The French and English versions seem swapped on the blogpost

Given the OP only states ‘after combat’ - in my head I'm assuming:
AP:'combat'
NAP: ‘in beginning of combat bolt your goyf’
and then nothing happening.

That being the case I'd perform a back up (with HJ permission). The only lines of play being adjusted here are ones key to error - the goyf did not attack because it had died - and those are lines of play be okay adjusting, additionally very little information has leaked.

This being a modern event though, the combat step could have involved multiple attackers, complex blocks, spells being cast, counter battles, cards being drawn, scrying, libraries being shuffled, fetches being cracked, discard effects etc. etc. - start factoring those in and there's no way I'd back up!

Seems like a pretty cut and dry backup to when Goyf had 3 damage dealt to it. Issue GRV to Angus and FTMGS to Neil. I wouldn't apply the double GRV because Neil isn't responsible for the illegal action, only for not noticing it. If he had said: “Your goyf is dead,” or, “kill your goyf,” I think there would be an argument for double GRV because that fits under the category of following bad instructions by an opponent.

IPG:GRV
"If the judge believes that both players were responsible for a Game Rule Violation, such as due to the existence of replacement effects or a player taking action based on another players instruction, both players receive a Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation“

What do you guys think? If the player casting bolt had given verbal recognition of goyf being ”dead", would that warrant a double GRV?

Originally posted by Jon Munck:

Seems like a pretty cut and dry backup to when Goyf had 3 damage dealt to it. Issue GRV to Angus and FTMGS to Neil. I wouldn't apply the double GRV because Neil isn't responsible for the illegal action, only for not noticing it. If he had said: “Your goyf is dead,” or, “kill your goyf,” I think there would be an argument for double GRV because that fits under the category of following bad instructions by an opponent.

IPG:GRV
"If the judge believes that both players were responsible for a Game Rule Violation, such as due to the existence of replacement effects or a player taking action based on another players instruction, both players receive a Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation“

What do you guys think? If the player casting bolt had given verbal recognition of goyf being ”dead", would that warrant a double GRV?

I think you very neatly nailed this on the head Jon.

Good job judges! As you have answered, Angus has committed GPE-GRV and Neil GPE-FTMGS, they will both receive a Warning. Now lets focus on the solution which is why we prepared this scenario.

This scenario was designed to test your knowledge on the update of one GPE-GRV partial fixes which is quoted below.

If an object is in an incorrect zone either due to a required zone change being missed or due to being put into the wrong zone during a zone change, the identity of the object was known to all players, and it can be moved with only minor disruption to the state of the game, put the object in the correct zone.

Although this partial fix has been modified, it still does NOT apply for this scenario. Tarmogoyf was not expected to move from the battlefield but it was placed in the graveyard. So, it's an object that didn't have to move that was moved. This situation does not meet the criteria for the partial fix to apply.

Once we have discarded partial fixes, we must decide wether to backup or not, asking permission to the Head Judge of the tournament. When no partial fixes apply, we must use our judgement to decide if a backup should be performed. Remember that backups are a last resort solution as we can find in IPG 1.4 section.

Due to the amount of information that may become available to players and might affect their play, backups are regarded as a solution of last resort, only applied in situations where leaving the game in the current state is a substantially worse solution. A good backup will result in a situation where the gained information makes no difference and the line of play remains the same (excepting the error, which has been fixed). This means limiting backups to situations with minimal decision trees.

Thanks for participating and stay tuned for our next scenario!

Please note, David Larrea's post IS the conclusion. With Knowledge Pool, the contributor who creates the scenario is usually the one who posts the scenario, and the conclusion. Even if you aren't familiar with David, please recognize him as the author, and thus his conclusion is ‘O’fficial.

d:^D

I missed the second page - no offense meant. I was looking for his post (or another Moderator's) to close the case out.

Charles