This question came up while looking through the threads in the MTG Judge Study Group on Facebook:

Competitive REL
After combat, player A casts Thragtusk and after it resolves proceeds to play a land for his turn and then write down a life total change for gaining 5 life. Is at this moment that his opponent steps in and points out that he can't gain life since he aleady passed the point at which his trigger would have resolved by playing a land, and thus missing his trigger. They proceed to call a judge.

Now according to the study group this was ruled to be an Out of Order Sequencing (OoOS) and therefore no infraction and no penalty should be issued. However when I asked about if this ruling would be any different if this scenario were to happen at Professional REL they said it would be still the same.

So my question is since the Philosophy of Professional REL is to uphold players to a higher standard and technically correct play, why would OoOS be applicable even at Professional REL? since the definition of OoOS is to perform actions that are technically incorrect but arrive at the same game state.

So if the scenario above would be still ruled as OoOS rather than Missed Trigger at Professional REL. Could anyone provide examples of scenarios where the Philosophy behind Professional REL would be applicable and usually doesn't in Competitive REL?

Edited Jose Luis Arrieta (Feb. 28, 2013 05:46:56 PM)

There was a time when IT wouldn't be ruled OoOS at Professional REL, but it
sucked. I think it only took one feature match where someone, possibly
Patrick Chapin, unearthed a creature, attacked with it, then put it in the
graveyard, for his opponent to claim that he must have passed the turn, and
that was upheld.

The rule changed back pretty soon after that incident.

Remember there are very few tournaments held at Professional REL. There
are differences between how players are treated at the Pro Tour versus a GP
for instance. However, I don't think these are spelled out in the IPG,
perhaps because they come up infrequently enough to never really be made
into a flat out policy.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk