Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! This is a SILVER level scenario, meaning it is designed as a learning opportunity for those L1s who are somewhat familiar with the IPG, but not yet at an L2 level. If you are an L2 or above please wait until Friday to lead discussion or post solutions.

The blog post for this scenario can be found here:
http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1390


You are the Head and only judge of a PPTQ.

Anna is playing against Nick in semifinals. She casts Xenagos, the Reveler and activates its “0” ability. In response, Nick plays Hero's Downfall targeting Xenagos. Anna puts Xenagos into her graveyard. Nick studies his hand while Anna touches a Satyr token in her deckbox, then pulls her hand off it, reads Xenagos and starts looking around confused. Schrödinger the Spectator says: “You still get that token!”

Nick says: “Oh, I'm not sure…” and calls a judge. When you get there, Nick explains what happened, and that Schrödinger had said what should happen.
What do you do?

First reaction - Spectator should have called a judge rather than get involved.
However, this doesn't constitute strategic advice, it's a comment about how the stack should resolve.
Going to look at the definition of OA to clarify this, as if this counts as OA then the associated penalty is a ML.

“Gives play advice or reveals hidden information…”

I don't think that this counts as play advice. There is no strategic benefit gained from the advice, and so I don't think this should count as Outside Assistance.
I would firstly explain that at Competitive REL spectators should alert judges if there are questions rather than involving themselves, but then explain that Schrödinger was correct and that the satyr token will enter the battlefield when the ability resolves.

No penalties, have a quick chat with Schrödinger and ask how his cat is, then carry on with whatever I was doing such that I wasn't watching the game anyway!

Section 1.11 of the MTR says:

Spectators are responsible for remaining silent and passive during matches and other official tournament sections in which players are also required to be silent. If spectators believe they have observed a rules or policy violation, they are encouraged to alert a judge as soon as possible. At Regular or Competitive REL, spectators are permitted to ask the players to pause the match while they alert a judge.

Schrödinger's mistake is failing to call a judge when he noticed a problem. That isn't good, because we don't want vigilante justice where spectators give rulings on matches they are watching, even if their rulings happen to be correct. However Tournament Error - Outside Assistance only applies when a spectator gives strategic advice or reveals hidden information to one of the players. I don't think this fits what has happened. All he did was tell the players what the correct game state is. Anna touching the token and reading Xenagos just before being interrupted makes me think that no GRV or FtMGS has happened yet, so I wouldn't give any penalties. I would just tell the players that the ability resolves even if Xenagos is killed in response, and tell Schrödinger that next time he observes a problem, he should ask the players to pause the match and call a judge instead of trying to fix it himself.

I agree with the above, this is not a case of outside assistance but Schrödinger is definitely exhibiting unwanted behavior. Another point to consider is the ambiguity of the situation when we arrive on the scene due to the specific cards involved.

After Nick finishes, the biggest question I will confirm with both Nick and Anna was that they both agree she activated Xenagos' +0 ability. Since there is no visible sign that the ability is activated, I need to confirm that the ability is on the stack. If there is any confusion here then it's more likely that Schrödinger could be in an Outside Assistance situation. After we confirm the ability was on the stack, I will walk through what has happened so far (Hero's Downfall, Xenagos dies) and confirm that the current game has Xenagos' ability still on the stack waiting to create a Satyr. I will watch to make sure that this ability resolves and then move on, no penalties issued to either player.

Next we need to chat with Schrödinger. As Dave pointed out above, I'll explain to him that spectators should refrain from interacting with a match in any way except for pausing the match to call a judge if they see an error that needs to be resolved. I'll explain the rule about Outside Assistance and point out how easy it is to accidentally commit this error with a match; for example if he had misheard and Anna had not used Xenagos' ability then he would be offering her advice instead of maintaining a legal game state, a serious infraction punishable by a match loss! I would then make sure we were clear that if he sees anything in a future match, he should politely ask the players to hold for a moment while he calls a judge to address the perceived issue.

Another opportunity here would be to ask if he enjoys helping players to play and learn the game. While it was not his place here, as a judge he could definitely help many players in similar situations and learn how to do it correctly. After all, in this scenario I'm already an L2 so I might as well see if he's interested in becoming a judge himself!

Before reading other responses:

For some reason, I was considering Xenagos's ability as a trigger that could be missed, and ruled that this was OA. After reading other responses, and starting to write out why I disagreed with them, I realized my error. Since Schrodinger is reminding players of a fact that neither of them are allowed to forget, this isn't as bad as giving actual play advice, or reminding of a missed trigger.

My new response:

First, because Nick cast Downfall in response to the activation, Anna hasn't missed her resolution - the game state hasn't moved past that point in the game yet. Assuming Anna remembers her ability, she gets her token, and there's no infraction for either player. If she doesn't remember it, and advances the game state, then that's a GRV/FtMGS.

Schrodinger, however, is a different story. Spectators generally should not be talking to players at all, except possibly to pause the match and obtain a judge. Neither Anna nor Nick solicited Schrodinger's comment, but, has Schrodinger committed Outside Assistance?

In this case, I think probably not. Magic is a game that tests players skills at knowing and understanding the rules. However, even when players misunderstand the rules, they still must follow them. The correct outcome for this case is that Anna gets a Satyr token. The correct way for Schrodinger to have handled this situation would have been to ask the players to pause the match, call a judge, and explain the situation. Since, in this case, his actions had basically the same effect, I don't think he's really assisted either player more than a correctly acting spectator would.

Explain to all players that spectators should not communicate with players, except to pause a match and fetch a judge. Especially explain to Schrodinger how close he was to a Match Loss. Anna and Nick continue play.

No infraction has been committed. While both players are unsure of how the rules of the game worked it is clear that AP is trying to resolve their activated ability (reaching for satyr token). No game actions were taken that suggest the ability has already resolved or was skipped so there is no reason to give GRV/FMGS.

While some may feel that the spectator's behavior is undesirable, TE-Outside Assistance is specifically for play advice. While there are many situations in which stating how the rules of the game work would be strategic advice, this is not one of those situations. If the spectator was not present the players likely would still call you over and when they explain that they do not know if the activated ability will resolve, you are going to tell them the exact same thing as the spectator. If a given piece of information is outside assistance when provided by a spectator, it is often still outside assistance when provided by a judge. The opposite of this is also true.

I would confirm that an the activated ability will resolve and advise the spectator to simply call a judge in the future, since this type of behavior, though well meaning, will often result in a Match Loss for Outside Assistance.

I would rule this Outside Assistance by Schrödinger and a ML. Impossible to tell while not there, but the description that Anna 'starts looking around confused" may come dangerously close to her seeking advice and OA for her might be worth investigating.

Originally posted by IPG:

Tournaments test the skill of a player, not his or her ability to follow external advice or directions. Any strategy advice, play advice, or construction advice from an external source is considered outside assistance

The separation here between strategic and play advice seems to suggest that advice on how to play the game (properly resolving the Xenagos ability in this case) is outside assistance. The reasoning that ‘this is how the game should have gone’ still means that Anna has been helped to not commit a GRV - spectators potentially have many opportunities to do this but we're explicit that they should not.

There also seems to be an assumption in some of the earlier posts that this spectator has acted as a judge would have and therefore it's okay. We should step in when asked to clarify the rules or after an error, not proactively to ensure the correct play so the player has gone beyond this:

Originally posted by IPG:

Judges are neutral arbiters and enforcers of policy and rules. A judge shouldn’t intervene in a game unless he or she believes a rules violation has occurred, a player with a concern or question requests assistance, or the judge wishes to prevent a situation from escalating. Judges don’t stop play errors from occurring…

While this is the tiniest amount of play advice I don't like the precedent we'd set that spectators are able to provide guidance.

Without reading other responses: Schrodinger corrected them on the rules, which is a no-no. But, to qualify as outside assistance, he must be providing commentary that

Gives play advice or reveals hidden information to players who have sat for their match

The Satyr token was not hidden, and it wasn't an optional effect or a missable trigger. Schrodinger gets a stern talking to but no infraction. No infraction for either player, either, as they called a judge to clarify confusion and hadn't (yet) made any game rule errors.

I'm on the ‘no penalty but a good talking to’ train; I don't think Schrö gave any play advice, nor did they reveal any hidden information. Still, the spectator should either pause the match and call a judge or suggest the players call a judge themselves rather than try to give a ruling themselves, even if the spectator is an off-duty judge.

Originally posted by Matthew At Lee:

I'll explain the rule about Outside Assistance and point out how easy it is to accidentally commit this error with a match; for example if he had misheard and Anna had not used Xenagos' ability then he would be offering her advice instead of maintaining a legal game state, a serious infraction punishable by a match loss!

I'm interested in Matthew's explanation here: is the best way to explain the severity of an infraction and the disturbance in a match it can cause by pointing out the penalty attached to it, or is it possible to make the player / spectator understand such without bringing up the penalty? In which of the cases do you think the player will understand better how his attitude affects the tournament?

Edited Andre Tepedino (May 9, 2015 02:42:46 PM)

I do think some players would be fine with being told what they did here was wrong and there would be no further problems. In other cases though, I have seen players who will justify their actions (I'm helping the tournament so as long as I'm careful there's no worry!) and try to toe the line, something I would rather discourage. The penalties are meant to discourage unwanted behavior and the knowledge of the penalty might be effective for Schrödinger in situations where other information wouldn't influence him much. I sadly can't trust everyone to do what's best for the tournament, but the penalty also makes the preferred action what's best for the player individually as well. I think that makes the full explanation better for the tournament and the player than leaving out the penalty.

I suppose outside of the extra talking time I hadn't considered there to be any downside to explaining the relevant rule and penalty to Schrödinger. Is there a reason (outside of time constraints) that I wouldn't want to mention a possible penalty to a player?

There are many players who can interpret an explanation of the ruling as a “if I do this, the judge will give me a game loss”. It is always interesting to educate the player on why he shouldn't do things based on the philosophy rather than in the punishment. After all, if Schrödinger knows that he shouldn't give any advice to a player involved in a match because of the unfairness it can cause and how it can tarnish the game, don't you think it is better than him not doing it simply because if he does, he may get a match loss? In this special case is even more important to explain the whole thing, in my opinion. There are players that, if you explain based on the penalty, will come to the conclusion that “If I meddle in any way in a match, I may get a match loss, so I won't do it”, and will end up not even asking for the players to stop the game and call a judge if he sees something wrong. While we want to stop Outside Assistance, we want to encourage the player to stop the match and call a judge if he sees a problem.

TL;DR: You can use the penalty, but be aware that when you talk about penalties, that's what the player will focus on. No one wants a match loss.

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

The separation here between strategic and play advice seems to suggest that advice on how to play the game (properly resolving the Xenagos ability in this case) is outside assistance.

Is how to legally resolve this ability actually “strategy advice, play advice, or construction advice”? If so, why do we as judges readily provide that information when asked for it by players?

(i.e. if Anna had called over a judge before Shrodinger said anything, and asked that judge “I activated Xenagos's 0 ability, and in response my opponent Downfall'd him. Do I still get the token?”, the judge would surely have answered her question correctly.)

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

Anna has been helped to not commit a GRV

This is a more salient point, but I think has the same problem as above: If Anna actually wants advice on how not to commit a GRV (i.e. how to legally resolve this sequence of events), she is entitled to it - all she need do is call a judge.

In fact, she may have been about to do just that, before Shrodinger spoke up. (I disagree that “looking around” verges on asking for outside assistance. I have seen many confused players at various levels of play who simply did not know to call for a judge, or felt uncomfortable doing so.)

There is no hidden information revealed or real play advice (had a judge been called the game would have resulted in the same situation).

This is the kind of situation we want to discourage, vigilante justice doesn't benefit anyone. However, I believe the proper course of action is to verbally caution the spectator. No infraction for either of the players.

I guess where I get uncomfortable is that Schrödinger seems to have provided ‘play advice’.

Without his input Anna would have either:
> Correctly resolved the ability
> Called a judge to get advice on the correct way to resolve the ability
> Moved on to another action and confirmed the Xenagos ability hadn't resolved correctly

Now we'll never know how this would have resolved as Schrödinger has helped this resolve correctly.

Most people seem to be okay with this comment from a spectator because it ‘was what a judge would have said if asked’ - consider this situation:

Player A casts Spell X
Player B casts Dissolve
Player A casts Cancel and it resolves and is placed in the graveyard
Player B puts his hand on top of his library, pauses to think, seems uncertain and looks around
Spectator says: “You don't get to scy - the Dissolve didn't resolve”

A judge might give this answer to a theoretical question Player B might have asked, but I think this is OA too.