Halfway during game 2 a player draws a card belonging to his opponent. Both players receive a game loss, causing simultaneous Game Loss penalties which don't affect the match score - meaning they start game 2 all over again.
My question is would you give them a time extension, and if so how much (considering at that point it's impossible to know how long the original game 2 took)?
It doesn't say anything about giving them time extension in the IPG, but I get the impression that the philosophy is to give players extensions in similar situations when the infarction involves “wasted time” (Tardiness, Slow play).

In the cases of Tardiness and Slow Play, one player has used time in the match at the expense of the other player, hence the extension to ensure each player has the same match time to try and win. If both players receive off-setting penalties, no extension is needed, as they both were involved in that “wasted” time. For what it's worth, I don't think it was wasted time, and they aren't playing another game 2 here. They both got a GL, and now move to game 3.

In this situation, I would issue each player a DDLP-GL causing this game to
end, fix the decks, and move to game 3 explaining that if they finish game
3 there could potentially be a game 4. As for Time Extensions, I would give
them a time extension equal to the amount of time it took to investigate
and fix the issue and possibly an additional 3 minutes if we need to check
the rest of the deck. Since we are intervening and taking time away from
the match we need to make sure that the players get that time back but the
time lost playing a game with incorrect decks is squarely on the players.

For reference on Time Extensions, MTR 2.6 “If a judge pauses a match for
more than one minute while the round clock is running, he or she should
extend the match time appropriately. If the match was interrupted to
perform a deck check, players are awarded time equal to the time the deck
check took plus three minutes.”

Edited John Temple (Nov. 19, 2015 03:37:39 AM)

Originally posted by Nicholas Zitomer:

For what it's worth, I don't think it was wasted time, and they aren't playing another game 2 here. They both got a GL, and now move to game 3.

Honestly, in this exact case i think it's hair-splitting. Whether you call the new game to be played “game 2” or “game 3”:
- if 1-0 player wins, that's a 2-0
- if 0-1 player wins, that's a 1-1, and players start another game
- if time ends, that's a 1-0-1

Am I missing something?
Nicholas, suppose the error is discovered in game 3, what would you do?

(I am on the “game2” side, anyway)

Edited Francesco Scialpi (Nov. 19, 2015 03:15:13 PM)

I agree that we are splitting hairs here. The actual number of the game in the match is mostly irrelevant. If the error is found in game 3, we have the same issue as if it's found in game 1 or 2.

My point about the “wasted” time was really just meant to say that they are still responsible for that time, and it doesn't warrant an extension based on time spent playing that game. Of course, as John points out, any time for the judge call and issuing of penalties should be granted as an extension as that part isn't on the players, but any time they spent playing their match, even if that game ends up being not relevant to the final score, is not to be considered for extension purposes.

If this happened in game 3, well, that game ends as they both get the GL, then they play another game. It seems likely that they won't have time to finish that game, and the match would result in a draw. That said, I think we are going into a tangent of a tangent at this point :)

At Regular REL, I'd consider just shuffling the card into the random portion of the correct deck, and have them keep playing - but that'd be a huge deviation at Comp REL.

So, in this case, it's D/DLP and a Game Loss for each player, we end the game, have them correct their decks, and begin game 2 over again - the GL penalties offset and don't count towards the match total.

And since the wounds are self-inflicted, I will only give them a couple extra minutes - i.e., the time I spend resolving the problem. Time extensions are intended to compensate for not being able to play while dealing with staff - rulings, deck checks, even moving them to a dry table after a spill.

d:^D

I'm curious why this wouldn't be a GPE - DEC? According to the IPG, one way to draw extra cards is if the player:

- Puts one or more cards into his or her hand illegally.

This seems to fit since you can't legally put a card from your opponents deck into your hand. The only part of D/DLP where it seems to fit is having an illegal number of cards in the deck atm, which may or may not be true depending how the players choose to sideboard.

Originally posted by Cris Plyler:

I'm curious why this wouldn't be a GPE - DEC? According to the IPG, one way to draw extra cards is if the player:

- Puts one or more cards into his or her hand illegally.

This seems to fit since you can't legally put a card from your opponents deck into your hand. The only part of D/DLP where it seems to fit is having an illegal number of cards in the deck atm, which may or may not be true depending how the players choose to sideboard.

You read the situation like I did initially that the card was drawn from the opponents library. But what has happened is that the card is in the players deck, for example it was under an Oblivion Ring type card and shuffled in after the previous game

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

You read the situation like I did initially that the card was drawn from the opponents library. But what has happened is that the card is in the players deck, for example it was under an Oblivion Ring type card and shuffled in after the previous game

Ah, in that case I would agree with the DDLP if it was already in the players library since that meant they both presented illegal decks. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by Gareth Tanner:

You read the situation like I did initially that the card was drawn from the opponents library. But what has happened is that the card is in the players deck

Yes. Sorry for the ambiguity… It sounded more straightforward in my head.
Thanks for the input about the philosophy.