Originally posted by Cris Plyler:

In order for the game losses to not count toward the match result they must be simultaneous game loss penalties. That didn't happen here, in this case the active player committed a GRV that the opponent could not verify due to hidden information. After that the game ended which led to the GRV committed by the non-active player that their opponent couldn't verify so they too would receive a game loss. Since these are not simultaneous we'd move to game 3 with the score tied 1-1.

This sounds correct if you go for the literal wording in the IPG. What's the philosophy behind the Game Losses not affecting the match score?

In the end, with your decision, one of the players will not be penalized. Can you see which?

TL;DR Game losses offset when a judge discovers, or at least should have discovered, the infractions at the same point in the match. This situation is a little weird since Brian didn't even have the opportunity to commit the morph infraction until Alex's penalty was assessed. However, the game was paused for the investigation and didn't resume, so the 2 penalties were discovered at the same point in the match, and so they should offset. The delay in realizing this is unfortunate, but since game 2 hadn't started, the delay doesn't void Brian's penalty.

Details:

My first exposure to the new philosophy was during a judge call with Toby at GP Vancouver. My distinct impression from that conversation is that the philosophy is primarily to avoid handing out accidental match wins because you discover that both players were being sloppy. The classic example is when a card gets shuffled into the opposing deck between games. Antigone wins game 1, someone forgets to take back a Debilitating Injury, and nobody notices until the players draw opening hands. We don't want to give Antigone a free win, so instead we fix the decks and basically restart game 2. Yes, there's an element of “matches should be determined by playing Magic,” but it's more about “don't hand out free wins just because both players were dorks.”

Note that the philosophy grew from cases where you discover at once that both players messed up. This, I assume, is how the use of “simultaneously” crept into the language of the IPG. This strikes me as unfortunate since it encourages people to think that you do have to discover the two infractions in the same instant. This is obviously not true in cases such as the deck check team discovering problems with both decks. It's unlikely the problems were discovered in the same second, or even the same minute, yet the penalties still offset. Why? Because the match didn't progress at all between the errors being discovered.

In Toby's post on the change (cited earlier) he specifically mentions morph as a case where penalties can offset. This seems obvious in the case where both people accidentally scoop up face-down cards at the end of the game. These should offset, even if only 1 player called the judge, and you later discover they both swept up their morphs. But I think our scenario is basically the same situation: the game is ending, both players failed to reveal morphs, so the penalties offset. It doesn't matter that Brian was reacting to a penalty (as opposed to a concession or whatever), and it doesn't matter that Alex's mistake was made several turns earlier.

The way I see it offsetting game losses is for situations where, at the moment the error is discovered/the judge is called/the judge intervenes, the infraction for both game losses has occurred. When a player discovers the other player's Singing Bell Strike in his deck at that moment both infractions are there. When both players shuffle unrevealed morph cards in their decks at the end of a game, at the moment one of them realizes or a judge intervenes, both infractions are there. In these cases it makes sense to offset the losses as neither player could've prevented their infraction once the infraction of the other player was realized/revealed.

This is different however. One player commits an infraction, a game loss is given, and after that, another infraction is committed. The second one could've been prevented. Therefore I do not think offsetting game losses should be applied here.


So what to do instead, I'm not really sure. Brian's game loss can only be applied to the first game, to which a game loss is already applied. I'd say Brian's game loss overwrites the result of that game, so it overwrites the previous game loss, so either the players go to game 2 with 1-0 for Alex in games or Alex' game loss can be carried over to the next game meaning that they will be 1-1 in games with Alex having lost the last one thus him being able to determine who's on the play or draw the 3rd game.

I don't even feel bad about that result because part of the purpose of penalties is education. We've just educated these players that misplaying morph is Serious Business, we've just given a game loss for it. Next thing that happens, Brian is misplaying morph. Lesson not learned it seems.

Edited Toby Hazes (Oct. 31, 2014 11:57:44 AM)

To the best of my understanding, we have a double GRV, both of which are upgraded to game loss, the penalties are issued for the same game but unrelated offenses, and we're left needing someone to still win the third game.

Edited Michael Warme (Oct. 31, 2014 10:53:38 AM)

Brian will receive a game loss penalty for game rule violation because he did not reveal hidden information (his face-down card) to allow his opponent to verify that he made a legal game play.

Since Brian committed this infraction during the same game that Alex received a game loss penalty for his own error, the results of the two penalties will offset and they will not count toward the final score of the match. They will start a new game with sideboarding but the match score will still be 0-0-0 for each player.

Even though the errors were neither discovered nor committed at the same time, the GL penalties are still “simultaneous” because they're being applied to the same game. Alex was given a Game 1 GL for his error whose legality couldn't be verified, and Brian will now get a Game 1 GL for his morph error under the clarified policy. This means the score is tied at 0-0 after the GLs cancel out and the players continue the match until someone gets 2 wins. The players can sideboard before the next game starts and whoever won the initial die roll gets to choose play/draw again.

Thanks to everyone that participated in the discussion this week! And now your solution!

Because the game is ending, albeit due to a GRV upgraded to a Game Loss, Brian is still required to reveal his Morph creatures. By failing to do so, he has also committed a GRV that his opponent could not verify the legality of and should have the penalty upgraded to a Game Loss. Simultaneous Game Loss penalties are being issued to each player, so they will be recorded and the players will start a new game, with the match score 0-0. Since they have played a game of Magic, both players will be allowed to sideboard and whomever choose to play or draw in the previous game will do so for this next game as well. As was pointed out by some participants, because both Game Losses are being applied to the same game, that is what makes it a simultaneous Game Loss despite the infractions not being discovered at the exact same time.

Stay tuned for our next exciting and amazing Knowledge Pool scenario!

Originally posted by George FitzGerald:

Thanks to everyone that participated in the discussion this week! And now your solution!

Because the game is ending, albeit due to a GRV upgraded to a Game Loss, Brian is still required to reveal his Morph creatures. By failing to do so, he has also committed a GRV that his opponent could not verify the legality of and should have the penalty upgraded to a Game Loss. Simultaneous Game Loss penalties are being issued to each player, so they will be recorded and the players will start a new game, with the match score 0-0. Since they have played a game of Magic, both players will be allowed to sideboard and whomever choose to play or draw in the previous game will do so for this next game as well. As was pointed out by some participants, because both Game Losses are being applied to the same game, that is what makes it a simultaneous Game Loss despite the infractions not being discovered at the exact same time.

Stay tuned for our next exciting and amazing Knowledge Pool scenario!

So I guess I'm unclear–Exactly why is this a simultaneous game loss?

The game losses are both being applied to the same game. The fact the
infractions were discovered at different times does not change that. That
is what makes it a simultaneous game loss.
On Nov 5, 2014 1:03 PM, “Michael Warme” <