I can't count how many times I've been called to a table where there isn't really any infraction, the players know there are higher stakes and want to ensure that things are on the up and up just to be safe. If your players call you over when they have dealt 8 cards face down for their opening hand instead of 7, it shows they're cautious and aware of their mistakes, I'd personally much rather have those players than the ones that try and fix everything themselves, as there is a certain line where that causes complications.

This does honestly seem like a simple dexterity error to me, players going through the motions of their turns and missing a small thing like this then catching it before much time has passed isn't a rare thing in magic. I would want to have a word with the players, double check what happened and try and make sure there aren't any signs of fishiness, but this seems to be about the same as playing a creature instead of a land when you have the land in hand, a simple error with a simple fix and no visible infractions.

Originally posted by Gregory Titov:

This does honestly seem like a simple dexterity error to me, players going through the motions of their turns and missing a small thing like this then catching it before much time has passed isn't a rare thing in magic.

Agreed, but:

Snagging a second card while resolving a scry (LEC)
Putting the card off Mater Reshaper into hand without revealing (HCE)
Forgetting to transform one of your werewolves to it's day side, assuming it's detrimental (MT)

I'd argue these are also common, simple dexterity errors (maybe not the MT) where players missed a small thing and are often caught immediately yet we still issue a penalty. I'm still don't understand why we shouldn't here.

Would you issue a GRV if someone goes to cast a Liliana of the Veil and puts down a Tarmogoyf and they recognize it right away?

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

Would you issue a GRV if someone goes to cast a Liliana of the Veil and puts down a Tarmogoyf and they recognize it right away?

I think the situation you're suggesting is one that the players will ‘quickly handle’ without a need for the judge (even if they asked called me over here I wouldn't issue a penalty, just confirm the obvious fix) because of how quickly it's being fixed.

My issue on this scenario is that the game has moved on before the error is noticed. The OP:

>Cast spell without revealing (very technically the AP's error and the point for FtMGS)
>Resolve spell and add tokens
>Place wrong spell in graveyard
>Untap
>Draw (here's where I'd actually consider the the GRV/FtMGS needs to be applied - before this I'd simple fix)
>Spot error

The OP tells us none of this was rushed so both players had a chance to catch this before it went too far. After the draw I can't (as much as I'd probably believe Natasha) confirm the Secure was in hand and so, for me, we've passed the point of a simple fix. If she's capable of putting the wrong card in the graveyard she's capable of casting a spell she didn't have in hand and I wouldn't ask the opponent to believe she made one error but not the other.

So you are thinking that she did not have Secure in hand when she ‘ cast’ it but drew it for turn? If that's the case. .. a GRV doesn't fit here- DQ for cheating does.

If we assume the error was an honest one- then a simple fix i think is best.

Remember our role as judges doesn't include jury and executioner.

Warnings aren't punishments. They're educational tools. They add weight to our rulings and reinforce the importance of clean and fair play. (And sometimes they turn into game losses).

This is a simple error of dexterity, but if the judge taking the call, or witnessing it, chose to give a warning while remedying the situation I wouldn't fault them for it, nor would I disagree with them.

Edited Jon Munck (May 12, 2016 09:22:02 PM)

Right. I don't see this situation as a question of “The right ruling” as if it is an absolute. This is a question of judgement and assessment of the “most appropriate ruling” based on the scenario. Which seems a bit unique in some respects.

Each judge is going to come to a slightly different feeling here on how to handle this. So my hope for anyone reading this is to focus less on the should/shouldn't with this slightly “edge” scenario, but rather some of the reasoning behind each of the answers that have been provided.

That's not just important for a situation like this, but also for a more “cookie cutter” one where we do want the “right ruling” each and every time.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Right. I don't see this situation as a question of “The right ruling” as if it is an absolute. This is a question of judgement and assessment of the “most appropriate ruling” based on the scenario. Which seems a bit unique in some respects.

Each judge is going to come to a slightly different feeling here on how to handle this. So my hope for anyone reading this is to focus less on the should/shouldn't with this slightly “edge” scenario, but rather some of the reasoning behind each of the answers that have been provided.

That's not just important for a situation like this, but also for a more “cookie cutter” one where we do want the “right ruling” each and every time.

I'm inclined to agree with Jon–this feels like an appropriate time to educate the players about careful play with a warning. While cheating is extremely unlikely here, both players nonetheless contributed to a damaged game state that (theoretically) allows for questionable play with unrecoverable information.

However, the issue is that I also agree with the majority of judges here that this should be a simple fix for the dexterity error. Trying to apply a backup or a partial fix to this error is clunky and is unnecessarily complex.

This unfortunately puts me in a bind, because if I'm issuing a warning I feel obligated to perform the fix as described for that infraction, and if I'm allowing a “whoops, quick fix” fix then I feel the need to let the infraction slide.

Eli and others: Warnings are educational tools, we agree there. I don't
feel that means every time we educate players, we need warnings. I have
many times dealt with issues that didn't warrant a warning (because there
was no infraction, which, as Eli says, is the only time we give warnings).
I educated, asked them to be more careful, moved on.

Is there a reason you feel this particular situation needs a warning?

Marc: Your examples have additional issues, beyond merely the dexterity
error. Seeing an additional card or not sharing information the opponent is
privy to in your examples. Would you agree it doesn't necessarily apply
here?

Now I agree there is a risk here of this situation having additional
issues. I would issue infractions if there's been more going on between the
dexterity error and when it's discovered. However, as stated, I imagine a
scenario where players are moving and communicating quickly and efficiently
and the problem was they put the wrong card down and realised a few seconds
later. These things happen and can be easily remedied.

Cheers

Eskil

2016-05-12 23:44 GMT+02:00 Eli Meyer <forum-26962-757a@apps.magicjudges.org>
:

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

So you are thinking that she did not have Secure in hand when she ‘ cast’ it but drew it for turn? If that's the case. .. a GRV doesn't fit here- DQ for cheating does.

If we assume the error was an honest one- then a simple fix i think is best.

Remember our role as judges doesn't include jury and executioner.

I've mentioned this before, but no, I'm not assuming cheating - this is not a binary decision. I can believe she's not lying but still want to remedy the error with a prescribed penalty and fix. If we take this kind of line we shouldn't need HCE - either we take the player's word for what the extra card was or we assume they lied and are cheating.

Honest error doesn't mean we don't apply a penalty and fix particularly at a competitive error - I actually assume 99%+ of errors are honest.

I'm not sure how I've come off as wanting to be “jury and executioner” because I want to issue a warning and I'm not sure the comment is particularly helpful to this discussion.

Eskil Myrenberg
Marc: Your examples have additional issues, beyond merely the dexterity error. Seeing an additional card or not sharing information the opponent is privy to in your examples. Would you agree it doesn't necessarily apply here?

I'd agree there are some additional issues with the examples but I think this scenario has the added issue of a new card in N's hand. I'd agree with Brian and Jon that this one feels like a place where either is potentially okay, but I lean towards warning and fix.

Marc:

I agree with you that the drawn card naturally makes me a little wary too
:). I can see how you'd lean that way, though I (obviously) lean the other
way. As I said earlier, I feel this is a “you had to be there” where tempo
of the plays and other nuances are paramount to understand the scenario.

To me, there's no hard barrier crossed here that makes me feel I wouldn't
treat it as a simple dexterity error with basically no advantage to
cheating (thus rendering the extra card less important). I can understand
if others don't share this view :).

2016-05-13 10:24 GMT+02:00 Marc Shotter <