Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

An error that an opponent has no opportunity to verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded. These errors involve misplaying hidden information, such as the morph ability or failing to reveal a card to prove that a choice made was a legal one.

That continues to be quoted, and I'm not sure that the opponent didn't have an opportunity to verify the legality of casting the Dig in the first place. Sure, they couldn't have known whether the Dig was in the hand before resolving it, but there was an opportunity for them to catch the error when it was “cast.”

“Hey, where's the Dig you're resolving?”

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

That continues to be quoted, and I'm not sure that the opponent didn't have an opportunity to verify the legality of casting the Dig in the first place. Sure, they couldn't have known whether the Dig was in the hand before resolving it, but there was an opportunity for them to catch the error when it was “cast.”

“Hey, where's the Dig you're resolving?”

Yeah, you're right. I stand corrected!

There are two ways to look at this from what I can see:

1) As I said earlier the not moving the card to the stack when casting, the period between the casting and resolving and the actual moment the player is looking at five card the opponent has a chance to spot (or “verify the legality”) the error, this encourages the oponent to pay attention and point out the error when it happens

2) Because we are called at the point the spell has resolved and we as judges can't verify the error we issue a game loss (this isn't the wording of the upgrade clause) this will encourage the opponent to not pay attention to what is happening and only look for infractions once everything has happened.

Personally I'm firmly in camp 1

I have to say that a card like Dig Through Time could be very different than a card like Treasure Cruise in this spot. Saying “Dig”, drawing seven, picking two, putting them into your hand is very different than saying “Cruise” and snagging three off the top.

I've never seen a Dig take less than five seconds to resolve. I feel that that gives the opponent the “opportunity” to verify the legality of the action.

I'm not sure I'm on the no penalty plan though. To me, this looks like a GRV and a FtMGS. AP cast and resolved a spell without revealing or discarding it, NAP let AP do it with ample time to stop him. Partial fix says put the card into the graveyard.

Is it possible for the player to not have had a Dig in hand in the first place, but finds one in the seven cards and tries to put that in the graveyard? I mean, we are assuming no cheating in discussion, but that's a distinct possibility.

Yes it is, so as a judge you need to figure out if you believe the
player. it is 100% a “you have to be there thing”. That said Evan had
some very useful hints on what to ask to figure out if you believe the
player:


“If we allow for “discard a Dig now”, we can ask away from the table
what cards were kept and whether we believe the Dig was originally
there. Questions include: When was it drawn? What were you waiting
for? These are collateral truths, and it's in our power to investigate
whether he tried to fake a dig and got lucky enough to hit one in the
top 7 and “discard the Dig I forgot earlier.” As others have pointed
out, it's super risky.”

Eric's series on Collateral Truths is the best thing you can read to
skill up on this (something I am striving to do):
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/articles/2014/12/30/investigations-the-search-for-collateral-truths/
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/articles/2015/01/06/investigations-the-search-for-collateral-truths-part-2/
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/articles/2015/01/13/investigations-the-search-for-collateral-truths-part-3/

I'd head towards GRV and FtMGS, warnings for both. DEC has a clause that insists that there must not be an error immediately prior which in this case there was - the DTT was not placed on the stack and from the description the opponent had sufficient time to notice this prior to the cards being placed in hand, so we could have checked the legality, therefore the upgrade is not available. Awkwardly there isn't a partial fix and a back up is very disruptive. I want to put the DTT into the graveyard, but that feels like a deviation.

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

Awkwardly there isn't a partial fix and a back up is very disruptive. I want to put the DTT into the graveyard, but that feels like a deviation.

We could attempt to justify the fix under Uncle Scott's favorite line in the IPG:

IPG
If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not issue any penalty

Both players were clear that Dig was on the stack and then in the graveyard; it just ended up there at the wrong point in time. If/when we determine that the Dig was definitely in the players hand, we could use this clause to allow the players to issue a “partial fix” themselves. But if we do so, we are ruling it's not a GRV/FtMGS, which I don't really like.

There is a reason we are getting involved here, normally it's because one player isn't sure whats going on. Can we really invoke that clause?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Marc Shotter
Awkwardly there isn't a partial fix and a back up is very disruptive. I want to put the DTT into the graveyard, but that feels like a deviation.

We could attempt to justify the fix under Uncle Scott's favorite line in the IPG:

IPG
If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not issue any penalty

Both players were clear that Dig was on the stack and then in the graveyard; it just ended up there at the wrong point in time. If/when we determine that the Dig was definitely in the players hand, we could use this clause to allow the players to issue a “partial fix” themselves. But if we do so, we are ruling it's not a GRV/FtMGS, which I don't really like.

The problem is that NAP insisted that it should be GL, that he hasn't known whether DTT was in hand of an AP and so on. On AP side were tons of tokens, and NAP had an empty hand and a great willing to get a playmat for a GD

Originally posted by Egor Dobrynin:

The problem is that NAP insisted that it should be GL,

Based on my understanding of the IPG, this would be USC: minor for the NAP, no?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

Based on my understanding of the IPG, this would be USC: minor for the NAP, no?

If it is disruptive. “I think my opponent should get a game loss for this” is a natural response. We should deliver the ruling, acknowledge their protest, but be firm in explaining what the infraction, penalty, and fix are. If they continue to protest after this, consider USC - Minor.

Do your best to contain the situation with authority and confidence. If it continues to escalate, step up your firmness. I like this:

Step 1 - Polite
“I have delivered the ruling, now I need you to continue your match. I'll be happy to discuss this more after you're done with the match.”

Step 2 - Firm
“I need you to stop arguing with me and continue your match.”

Step 3 - Apply Penalty (away from table)
“Your insistence on arguing with my ruling after being asked to stop was disruptive, so I'm issuing you a Warning for Unsporting Conduct - Minor.”

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

Eli Meyer
Based on my understanding of the IPG, this would be USC: minor for the NAP, no?

If it is disruptive. “I think my opponent should get a game loss for this” is a natural response. We should deliver the ruling, acknowledge their protest, but be firm in explaining what the infraction, penalty, and fix are. If they continue to protest after this, consider USC - Minor.

Do your best to contain the situation with authority and confidence. If it continues to escalate, step up your firmness. I like this:

Step 1 - Polite
“I have delivered the ruling, now I need you to continue your match. I'll be happy to discuss this more after you're done with the match.”

Step 2 - Firm
“I need you to stop arguing with me and continue your match.”

Step 3 - Apply Penalty (away from table)
“Your insistence on arguing with my ruling after being asked to stop was disruptive, so I'm issuing you a Warning for Unsporting Conduct - Minor.”

Thank you for this example. I shall try to use it in the future)

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

]Both players were clear that Dig was on the stack and then in the graveyard; it just ended up there at the wrong point in time. If/when we determine that the Dig was definitely in the players hand, we could use this clause to allow the players to issue a “partial fix” themselves. But if we do so, we are ruling it's not a GRV/FtMGS, which I don't really like.

I think the point here is that they weren't both clear - the NAP hasn't seen the DTT on the stack or in the graveyard and is being asked to take the AP's word for the fact that the card he's now showing was in his hand all along. That quote is for where players are doing legal things but in a way that confuses someone who hasn't seen the whole match (agreed short cuts, leaving upkeep payments tapped, land placement etc.) - not revealing card drawing spells until after resolving them cannot be clear for both players (hence this whole issue).

I think we're also mixing RELs here (partially cos the topic moved). At regular the players can agree a fix they're happy with (also there aren't penalties) - at Competitive they shouldn't do this and we issue penalties.

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

I think the point here is that they weren't both clear - the NAP hasn't seen the DTT on the stack or in the graveyard and is being asked to take the AP's word for the fact that the card he's now showing was in his hand all along. That quote is for where players are doing legal things but in a way that confuses someone who hasn't seen the whole match (agreed short cuts, leaving upkeep payments tapped, land placement etc.) - not revealing card drawing spells until after resolving them cannot be clear for both players (hence this whole issue).

I definitely agree. My concern here is that, as near as I can tell, 1) a backup is impossible, and 2) no partial fix applies. That means by a 100% legalistic reading of the IPG, the Dig should stay in the active player's hand–but that's obviously leading to a seriously broken gamestate in a way that damaged the integrity of the tournament. I'm aware that judges are discourages from coming up with a fix first, then working “backwards” to justify it from the rules. Trying to interpret that particular clause in that particular may makes me uncomfortable. But given the options of 1) leave Dig in hand; 2) apply a partial fix not supported by policy because it feels right to do; or 3) assume that the game was played correctly since it ended up with a correct board state; I feel like 3) is the least-bad option.

Edited Eli Meyer (April 22, 2015 11:20:37 AM)