I think a legalistic reading of the IPG causes us to miss the point with the partial fix here.

“If an object changing zones is put into the wrong zone, the identity of the object was known to all players,
and it is within a turn of the error, put the object in the correct zone.”

The object was changing zones, just not correctly. Unless you judge that either player would have played a spell or activated an ability upon receiving priority with the Smiter on the stack and the counter in the graveyard (uncommon and unlikely), the Smiter was going to be put in one of two zones upon the resolution of the Essence Scatter.

As the head judge of an event, I would not authorize a backup here as avoiding the partial fix ignores the purpose of the fix's inclusion in the IPG. If I'm not the head judge, I'm asking him to make this decision, of course.

Originally posted by Cameron Bachman:

As the head judge of an event, I would not authorize a backup here as avoiding the partial fix ignores the purpose of the fix's inclusion in the IPG. If I'm not the head judge, I'm asking him to make this decision, of course.

Our first option should always be a full back up. Only if we decide not to back up should we consider any partial fixes. The IPG lays this out clearly:

“If not caught within a reasonable time frame, or backing up is impossible or sufficiently complex that it could affect
the course of the game, the judge should leave the game state as it is after applying state-based actions and not
attempt any form of partial ‘fix’ – either reverse all actions or none, with the following exceptions: ”

Edited Kaylee Mullins (Nov. 1, 2013 02:17:00 AM)

Originally posted by Alex Mullins:

Our first option should always be a full back up. Only if we decide not to back up should we consider any partial fixes.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm still dubious about backing this up. What would our L2+'s do here?

Personally, I find this scenario to be on my borderline for how far I'd be willing to backup; but, and this is a big but,
I need more info. The scenario says attacks and blocks: this could be a simple scenario or a complicated one based on the creatures.

If I assume that combat was simple, I'd rewind to the resolution of the Essence Scatter and continue.

-mf

Ok, time for some more silly questions from me, as I don't understand why the majority wants to apply FtMGS to Nelson.

We apply FtMGS if “A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error involving an effect or action that he or she does not control”, and we apply double GRV if “the effect that caused the infraction is controlled by one player, but the illegal action is taken by another player”.

Facts:
Who controlled Essence Scatter? Clearly, Nelson.
Who moved Loxodon Smiter into the graveyard? Clearly, Angle.
When did Angle move him? During the spell's resolution (“When the spell resolves..”).

Now let's look at these facts a little closer. We can't say that Essence Scatter “resolved properly”, because Angle moved his Loxodon to the graveyard as a part of spell resolution. However, “proper” resolution would be leaving Loxodon in the stack as the Essence's effect should actually do nothing (as Loxodon can't be countered).

So, for me it's rather clear that the “effect that caused the infraction” is the one generated by Essence Scatter spell. That means that Nelson controlled that effect, and Angle took an illegal action involving an effect which Nelson controlled - sounds pretty much like GPE-GRV for both of players.

It's completely legal to cast counterspell targeting an uncounterable spell; however, to allow your counterspell's effect to actually counter that uncounterable spell - allowing your opponent to perform his action of taking Loxodon into his graveyard - is definitely an infraction, and sounds like a clear GRV example to me.

So, my silly question for today is - why GPE-FtMGS then?

Alex Zhed, after rereading the section on GPE - GRV carefully, I'm not sure which is correct. The question is, what the “effect that caused the infraction” is. Essence Scatter or Loxodon Smiter's “can't be countered” clause.
What is meant by an “effect”? Is this something that can go on the stack (like a spell or a triggered or activated ability and that is notably not just a static ability)? This would mean that Essence Scatter caused the infraction and Smiter's clause cannot be the root of the problem.
Anyway, I'm confused.

A side remark:
I personally like GPE - GRV for Nelson better than GPE - FtMGS in this scenario. I like the idea that I'm supposed to upgrade the penalty for repeated offenses much better than just having the option to exceptionally do so. Having a player repeatedly counter uncounterable things is definitely worthy of an investigation and even if unintentional nothing I'd want to take lightly.
But I don't think this should direct me one way or the other.

Alex: There was no error in resolving, casting, etc. Essence Scatter - the error was in forgetting Loxodon Smiter cannot be countered. Therefore, the “effect that caused the infraction” is not controlled by Nelson, so this is not a double GRV scenario.

It should be a GRV for Angie and Failure to Maintain Game State for Nelson. I chose Failure to Maintain Game State for Nelson because it seems like the primary error was Angie's for improperly allowing Smiter to be countered. The responsibility for knowing that Smiter is uncounterable is hers.

Depending on how complex the combat was (how many creatures were involved/changed zones and/or spells played ), I would probably talk the HJ about rewinding the game. Nothing significant, outside of combat, appears to have taken place. The partial fix most likely doesn't apply as the Smiter should not have been changing zones at the time of the infraction.

Edited Darrin Sisneros (Nov. 2, 2013 06:22:38 PM)

Consider this: Abercrombie controls Forbidden Crypt. He casts Walking Corpse, to which Noonan responds with Essence Scatter. Abercrombie puts the creature card in his graveyard instead of in exile. What part of Essence Scatter did Abercrombie resolve incorrectly? The spell was countered, but Abercrombie put the card into the wrong zone - the game play error lies in not applying his own replacement effect. Is Noonan guilty of GRV or FtMGS?

Back to the original Q, Angie, as far as Nelson knows, followed the directions of Essence Scatter to the letter. She just put the Loxodon Smiter into her graveyard instead of onto the battlefield for some reason. Contrast this with the example given by the IPG: Path to Exile tells you where specifically to move the target creature, and if that doesn't happen, then Path's controller is liable for a GRV. Path itself doesn't care about other replacement effects that may make the creature go elsewhere. The “effect that caused the infraction” is the one whose absence would lead to an infraction-less scenario.

Regarding whether to back up or not, the individual steps are a bit time-consuming to fix, but doable; the casting of one spell gives Nelson some extra info, but if that were more the root of the GRV I'd give more consideration to rewinding. Given both the extra info and time factor issues in play here, I'd personally say no rewind.

Edited Aaron Huntsman (Nov. 3, 2013 01:00:02 AM)

Julien, an “effect” is clearly defined in CR 609.1 - it's a result of a spell or ability (including continious effects from static abilities). Also, you're right when you say that the question here is which one is “the effect that caused the infraction”.

It seems that I finally agree to Darrin and Aaron here - of the two effects here (one-shot from Essense Scatter and continious from Loxodon itself) it's the Loxodon's one whose absence would lead to an infraction-less scenario. We can alternatively consider that Essense Scatter's effect's absence would also lead to an infraction-less scenario (as this situation wouldn't happen at all); however, the more I think about it, the more twisted this logic seems to me.
Also, I agree that responsibility of for knowing that Smiter is uncounterable is Angie's, which makes Angie's error more severe than Nelson's.

Thanks for detailed explanation.

It is the same thing between a Abrupt Decay and a Fow. Loxodon Smiter is a legal target for Essence Scatter but it makes nothing when it resolves.

Angie makes a GRV and her opponent makes a FtMGS.

Penalities : Warning

Fix : I put Loxodon Smiter on the battlefield because it's a wrong zone.

This week, we are going to break things down point by point:

● The error was that Loxodon Smiter, a spell that can't be countered, was countered by Essence Scatter.
● This is a double GRV. From IPG 2.5, “In a situation where the effect that caused the infraction is controlled by one player, but the illegal action is taken by another player, both receive a Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation.”
○ The illegal action occurs when Angie removes Smiter from the stack and puts it in her graveyard.
○ The effect that caused the infraction is Nelson's Essence Scatter. (The Smiter clearly never gets taken off the stack if the Essence Scatter doesn't resolve, so it caused the infraction.)
● For the purposes of this scenario, we have chosen not to rewind due to complexity. As always, this decision falls to the head judge or another authorized judge at a real event.
● There is no partial fix available. ”If an object changing zones is put into the wrong zone, the identity of the object was known to all players, and it is within a turn of the error, put the object in the correct zone,“ doesn't fit because the Smiter was not trying to change zones when it incorrectly went to the graveyard.
● To contrast with the Boon Satyr scenario, Boon Satyr was trying to move from the stack to the battlefield when the error occurred.

The distinction between Smiter and Satyr here may seem like splitting hairs to some. However, policy is very clearly worded to support a partial fix for the Satyr but not for the Smiter. One of the most important lessons for a judge to learn is that the IPG is worded as it is for a reason. Applying technical knowledge of both the CR and IPG when a problem arises is the most important factor in fair and consistent handling of infractions. We hope that the pair of scenarios we've presented over the last fortnight has both helped you understand this partial fix better and encouraged you to more closely read documents and carefully examine game states.

Shoutouts go to Julien de Graat for first recognizing why the partial fix does not apply, James Windward-Stuart for an excellent detailed breakdown on that topic, and Alex Zhed for going against the flow and finding the correct pair of infractions.

Thanks everyone for participating, and we'll be back tomorrow with a shiny new scenario that (probably) isn't about this exact GRV partial fix.

props to the knowledge pool guys for putting up 2 similar but contrasting
scenarios.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

○ The effect that caused the infraction is Nelson's Essence Scatter. (The Smiter clearly never gets taken off the stack if the Essence Scatter doesn't resolve, so it caused the infraction.)

Just to be completely sure: why we can't also say that “the effect that caused the infraction” was the one produced by Loxodon's static ability?
If Smiter didn't have it, taking Smiter from the stack would be completely correct => no infraction would have occured.

Originally posted by Alex Zhed:

Joshua Feingold
○ The effect that caused the infraction is Nelson's Essence Scatter. (The Smiter clearly never gets taken off the stack if the Essence Scatter doesn't resolve, so it caused the infraction.)

Just to be completely sure: why we can't also say that “the effect that caused the infraction” was the one produced by Loxodon's static ability?
If Smiter didn't have it, taking Smiter from the stack would be completely correct => no infraction would have occured.

I think the difference is, that if you take the Smiter's ability away, the action that was done (putting the smiter into the graveyard) would turn into the correct one, whereas if you take the scatter away, the wrong action wouldn't have been done. - One makes the wrong right, the other still keeps the wrong wrong, just without it, the wrong thing wouldn't have happened. (I hope that was understandable.)

Edited Sebastian Braune (Nov. 6, 2013 06:56:17 AM)