When the IPG talks about “advice” on making “the correct play”, it means something along the lines of “you need to block there and there to not lose”, not “that block is illegal because the attacker has flying”. The former is input on playing well, and the latter is input on following the rules of the game. Schrödinger didn't offer any play advice to Anna, he just overstepped his bounds as a spectator noticing a rules-related problem in a game. No infraction, but we need to explain to Schrödinger that he has to notify the Judge team about situations like this and let them handle it (and record it).

Originally posted by Marc Shotter:

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 scry - the Dissolve didn't resolve”

Again, the Spectator's comment doesn't have anything to do with good plays or strategies. It's a statement of fact regarding the rules of the game. The Spectator shouldn't have said anything, but the response isn't OA.

Originally posted by Michael Shiver:

When the IPG talks about “advice” on making “the correct play”, it means something along the lines of “you need to block there and there to not lose”, not “that block is illegal because the attacker has flying”.

The part about advice on correct plays is within a specific example of OA, elsewhere it refers to ‘Play advice’ without context around ‘correct’ decisions. Additionally the philosophy on OA separates “Strategic” (block there or you'll die), “Play” (you can't block there) and “Construction” (make sure you have creatures that can block) advice but includes them all.

Originally posted by Michael Shiver:

Again, the Spectator's comment doesn't have anything to do with good plays or strategies. It's a statement of fact regarding the rules of the game. The Spectator shouldn't have said anything, but the response isn't OA.

Given that he didn't commit an infraction I'm not sure how we can say he ‘shouldn’t have said anything' (or give him the stern chat that others seem to have suggested). As judges are not meant to step in to prevent an infraction (from the IPG General Philosophy) or to clarify rules unless asked, I'm not sure why we'd allow spectators to do so.

Posting on behalf of Maria Zuyeva, who is currently on a very long flight! :)

******

Hello everyone, and thanks for participating in this week's scenario!

To start with the answer, this is not Outside Assistance. Even though it may look like Outside Assistance, and spectators should not intervene in a match (unless they want to stop them to call a judge), we don't issue a Match Loss here. The definition of Outside Assistance specifically says: “play advice”, and providing comprehensive rules information is not play advice. Otherwise, judges would be giving play advice all the time, but we don't.

You should talk to the spectator and explain why his behavior is not appropriate, with an instruction not to repeat it. While this particular behavior doesn't have an infraction associated with it, it is still prohibited by the Magic Tournament Rules, which require spectators to be silent observers in a match.

Sometimes players won't realize the difference between pointing out rules interactions vs. a strategic mistake, and could get themselves in trouble in a different circumstance. Pointing out missed triggers is also considered to be Outside Assistance because of their nature (opponents don't have to point them out, and remembering one's own triggers is considered a skill).

Explain to spectators that a match is between two players, and if they see a mistake, they should call a judge (and may ask the players to pause at Competitive REL). Instruct the players to continue playing with the token on the battlefield, and don't issue the players any infractions because no Game Play Error has been committed.