At a PPTQ earlier this year, a spectator and I were watching a match between Andy and Neil. Neil controlled at least two Enchantments, one of which was a detrimental Aura on one of Andy's Creatures. Andy cast Dromoka's Command selecting modes two and three. Neil removed the Aura from the battlefield and was about to put it into his graveyard, when he noticed he controlled another aura that he was more willing to sacrifice. He was still holding the Aura and looked up at me, asking if he could change his mind. I agreed he could change his decision, but the spectator popped in and said he couldn't. I grabbed the Head Judge, went over the situation, and he said that Neil had to go through with his original decision.

I want to learn from this experience, but I still haven't had peace about the call that day. If I were at a high-level tournament, and had partially made a decision, realized my mistake, and wanted to change, I would like that chance. I know our MTR and IPG aren't based on chess, but to me it's like he was still holding on to his piece before he made his move. Or, it's like tapping creatures trying to figure out which ones I should actually declare as attackers before I announce which creatures I control are actually attacking.

In the Andy/Neil game, I don't believe that Neil was watching Andy's face or trying to read any information from him. The Head Judge and I have already e-mailed each other about this situation. But I wanted to know what you judges think of this situation? He gave me permission to re-post this for other judges to review.

For me, the dividing line is if I believe there was an opportunity for Neil to gain any information from Andy's reaction to his choice.

Originally posted by Roger Dunn:

I don't believe that Neil was watching Andy's face or trying to read any information from him

If that's my conclusion, and if the “oops, wait” moment happens right away, then I'm OK with letting him make the choice he wants.

There's some unfortunate aspects to that stance - all Andy has to do is mutter “yesss!” when Neil picks up the “wrong” Aura, and I'd rule that Neil was locked into a bad(?) choice.

I do not support a general “still has his hand on it” guideline. You could put a spell on the table, tap a couple lands, get a reaction from the opponent, and try to take it all back - your fingers are still touching the spell and the lands! - based on what you just read from that reaction.

I do agree that, until you finish arranging your attackers or blockers and indicate your commitment to that set of attacks/blocks, you can stop, think, re-arrange, etc. In a situation like that, the opponent needs to be careful to not react and give away information too soon.

d:^D

I have some thoughts on this, but I'm by no means authoritative, and can easily be wrong.

I'd consider the card leaving the table to be a decision being made, personally, just as I'd consider a spell to be announced as soon as it left the hand, and I'd consider a card drawn when it touches cards in the hand.

To me, physical contact with a zone seems as if it should be a hard line, merely because there should be one.

Allowing people to functionally change decisions is rewarding sloppy play, which strikes me as being backwards at competitive. Unfortunately, while this seems entirely correct, I'm having a very hard time sourcing it, aside from the Drawing cards thing, so I'd love input from one of the elders.

Edit, oopsie, we seem to have gotten an answer from one of those same elders before I finished this. As someone who's much better at the hard lines than the gray area, could we possibly get a “You'll never go wrong with…” answer?

While sometimes the gray area is just a fact, sometimes it's impossible to determine where an action fell, and the “default” answer sometimes has to suffice.

I operate best within clear, defined rules of engagement.

Edited Josiah O'Neal (July 9, 2015 01:12:15 PM)

Another reason why I don't like the ‘still touching it’ guideline is that it will inevitably lead to players trying to game the system and more-or-less play Twister with their hands, struggling to keep their window for a takeback open as long as possible. That sounds like a nightmare to me, as hilarious as it could be to watch…

Judging from your observation that Neil didn't appear to be trying to lure a response from Andy, I'd probably let Neil make a different choice as well.

Yes, in this particular case, no card was changing zones (including the stack), and the status of permanents wasn't changing. See, I was facing Neal, not Andy, at the time this occurred. I saw Neil scan the center of the board, where his Aura was, then reach for it and proceed to put it in the graveyard. He then scanned the battlefield closer to his own seat and saw the less advantaged Enchantment sitting there. His eyes didn't glance at his opponent; they were scanning the battlefield.

Now, I wouldn't have changed my mind had the spectator not been there. Although I'm not a Level 2, I've read the IPG several times and couldn't think of anywhere where this issue was addressed. Also weird is the fact that I appealed my own ruling; the opponent didn't. It was the comment of the spectator that made me question myself. Had I been there alone, I probably would have allowed Neil to choose a different permanent, but I knew the Head Judge was in charge.

As far as my “still touching” guidelines, I would use them when policy doesn't give me a direct solution to a situation; I wouldn't override policy. But the MTR does say that a certain amount of bluffing OK, and gives guidelines. Under Communication, “Officials and highly competitive players should understand the line between bluffing and fraud.” And under OOOS, we read, “Players may not try to use opponents' reactions to some portion of an out-of-order sequence to see if he or she should modify actions or try to take additional ones.” The situation I witnessed wasn't an OOOS one. In fact, Andy hadn't even done mode 3 yet.

After reading your posts, I can see how the “still touching” issue can be taken too far. Alison taps all nine of her lands before putting a spell card on the stack. Immediately Nellie taps two Islands with her fingers still on them. Alison now believes her large X spell will be countered, untaps her lands, and waits for a better opportunity, whether or not Nellie actually had a counterspell. This kind of bluffing should not be allowed in any tournament.

The way I see it, if you could look at the game state and say a particular effect has finished resolving, then definitely no choices should be changed. So for example, a player cracks a fetchland and drops a basic land on the table. Then they pick it back up and look through for a different land. A player can reveal hidden information they are entitled to see, so they have not done anything wrong, nor is showing that land pricing them into making that their final selection.

I do think there is merit to the idea that one cannot “test” a choice to gauge the opponent's reaction before settling on something, but there are plenty of ways to do this already where it is not reasonable for us to force them into a choice. In the original scenario, what if the player had picked up one of their Auras and looked at it, then looked at the opponent? Nothing the player has done has indicated that they are choosing that Aura. They can look at cards that are in play. Yet, the opponent could show a reaction here, and it is not reasonable to force the player to choose to sacrifice the Aura they picked up.

Once the Aura is in the graveyard, they have completed the action of sacrificing it. This may be the point where it is often reasonable to say the hand is off the chess piece, though technically Dromoka's Command is not finished resolving at that time.

Edited Jacob Milicic (July 9, 2015 02:47:02 PM)

Oracle Text:
As the spell resolves, follow the instructions of the modes you chose in the order they are printed on the card.

Mode 2: Opponent Sacrifices an Enchantment.
701.14a
To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard.

I understand this, that a the “act” to sacrifice a permanent is not by touching or announcing it but by “moving it to the graveyard”. A change of mind should be possible. I see no window of opportunity to acrobatically trick the opponent into something until:

Mode 3: put a +1/+1 counter on a creature

is performed by AP- So unless Pacifism (or likewise) was on a creature and AP removes the Pacifism and NAP puts a +1/+1 counter on that previously enchanted creature the change of mind “should be within the rules” (not just the chess rules).

“this is my ruling” - if AP doesn't appeal everything is fine and according to your case he didn't mind. A self-appeal seems strange to me - but as others mentioned in this thread before. My comments and the reactions to it are a learning experience.