out... didn't that just add up to 3 GRVs grating him a game loss?

I remember when some kid got a game loss, in the freaking finals, when he tried to attack with his Mishra's Factories with a Moat on the table (third GRV he had on the tournament).

Don't know. It does sound like he should've gotten a GRV game loss.

[Sloshthedark]

But why didn't he get punished for the mistakes with the Submerge? Trying to use it on a pro blue creature and them trying to use when she had no forests out... didn't that just add up to 3 GRVs grating him a game loss?

I remember when some kid got a game loss, in the freaking finals, when he tried to attack with his Mishra's Factories with a Moat on the table (third GRV he had on the tournament).

played Lands = attacking through Glacial Chasm

I would not blame him for the other sloppy plays, he seem nervous and this submerge thing (forest/island) happens all the time, you can't take submerging a pro blue seriously... the Thalia thing happens all the time, just outcome of the remedy was really unfortunate and this way somehow counterintuitive, I doubt I would get out of this situation so easily on local legacy tournament (even thou we know the right ruling obv.)

[Humphrey]

ban Brainstorm

[rxavage]

ban Brainstorm

It's brainstorm's fault now? It's inevitable, it seems, these discussions will devolve into a ban Bs thread.

[alderon666]

played Lands = attacking through Glacial Chasm

I would not blame him for the other sloppy plays, he seem nervous and this submerge thing (forest/island) happens all the time, you can't take submerging a pro blue seriously... the Thalia thing happens all the time, just outcome of the remedy was really unfortunate and this way somehow counterintuitive, I doubt I would get out of this situation so easily on local legacy tournament (even thou we know the right ruling obv.)

The problem is, you take it too lightly people will start fishing for that kind of play all the time. The "Wow I can't play this card right now, let's see if my opponent notices it..." kind of thing.

If they are going all out on the first infraction was the cast of Brainstorm and so the draw extra cards ruling doesn't apply, they should also punish him for trying to cast spells on illegal targets or paying for alternate costs that he couldn't pay for.

And yeah, ban Brainstorm, it's the best cheater card ever!

[LennonMarx]

@cdr: I was playing back when everything was a game loss, and I admit that punishing people for every little mistake in that fashion is terrible, but if this is the other option, I'd rather go back. I get that the rules are as they are now, and complaining about it on a forum isn't going to change them, but how does treating all "drawing extra cards" infractions the same way make the game worse? Or even better, keep it as it is, but let the judge use discretion based upon the context of how it happened (as Sheldon was aloud to do at worlds in Finkel's game 5 of the top 8, for example). The fact that Giovanna was given no time to spot the error before her opponent broke the game is key here.

Also, cdr, I have to fundamentally disagree with you here. "Errors changing the game is something you have to accept" is never okay within a rule system when the error comes from something illegal. Good lord, can you image in a football game is a ref said "Well, the offense had 12 players on the field, but the defense didn't notice, so instead of a 5 yard penalty from the line of scrimmage we are going to enforce it from the end of the 20 yard pass play where the receiver was the 12th man." There must be a better set of rules out there.

Edit: I forgot to address this. Regarding your "overly punitive" remark, I disagree that "No game loss for first offense of anything" follows from "Everything is a game loss is too strict." Information is far and away the most important resource in the game and having it is something that can't be undone as opposed to, say, a player recording his life total incorrectly which can be gone back and adjusted. Once he sees those cards, the game is fundamentally altered. I would say the same holds true with the "looking at extra' cards infraction you pointed to.

[Kich867]

The problem is, you take it too lightly people will start fishing for that kind of play all the time. The "Wow I can't play this card right now, let's see if my opponent notices it..." kind of thing.

Honestly I get the feeling that this happens pretty commonly. Maybe it's a mistake, maybe it's not, but for instance Sam Black recently played 2 lands in one turn which gave him enough mana to do some broken things and seal the game out. He was already in the lead, so it wasn't a huge deal, but the one mana did let him play things he otherwise wouldn't have. I'm starting to wonder how often this actually comes up, as it seems to pop up at -least- once per tournament on camera, and that's only on camera.

It should have been pretty obvious though, I'm surprised neither commentator or his opponent noticed. I mean all you really have to ask yourself is "How did he play a land when Undiscovered Paradise is in play?"

I used to think that people were just paranoid nerds about the whole cheating thing, but watching the SCG stream whenever it's up makes me feel like people just try to see what their opponent lets them get away with.

[Hardcore]

The cheating argument is spurious, cheaters will cheat no matter what.

Not quite. What deter bad behavior is not the punishment but the percieved level of risk getting caught.
A good example of this; The trams in my town was constantly being vandalized at great cost. Until the day when they started putting surveillance cameras in them.:cool:

Judges should definitely use videos as aids to judgments.

[cdr]

@cdr: I was playing back when everything was a game loss, and I admit that punishing people for every little mistake in that fashion is terrible, but if this is the other option, I'd rather go back. I get that the rules are as they are now, and complaining about it on a forum isn't going to change them, but how does treating all "drawing extra cards" infractions the same way make the game worse? Or even better, keep it as it is, but let the judge use discretion based upon the context of how it happened (as Sheldon was aloud to do at worlds in Finkel's game 5 of the top 8, for example). The fact that Giovanna was given no time to spot the error before her opponent broke the game is key here.

PT T8s and the like are their own world. The people that make rules/policy are either physically present or on speed dial, they can and do exercise discretion that is not desirable for normal tournaments.

There was a time back in the dark ages where judges were given more discretion, and it was a mess. We want players to know that the rules are the same everywhere and that situations will be resolved the same way everywhere.

The fact that he didn't give his opponent time to intervene is unfortunate, but I don't find it that important.


Also, cdr, I have to fundamentally disagree with you here. "Errors changing the game is something you have to accept" is never okay within a rule system when the error comes from something illegal.

The errors we're talking about are "something illegal". Players do illegal things all the time and these illegal things will always change the game.


Edit: I forgot to address this. Regarding your "overly punitive" remark, I disagree that "No game loss for first offense of anything" follows from "Everything is a game loss is too strict." Information is far and away the most important resource in the game and having it is something that can't be undone as opposed to, say, a player recording his life total incorrectly which can be gone back and adjusted. Once he sees those cards, the game is fundamentally altered. I would say the same holds true with the "looking at extra' cards infraction you pointed to.

There are infractions where the first offense is a Game Loss. Drawing Extra Cards, like drawing off of a Howling Mine that's no longer in play, is a game loss. Card draws that happen as a side effect of a game rule violation (paying an incorrect cost) or communication violation (your opponent counted his creatures wrong) are specifically and intentionally excluded from being a game loss on the first infraction. The high level judges and Wizards staff that decide tournament policy determined that a game loss for that particular situation was too punitive in most circumstances.

[Fry]

Personally I think that the only honorable way of this being resolved would be as the people here already mentioned, fo rhim to get a game loss(which I can understand can at times be excessively punative, but warranted in some instances as this with the extra information), or for David McDarby to concede that game and go to the third game. I do not believe that there wasn't a better resolution to the problem that occured with the Brainstorm, then the issues with his Submerge to boot.
The commentators saying that McDarby seemed like he was feeling bad about it. If he felt so bad about it he should have scooped to game 3.

[danyul]

I wonder what he will buy with the money he won.

Maybe hamburgers?

So he can eat his regret?

Too soon?

[aahz]

While I understand the way the rules work and the ruling here was 'correct' in that context, I'm glad that this incident is leading to discussion of the implications and unintended consequences of rules such as this. Even though it's clear that the intention here is to not punish people too severely for minor, 'innocent' mistakes (a simple thought experiment should provide numerous situations where the sanctions would be severely disproportional to the actual infraction if game losses more liberally), loopholes like this one can be exploited by the less scrupulous among us to gain an unfair advantage. I can see how this could drive away players who get the short end of the stick (or even just see it happen), even when there was no actual cheating involved and an honest mistake leads to a seemingly ridiculous and completely unfair resolution. Furthermore, the absurd outcome on Sunday (based on most players sensibilities, not from a rules standpoint) is not an isolated incident. I had something similar happen to me in a tournament, and I suspect these unintended consequences happen more than most players realize. We only really take notice of the really extreme examples, while seemingly innocuous cases might still be affecting match outcomes (and be more easily used by people trying to cheat within the rules).

Here's another example of a 'correct but absurd' ruling in the vein of the one on Sunday from a Vintage tournament a few months back. I want to preface this by stating clearly that my opponent did not cheat or do anything shady (I've played against him before and since this incident so he is not just some random opponent. Vintage is generally a smallish community populated by Gentlemen and Scholars compared to the riff-raff that shows up for other formats). He was just as perplexed by the outcome as I was.

The match was Dredge (me) versus Ritual Oath (Griselbrand/Tendrils). Zombies feasted on brains in game 1, as they are wont to do. In game 2, I open with Leyline of the Void then get my dredge on (conservatively, so I don't get blown out by hate). Due to Leyline, he makes an exile pile in place of his graveyard (though turned at an angle from how he usually sets his GY), which continues to fill up as the game progresses. He slows me down with an early Ravenous Trap, but I've still got some gas reserves to push forward and start grinding him out. I can't stop him from landing an Oath and resolving a trigger, but he hits Blightsteel (that he had sided in with Tinker so he had a better chance of racing the zombie hordes) instead of Griselbrand. He gets Griselbrand the next turn, but at this point about 75% of his deck is exiled and he's too low on life to risk drawing 7 immediately. I will most likely kill him if I untap by supplementing the zombies with Ichorids and Bloodghasts from my yard. But then he casts Timetwister. I sigh and start shuffling. My opponent accidentally grabs his exiled pile as if it's his graveyard and starts shuffling it up with his hand/library. Literally a few seconds after this happens, I notice and point it out, but it's already too late. We stop immediately and call a judge. We had been having a non-magic discussion going on in the background throughout the match (we are both scientists in similar fields; Gentlemen and Scholars, remember), so that may have contributed by being a slight distraction. Also, Timetwister was the first play in the entire game that was directly affected by the presence of the Leyline, so it was easy to see how it could be missed, even without any distraction.

After explaining the situation to the judge, it was ruled that there was no cheating or intentional misconduct that warranted penalties but we had both failed to maintain game state (questionable in this case, as there was no confusion for anyone that the pile was exile not GY and was even rotated to indicate as much, but the specifics aren't relevant beyond the "it wasn't cheating and doesn't warrant a game loss" part). Here's where it gets weird. The judge had to resolve the gamestate somehow since there was no game loss issued. There is no way to figure out which cards were where prior to the Timetwister, so we just resolve twister with all the exiled cards shuffled back in and keep playing. This means I lose even though I had a winning board state. My yard is gone, so before I can reestablish enough pressure to get there, Griselbrand's lifelink allows him to draw into the combo kill (now back in his library) even though the life gain alone wouldn't have been enough to save him.

Neither of us quite knew how to respond, so we just played Game 3, which was a nailbiter and all around great game (who says dredge isn't interactive?). He ends up barely eaking out a well earned victory (in this game at least). My opponent and I spent a fair amount of time afterward discussing what happened. He was very apologetic about the Timetwister incident, though he did accept the match win on the back of it. I didn't argue the ruling because it was a small tournament, I could still win the match at that point anyway, and I would have felt like a dick arguing for a game loss when it wasn't warranted (so it seemed better to let the other guy have the 'undeserved win' on his conscience rather than have 'being a dick' on mine). There was really no possible middleground between the extremes of 'unfair game loss to opponent for small mistake' and 'unfair resolution of messy gamestate leading directly to loss for me'. It's okay though because both of us ended up in the Top 4 split anyway.

What is clear from both my experience and the Brainstorm incident on Sunday is that some minor mistakes can lead to messy situations that CANNOT be resolved fairly. Someone ends up losing out no matter what happens. This occurs whenever the rules violation can't be backed up to restore the previous gamestate. The real question then is which is worse: 1) unfair overpenalizing of 'minor' rules violations/mistakes with a game loss when they happen to lead to messy situations, or 2) unfairly penalizing players for their opponent's mistakes when they happen to lead to messy situations.

This isn't an easy one to answer. It probably depends on how often the ugly scenarios occur relative to the simple to handle ones.

Clearly the DCI thinks that option 2 is better. I would imagine the reasoning goes something like this: It is bad to apply the rules inconsistently (e.g. to consider HOW the rule violation alters the larger gamestate when deciding on a penalty) because then the same class of rules violation leads to different penalties in different situations and opens up the Judges/DCI to being criticized for unfairly overpenalizing in some cases, i.e. a missed trigger (or insert your favorite rules violationish misplay) could lead to a warning or a game loss depending only on how irreparable the gamestate became as a consequence. Even the appearance of unfair judging compromises the whole endeavor of competitive Magic. It's also worth noting that even if they wanted to go with option 1, it's not necessarily simple to define what constitutes one of these "messy situations" despite the fact that most of us recognize them when we see them. Furthermore, these 'messy situations' are comparatively rare so the judges/DCI look better with option 2 since they can at least claim consistency enforcing the basic policy/penalty guidelines on the rare occasions when it happens, essentially arguing that the 'unfairness' is just collateral damage from being consistent rather than an example of inequality under the rules (though apparently that will happen regardless because here we are talking about it).

Arguing in support of option 1 appears, to me at least, much more difficult. There is no escaping the problem of inconsistently applying the penalties since that is pretty much the whole point: missing the same trigger (or whatever) IS a worse violation sometimes because the context allows the error a larger influence on the gamestate, and therefore the game/match outcome. This isn't necessarily a problem in theory, but then you have to define explicitly how judges are supposed to decide when a violation is 'extra bad' and warrants the harsher penalty. There are multiple problems that will likely come up traveling down this road. First, general rules (e.g. if it is no longer possible to back up to restore the prior gamestate, it's 'extra bad') won't work because it's easy to find innocuous examples that would technically meet the criteria. Next, you can't really enumerate all the specific kinds of situations that could come up due to the complexity of the game, and even if you could, there can still be very obscure implications in particular contexts resulting in potential disagreement about whether the alteration in gamestate due to the error was really bad enough to warrant the extra penalty in that case. Thus the issue is that a differential application of the rules in different contexts MUST be clearly defined because otherwise the ambiguity will cause more havoc than the problem this approach is trying to solve. I just don't feel like the cliched "I know it when I see it" will work here.

And yet, the whole idea of 'unfairly penalizing players for their opponent's mistakes when they happen to lead to messy situations' still seems unpalatable in principle.

tl;dr: I've seen similar situations. E.g. Opponent makes honest mistake resolving Timetwister; Judge gives us both warnings for failure to maintain gamestate and rules opponent gets back 75% of deck that was supposed to be exiled; this allows him to draw into a combo kill that was previously exiled to outrace a lethal attack. I understand the DCI's position even though it can be exploited and lead to strange, upsetting outcomes. I don't have a solution, but this is an interesting topic of discussion. :eyebrow:

[Humphrey]

It's brainstorm's fault now? It's inevitable, it seems, these discussions will devolve into a ban Bs thread.


Yeah. Turns out Brainstorm is really good. But when it's illegal, its becomes godmode.

[LennonMarx]

@cdr: So, I guess then, my question is why is the Howling Mine line different than the brainstorm. It seems weird that "Man, you had that Mine in play for 10 turns, I just forgot you sacrificed it" is treated harsher than "I forgot I can't play this card draw spell into your Thalia." In both cases, you could just put cards back at random until the game "restored," and the opponent in the howling mine indecent is, at worst, no more at fault that the guy playing brainstorm into Thalia.

And cdr, if that fact that Giovanna wasn't given time to respond is unimportant, then how, as a player in that situation, do you uphold your side of "maintaining the game state?" Obviously if she had 5 seconds to think about what was going on, she catches the mistake and this doesn't happen, and if she doesn't catch the mistake at that point, this rewind is a fine solution because it came about as the result of both sides making an error.

Also, thanks for answering all these questions.

[jam3sbob]

^
there was no howling mine in play (no rules violation) he just drew extra cards.

drawing cards after illegal brainstrom. the drawing of cards happened after a grv. rewind gamestate back to where it was legal.

[catmint]

One thing I did not find somewhere: Did he get a warning for his brainstorming?
Because if you don't get warnings for that, it is just an invitation to go for an easy cheat (doing it intenionally) abusing opponents who do not pay attention. If you record warnings you cannot do these kind of cheats (if intentional) on a regular basis.

[cdr]

tl;dr: I've seen similar situations. E.g. Opponent makes honest mistake resolving Timetwister; Judge gives us both warnings for failure to maintain gamestate and rules opponent gets back 75% of deck that was supposed to be exiled; this allows him to draw into a combo kill that was previously exiled to outrace a lethal attack. I understand the DCI's position even though it can be exploited and lead to strange, upsetting outcomes. I don't have a solution, but this is an interesting topic of discussion. :eyebrow:

Interesting post. I'd just like to note that the DCI (which was always a fictional entity anyway) no longer exists; you can just substitute "Wizards" now.


@cdr: So, I guess then, my question is why is the Howling Mine line different than the brainstorm. It seems weird that "Man, you had that Mine in play for 10 turns, I just forgot you sacrificed it" is treated harsher than "I forgot I can't play this card draw spell into your Thalia." In both cases, you could just put cards back at random until the game "restored," and the opponent in the howling mine indecent is, at worst, no more at fault that the guy playing brainstorm into Thalia.

And cdr, if that fact that Giovanna wasn't given time to respond is unimportant, then how, as a player in that situation, do you uphold your side of "maintaining the game state?" Obviously if she had 5 seconds to think about what was going on, she catches the mistake and this doesn't happen, and if she doesn't catch the mistake at that point, this rewind is a fine solution because it came about as the result of both sides making an error.

Also, thanks for answering all these questions.

Drawing for a nonexistent card is different than drawing for an improperly played card; with the former the illegal thing is the draw, whereas with the latter the draw is a side effect of some other illegal action. Wizards basically does not want to give out a game loss when a player drew cards what would have been legally without the preceding error. Here's the Drawing Extra examples from the IPG:

A. A player draws 4 cards after casting Ancestral Recall.
B. A player draws a card forgetting that a Howling Mine is no longer on the battlefield.
C. A player draws for his turn, and then draws again for his turn a few moments later.
D. A player puts a creature with lethal damage on it into her hand instead of her graveyard.

As far as the second part, if your opponent does not give you a chance to respond, you are not held responsible for the game state until the first point you could notice the error. When a GPE infraction is given, the other player normally gets a Failure to Maintain warning (which are non-upgradable) - but only if the other player failed to notice it past the first point they could reasonably be expected to notice it.


One thing I did not find somewhere: Did he get a warning for his brainstorming?
Because if you don't get warnings for that, it is just an invitation to go for an easy cheat (doing it intenionally) abusing opponents who do not pay attention. If you record warnings you cannot do these kind of cheats (if intentional) on a regular basis.

He did get a warning for the Brainstorm; if a judge is involved and a remedy applied, the appropriate penalty was also recorded. It sounds as if he didn't receive penalties he should have for illegally casting Submerge, though.

[Parcher]

The problem is, you take it too lightly people will start fishing for that kind of play all the time. The "Wow I can't play this card right now, let's see if my opponent notices it..." kind of thing.

Bertoncinni was infamous for this for YEARS before the far more blatant incidents that were caught on camera. Anytime your opponent plays a spell that they can't afford, have the wrong mana for, etc, call a Judge. Every time.

[Linqed]

I truthfully wonder why the DCI has gotten more forgiving towards 'human frailty'. If you're playing a tournament, you're supposed to follow the rules. If you break the rules, you should be punished, it seems pretty simple to me. If you shuffle your exile pile into your graveyard when you're about to get decked, it doesn't matter if it was a mistake, you shouldn't have done it. Learn from it and don't do it next time, or else you get another game loss. That's how it's supposed to be, in my opinion.

This being more forgiving is only a good thing for players who are (a bit) sloppy in the first place. That's like letting your dog pee on the carpet, but not your pants.

Incidents like this can absolutely ruin an entire tournament for the opponent, who did nothing wrong, but ended up losing games his opponent should have.


Bertoncinni was infamous for this for YEARS before the far more blatant incidents that were caught on camera. Anytime your opponent plays a spell that they can't afford, have the wrong mana for, etc, call a Judge. Every time.

Makes me wonder why he was never suspended before. I think the DCI should really tighten up their policy and I also think players should be made aware when to call a judge more. I think it's a good idea for the DCI to set up a website or something with examples like McDarbey's illegal submerging for when to call a judge for players who want to play in PTQ's and above. It's still too much of a taboo.

[LennonMarx]

As far as the second part, if your opponent does not give you a chance to respond, you are not held responsible for the game state until the first point you could notice the error. When a GPE infraction is given, the other player normally gets a Failure to Maintain warning (which are non-upgradable) - but only if the other player failed to notice it past the first point they could reasonably be expected to notice it.


I'm sure she took great solace in not getting a warning here. Except she is responsible, apparently, for making sure the game state is actually fair for her, but has no recourse if her opponent just decides to do whatever he feels like doing, game state be damned. I get that it is the right ruling as per the rules now, but all I'm getting out of this discussion is "Well, if you're in a tight spot, just "forget" about that card that is hurting you. The worst that can happen is a warning."

[cdr]

I'm sure she took great solace in not getting a warning here. Except she is responsible, apparently, for making sure the game state is actually fair for her, but has no recourse if her opponent just decides to do whatever he feels like doing, game state be damned. I get that it is the right ruling as per the rules now, but all I'm getting out of this discussion is "Well, if you're in a tight spot, just "forget" about that card that is hurting you. The worst that can happen is a warning."

If you "forget", that's cheating. You'll get a DQ and a lengthy suspension. Maybe you can get away with it once or twice, but you will be caught eventually.

[alderon666]

If you "forget", that's cheating. You'll get a DQ and a lengthy suspension. Maybe you can get away with it once or twice, but you will be caught eventually.

Good luck telling "forget" from forget.

[Lt. Quattro]

If you "forget", that's cheating. You'll get a DQ and a lengthy suspension. Maybe you can get away with it once or twice, but you will be caught eventually.

It paid off for McDarby, why not us?

[cdr]

It paid off for McDarby, why not us?

I wasn't there, but considering what I saw on the video and the judges that were there, I would put money on it being a mistake. It was not cheating. There are so many things wrong with that attitude I don't know whether I could enumerate them.


Good luck telling "forget" from forget.

Well, that's the task judges are charged with, and they do catch cheaters. There's likely one or more DQs at every SCG Open, and maybe half a dozen at a GP. The more senior and experienced judges that are better at catching cheats are in shorter supply, but there is always at least one L3 at a SCG Legacy Open (the HJ is usually a L2 last I knew) and the HJ of Standard Opens is L3 or even L4/L5.

[Snap_Keep]

I wasn't there, but considering what I saw on the video and the judges that were there, I would put money on it being a mistake. It was not cheating. There are so many things wrong with that attitude I don't know whether I could enumerate them.



Well, that's the task judges are charged with, and they do catch cheaters. There's likely one or more DQs at every SCG Open, and maybe half a dozen at a GP. The more senior and experienced judges that are better at catching cheats are in shorter supply, but there is always at least one L3 at a SCG Legacy Open (the HJ is usually a L2 last I knew) and the HJ of Standard Opens is L3 or even L4/L5.

It's frustrating to see a level 2 judge be so unconcerned with how stupidly unfair the current system for rewinding gamestates and punishing mistakes is.

I can cheat or "make mistakes" and win because of the rules we have now. People should be given game losses for making such huge, game altering mistakes. Especially when they result in colossally unfair advantages for the person who made the critical error... this seems to be fine with you? Because to me and everyone else (it seems like) it is one of the most backwards and wrong things about this game.

Feel free to ignore this post too though

[cdr]

It's frustrating to see a level 2 judge be so unconcerned with how stupidly unfair the current system for rewinding gamestates and punishing mistakes is.

I can cheat or "make mistakes" and win because of the rules we have now. People should be given game losses for making such huge, game altering mistakes. Especially when they result in colossally unfair advantages for the person who made the critical error... this seems to be fine with you? Because to me and everyone else (it seems like) it is one of the most backwards and wrong things about this game.

As someone who's been judging for 10 years, the system we have now is the fairest it's ever been.

There are some number of things to think about when discussing penalties. Just a few:
- Is the penalty overly punitive considering the severity and frequency of the infraction?
- How abusable is the penalty by the player?
- How abusable is the penalty by the opponent?

As the judge program's authority on cheating said, in part:
"We've tried it the other way, and we did see tons of people abusing by waiting to call the penalty to get the player the GL. With the current method we see some players abuse to get a free card draw. The question is really this: which way causes less problems? Data from years ago strongly suggests that the current IPG causes less problems than the former."

I forgot to bring up the aspect of the opponent, but that's also a major concern. We do not want to put opponents in the position of wanting to wait until after it's "too late" to call a judge and get the player a game loss instead of a warning.

The way we handle things now is the fairest we've been able to come up with to all parties and aligns the best with Wizard's goals for tournament play and the game. Is there room for improvement? Sure, I'm sure there always are, but understanding the tradeoffs that have been made is important first.

[LennonMarx]

This isn't some binary thing, though. It's not like the options are the draconian "if you forget to uptap your lands before drawing for the turn it's game loss" vs the current system. This one instance points to a gaping hole in the rules and the IPG: how looking at extra cards/drawing extra cards is dealt with. Information can not be rewound no matter what you do to a game state, and to rewind a game state that brought with it information about the player's deck that he should not have had seems suspect.

Some game states can be rewound successfully, and the information given away to the player(s) is a reasonable side effect to allowing a game to continue. Imagine, a card that read "Return 2 target basic land cards from you graveyard to your hand" but a player casts it only having 1 basic in his yard, or he misread it and tries to get back a non-basic. In both cases, the game can cleanly be rewound to a state before the spell was cast. Information is gained (what color my opponent needs, etc), but the rewind is clean. The board state is exactly the same as it was before as are the contents of both players hands and libraries. Compare to this case where you have the side that made the error be the only side to gain new information, and that information pertains to a hidden zone. Honestly, if he was forced to shuffle 3 cards from his hand into his library instead of put them on top, I think that is even okay, because the result is (basically) the same as it was pre-brainstorm: The player in error has X cards in hand, one of which is brainstorm, and a random library. It is certainly closer than what happened.

[Valtrix]

So, in this case three cards were randomly returned to the deck. I mean, sure, in such a scenario you want to try and make neither side get an advantage, but it seems silly to me that an error like this should ever give a player who made the mistake the chance to get an advantage. I realize that this is impossible, but it seems like there are some more measures which could be done which wouldn't be out of line for punishing mistakes but would make the game more fair for the opponent of the player who made a mistake.

The simplest change would be to reveal the cards being put on the library to both players, then put them on the library randomly. You could also do something like revealing the whole hand first, then putting things back randomly. At the very least, something to help give some of the information the mistake-making player gets to the opponent as well. Since the person making the mistake knows the cards contained in their next three draws and they normally shouldn't, why does this information remain hidden from the other player? This would be a simple change to the existing rules that I don't think would punish the mistake-making player much, but would help minimize potential advantage that player might get.

As a more extreme punishment, you could also consider having the mistake-making player reveal their entire hand and having their opponent choose which cards go back on top of the library, and even possibly the order. To me this seems like it could be giving too much advantage to the opponent and as such would have more potential for abuse by the opponent by purposefully ignoring mistakes to give them a choice like this. Although I still think I would prefer this approach because I feel like if any advantage would be possible when fixing an error, such an advantage should be given to the player who didn't make the mistake to begin with.

[Richard Cheese]

Why not just shuffle the hand, pull three cards at random, then put them into the library and shuffle it. You might end up lucking out and getting what you need on top, or you could end up with the same garbage as before.

[Valtrix]

Why not just shuffle the hand, pull three cards at random, then put them into the library and shuffle it. You might end up lucking out and getting what you need on top, or you could end up with the same garbage as before.

I don't really like that very much because it seems very abuseable when you have a low number of cards in hand. Example: Maybe the enemy has a chalice of the void out and you have a brainstorm in hand. You cast brainstorm illegally "forgetting" about chalice and suddenly you have a 3/4 chance to not have a brainstorm in hand anymore.

[cdr]

Why not just shuffle the hand, pull three cards at random, then put them into the library and shuffle it. You might end up lucking out and getting what you need on top, or you could end up with the same garbage as before.

There's a reason they didn't add a shuffle instruction which I can't remember off the top of my head, but I think it was the added complexity to the IPG section. It is probably worth revisiting adding a shuffle to make GRV at least match up with Looking At Extra, though.


I don't really like that very much because it seems very abuseable when you have a low number of cards in hand. Example: Maybe the enemy has a chalice of the void out and you have a brainstorm in hand. You cast brainstorm illegally "forgetting" about chalice and suddenly you have a 3/4 chance to not have a brainstorm in hand anymore.

You're off the deep end, unfortunately. Something like that actually happening is one in a billion, so not the type of thing that gets considered. (Plus the fact that the Brainstorm isn't one of the cards getting returned to the library.)

[LennonMarx]

Just curious; how would playing Brainstorm into Chalice of the Void be ruled? Playing the brainstorm is a legal action in the game, but the chalice just counters it. It seems like the Howling Mine case to me because the drawing of cards isn't the result of a GRV, but I'm just wondering how it would get ruled on the tournament floor.

[Lt. Quattro]

Just curious; how would playing Brainstorm into Chalice of the Void be ruled? Playing the brainstorm is a legal action in the game, but the chalice just counters it. It seems like the Howling Mine case to me because the drawing of cards isn't the result of a GRV, but I'm just wondering how it would get ruled on the tournament floor.

If your at a starcity event be sure to draw the cards quick enough so your opponent doesn't have a chance to do something about it. You will then be allowed to play the brainstorm as is, or if your caught then you will get a slap on the wrist.

[cdr]

Just curious; how would playing Brainstorm into Chalice of the Void be ruled? Playing the brainstorm is a legal action in the game, but the chalice just counters it. It seems like the Howling Mine case to me because the drawing of cards isn't the result of a GRV, but I'm just wondering how it would get ruled on the tournament floor.

You mean like the SCG case, but substitute Chalice for Thalia? A GRV did immediately preceed the otherwise legal draw - not resolving the Chalice trigger - so it would be GRV and not DEC. If you play a Brainstorm into a Chalice and immediately draw, though, that's the kind of thing a judge is going to take a very close look at for intent to cheat.

[LennonMarx]

So, then, how does that work out with the change forcing players to announce all triggers? Is the chalice player now at fault for not blurting out "Wait!Triggerchaliceatone" in the span of half a second? Or does it just not happen because the chalice player "obviously missed his trigger."

[walker]

The way the rules work out in this situation is not fair.

If McDarby "just" illegally cast brainstorm as a mistake it would be one thing... but he did not pass priority back after he put brainstorm on the stack. If he had passed priority before proceeding to resolve the illegally cast spell, Dimperio would have had a chance to inform him that he cant legally cast brainstorm. At that point if neither player realizes the situation, they should both receive a penalty for not maintaining a legal game state. BUT HE JUST DREW THE EXTRA CARDS... even if he could have legally cast the brainstorm you have to pass priority before resolving a spell! right????

[cdr]

So, then, how does that work out with the change forcing players to announce all triggers? Is the chalice player now at fault for not blurting out "Wait!Triggerchaliceatone" in the span of half a second? Or does it just not happen because the chalice player "obviously missed his trigger."

A player does not miss a trigger until they take an action after the trigger should have resolved or pass priority. If the person playing the spell did not give the Chalice player priority, the trigger was not missed. And if a judge is being called, clearly the Chalice player did not forget the trigger. Rewind the game to the point where the Brainstorm and the Chalice trigger are on the stack.


even if he could have legally cast the brainstorm you have to pass priority before resolving a spell! right????

Technically: yes, in practice: no. It's common in actual play to shortcut things and not ask your opponent if a spell is OK when you think they can't have any response, even though you technically should. In many cases this is just fine, like if you see very high level play among players who are friendly (like at the Player's Championship). Play happens really fast with little to no explicit priority passing happening.

[JDK]

That game was terribad. Twitter is raging. What makes it worse is David tried to Submerge Giovanna's stuff like three separate times. He missed 1)that she had no forest in play and 2) that the thing he was trying to Submerge had Pro:Blue.
What baffles me even more, is that he was reading the text on Scryb Ranger two or even three times and still tried to Submerge it.

Trying to cast Submerge without realizing the opponent has no Forest happens, but trying to illegally cast the same card three times in one game should get you an infraction.

On another note: He would have drawn the Fetchland the next turn anyway.

[Fry]

It's frustrating to see a level 2 judge be so unconcerned with how stupidly unfair the current system for rewinding gamestates and punishing mistakes is.

I don't think that he is unconcerned about the current system, just that CDR's trying to explain the ruling in a way that people can understand even if it's against what fair-minded people would (and are) in an uproar about it.

So why don't we all just stop calling CDR an idiot and either accept that the ruling was the correct one, even though we hate its outcome. Or you can continue being ignorant toward a person who's been judging for over half of Magic's existence.

[cdr]

who's been judging for over half of Magic's existence.

When you put it like that, it's almost depressing :)

[Fry]

It was not to be depressing, but more of a recognition of accomplishment. I mean really, how many other people can legitmately say that they've been an integral part of Magic (who isn't a only a player) for that long?

[Kich867]

I'm still fairly for there being an alteration to how GRV's are handled when they result in a player having more knowledge than they should about the game. I think in this specific case it warrants a game loss. I guess not "this specific case" but, the case in which a GRV that results in a player drawing extra cards should be handled by a game loss. The knowledge given presents an 'unrewindable' game state that no amount of shuffling will properly change.

At the very least, the deck should be shuffled--which presents a lot of shit in and of itself (if the top of your deck is now better than it was previously) but at the very least you're still in the unknown after the deck is shuffled. This presents corner cases of a player illegally brainstorming--keeping what they need, getting their deck shuffled, drawing into better cards than they would have, which is unlikely but possible.

I think if not a game loss, either the player should be given a warning per card drawn (such that brainstorms would result in a game loss) or just make specifically GRV's that result in extra cards drawn be equivalent to 2 warnings. But again, game loss seems perfectly reasonable.

[cdr]

I'm still fairly for there being an alteration to how GRV's are handled when they result in a player having more knowledge than they should about the game. I think in this specific case it warrants a game loss. I guess not "this specific case" but, the case in which a GRV that results in a player drawing extra cards should be handled by a game loss. The knowledge given presents an 'unrewindable' game state that no amount of shuffling will properly change.

At the very least, the deck should be shuffled--which presents a lot of shit in and of itself (if the top of your deck is now better than it was previously) but at the very least you're still in the unknown after the deck is shuffled. This presents corner cases of a player illegally brainstorming--keeping what they need, getting their deck shuffled, drawing into better cards than they would have, which is unlikely but possible.

I think if not a game loss, either the player should be given a warning per card drawn (such that brainstorms would result in a game loss) or just make specifically GRV's that result in extra cards drawn be equivalent to 2 warnings. But again, game loss seems perfectly reasonable.

Looking At Extra Cards - like accidentally flipping over the top card of a deck or activating a Top that's no longer in play - is a warning. You think that should be a game loss also?

[Kich867]

Looking At Extra Cards - like accidentally flipping over the top card of a deck or activating a Top that's no longer in play - is a warning. You think that should be a game loss also?

I'm referring specifically to the scenario whereby illegally drawing cards results in just putting N random cards back on top of your library--you still know what they are and can plan accordingly. Or better yet the ones in your hand are what you needed.

Looking at extra cards results in a shuffling of the deck, correct? You don't just randomize the cards they've seen, you randomize the entire deck--the player's hand and board remain unchanged and their deck is once again sufficiently randomized and unknown to the player. The end result is that you knew previously what the top X cards of your deck were, but you are now completely oblivious to what lies on top.

Drawing extra cards as a result of a GRV results in no shuffling of the deck, just N cards put on top of your deck in a random order where N is the number of cards you drew. The end result is that you know what the top X cards of your library are with a fairly good shot at guessing their order.

I don't see how these two scenarios are comparable unless I'm mistaken about how looking at extra cards is handled.

[cdr]

I don't see how these two scenarios are comparable unless I'm mistaken about how looking at extra cards is handled.

Well, you said the reason you want draws resulting from a GRV to be a game loss was the extra information gained. If you shuffled after putting cards back from a GRV, the amount of information would be the same as LAE.

[Kich867]

Well, you said the reason you want draws resulting from a GRV to be a game loss was the extra information gained. If you shuffled after putting cards back from a GRV, the amount of information would be the same as LAE.

Its still not quite maintaining the game state given that depending on the cards in hand its very unlikely the hand remains the same. If the player put back the exact cards they drew and shuffled the deck, sure.

I would prefer that over a game loss, but given that isn't how its handled and they don't recognize what cards you drew and can't use video evidence, I'd rather it be a game loss.

In the same vein drawing extra cards should be handled similarly--putting a creature into your hand instead of graveyard by accident results in a game loss? This seems awkward given how very easy it is to rewind that game state. The DEC rule seems way too arbitrarily encompassing but that's a topic for a different thread..

[CookedChestnuts]

This thread is people who hate SCG looking for reasons to hate SCG.

[SuperProxy]

Why don't we tar and feather the lvl 1 judge who made the ruling instead of the player really.

So anyways I re-watched the the explanation of lvl 3 Judge Ricky and from what I comprehend lets use a traffic violation for example you ran a red light
you accidentally trampled a person you will only get cited by running the red light and totally ignore the person who got trampled.

don't know if that makes sense but that's what I think what happened there

[Snap_Keep]

I don't think either of you followed this thread very closely if that's your take away from all this.

People's main complaints is the way the rules are now, not the ability or intent of judges.

Question... If SCG events were at Pro level REL couldn't GRVs and other normally "warning only" mistakes be upgraded to GLs by the discretion of the judge? I was speaking with my local judge about this and he said that this is true.

[phazonmutant]

cdr - props for handling people's questions and reactions so well in this thread! It's hard to clearly explain policy.

I'm an L2 as well, and the SCG judge resolved everything by the book (although I think he should have at least asked some questions to suse out any intent to cheat), and based on McDarby's reaction, I agree with cdr that I'm fairly certain no cheating was intended. People make brainfarts all the time, and regardless if you think he should have scooped, him playing on is nothing more than a tacit acknoledgement that the judging system is fair (however you choose to define fair).

Plenty of people are questioning the fairness of this particular ruling, but honestly, I don't want judges interpreting rulings or severity of game states! Most just aren't qualified for that - and honestly, there's not many who are qualified to with certainty determine the long-term impact of one mistake, not even top pros.

For people saying that Drawing Extra Cards should always be a GL but Looking at Extra Cards is ok because the fix is to just randomize the deck, consider this counterexample:
It's the UW Miracles mirror, you have a Jace and you've been fatesealing me for the past "million" turns while I battle Jace with my Trinket Mage. When you fateseal this turn, I accidently flip over the top card and see it - straightforward looking at extra cards, right? But we have to preserve the cards on bottom and neither player remembers how many times Jace has fatesealed to the bottom and it's obviously unfair to just flip over cards from the bottom until the opponent says, "no, I didn't put that one there". Now what if he fatesealed my only two Entreats to the bottom and I have no other win conditions? Does that mean that I now deserve a game loss because I just increased my chance of winning tenfold?

What if you cast a Snapcaster and flashback a Divination without realizing that you tapped out of blue casting Snapcaster, then resolve Divination and only afterwards do you and your opponent realize that you didn't have blue? It seems tremendously harmful for less experienced players to get snap-gamelossed for a very innocent and common mistake. At the same time, the mistake is very catchable by both players and by asking questions, judges should be able to determine intent to cheat (along with tracking GRV warnings), so the opportunity for abuse is fairly low. That's an example of why drawing cards as part of a GRV is not a game loss the first time.

The point is there's corner cases where advantage can be gained or lost for every error, but it's most important for the document to be consistent so the lower-level judges who staff most events (like myself :D) who have an imperfect understanding of the philosphy behind the documents can still apply the philosophy correctly and consistently.

At the end of the day, it's very easy to cheat, it's harder to cheat and not have your opponent catch it, but it's damn near impossible for you to consistantly do shady things and "forget" things and not attract some judge scrutiny. Cheaters get caught all the time, and saying that a punishment encourages you to cheat is like saying that people murder people because the penalties are light. Cheaters cheat because they want to cheat and murders murder people because they want to murder people!

[Kich867]

For people saying that Drawing Extra Cards should always be a GL but Looking at Extra Cards is ok because the fix is to just randomize the deck, consider this counterexample:

It's the UW Miracles mirror, you have a Jace and you've been fatesealing me for the past "million" turns while I battle Jace with my Trinket Mage. When you fateseal this turn, I accidently flip over the top card and see it - straightforward looking at extra cards, right? But we have to preserve the cards on bottom and neither player remembers how many times Jace has fatesealed to the bottom and it's obviously unfair to just flip over cards from the bottom until the opponent says, "no, I didn't put that one there". Now what if he fatesealed my only two Entreats to the bottom and I have no other win conditions? Does that mean that I now deserve a game loss because I just increased my chance of winning tenfold?

This isn't a good example.

You're referring to looking at extra cards, which is handled differently than drawing extra cards as a result of a GRV. I've already gone into detail about how these two scenarios aren't comparable. If I were the judge in this case, given the ability is Fateseal and your opponent is giving you permission to have the card or not, I actually don't see what is wrong with just resolving the fateseal with the opponent knowing what the card was and issue a warning to the player who caused it to be visible.


What if you cast a Snapcaster and flashback a Divination without realizing that you tapped out of blue casting Snapcaster, then resolve Divination and only afterwards do you and your opponent realize that you didn't have blue? It seems tremendously harmful for less experienced players to get snap-gamelossed for a very innocent and common mistake. At the same time, the mistake is very catchable by both players and by asking questions, judges should be able to determine intent to cheat (along with tracking GRV warnings), so the opportunity for abuse is fairly low. That's an example of why drawing cards as part of a GRV is not a game loss the first time.

This, currently, should result in a game loss until they change how drawing extra cards as a result of a GRV is handled. Player experience should have no impact on the ruling.

There isn't actually a distinguishable difference between DEC as a result of a GRV and just DEC. They're both mistakes that occur for identical reasons: you forgot you didn't have the mana, you forgot you already drew this turn, you forgot the howling mine was gone, you accidentally put the card back into your hand instead of putting it into the graveyard.

I mean just going through their own examples of the rules, how is picking up a creature after it dies and putting it in your hand not a game rule violation that resulted in having an extra card? The game rule was to put the creature in the graveyard, this didn't happen. To me there's no distinction between that and "You tried to play a spell you didn't have the mana to play." Creatures go to the graveyard when they die, as a rule, unless it specifically states otherwise on the card--which is how you know it's a rule.

I can sort of see the drawing for your draw phase twice being considered a little different because nothing really prompts it, but at the same time, the rule is that you draw for your turn during your draw phase, you break that rule by assuming it's your draw phase still and thinking that you forgot to draw a card so you do so again--you've now drawn a card for the turn outside of your draw phase, which is drawing a card as a result of a game rule violation...

Assuming that a Howling Mine is still on the field and resolving a trigger that doesn't exist is easily paralleled with paying mana that doesn't exist. You're resolving a trigger from a permanent that doesn't exist VS you're adding mana to your mana pool from a permanent that doesn't exist (you can say "Well I thought this swamp tapped for blue!" but the reality is the player thought they had an island that they didn't, resulting in no blue mana entering their mana pool).

I mean these points of view aren't that farfetched are they? I think they make some valid comparisons to point out that, regardless of how it happens, DEC should result in a game loss until they find a better way to handle the situation. Except for the mind bogglingly stupid examples like putting a dead creature back into your hand--the creature was public knowledge, you acknowledged that it died, your opponent acknowledges that it does, the judge should just bin the creature from their hand and be done with it. Rewind the game state to where it died, kill it proper, move on. That seems to be in no way shape or form "Drawing extra cards" as no actual card drawing from the library took place.

[walker]

I'd like to bring up a point that has been glossed over. I think the issue is that two GRVs occurred, but they seem to have been perceived as one. If the problem is simply that McDarby illegally cast brainstorm, then rewinding the gamestate would be an easy fix. But after illegally casting brainstorm he illegally resolved that brainstorm without passing priority. The problem is that the combination of two GRVs incrementally gained McDarby advantage and the judgment only really accounted for one of the RGVs. That's why it appears so unfair.

[walker]

I tried to edit my previous post but the editing function won't work. This is what I was going to post in the edit:

After talking about it for a long time with my friend who's a judge and giving it a lot of thought I realized a couple things. First, the judge definitely followed procedure. Secondly, the procedure is probably the best procedure to have, even though it's possible for rare corner cases like this one to turn out unfair.