Originally posted by Zohar Finkel:

It bothers me that according to the IPG, in this example we need to leave the game state as it is, even if it's clear it shouldn't be in that state.

I think that there is a very common belief that if something went wrong, we need to fix it to avoid one player having an advantage over another. Clearly a player somehow played an extra land, therefore we want to take one away to balance the game. The issue here is that it is not just the AP that messed up. Both players are getting warnings for the rules being violated. However, because we can't backup to the appropriate point of the error, the only fair thing to do is leave the game state as is.

I find it incredibly helpful to remember that the FTMGS isn't just a small tack on warning. It means you made an error and are held responsible for it as well. If NAP objects to not removing an extra land, the warning should serve as a reminder that the state the game is in happened because of his negligence as well. This isn't an example of AP making a mistake. It's an example where both NAP and AP have allowed a mistake to fester for an indeterminable amount of time.

This dual culpability, along with the inability to identify the point of the mistake, means we can't ever return the game state to the “way it should have been” as the extra land may have been used for casting spells, activating abilities, or other actions. Saying the the game state is wrong because of the extra land is incorrect because you may alter the game more significantly by removing it than you would be leaving it there. While we don't have a correct game state, we do have a legal game state. Since we can't backup to the point of the error, we must leave it as is.

As a separate note, card counts are frequently inaccurate and don't manage to take into account everything that has happened. I've gone through a card count about seven turns into the game in which we all agreed there was an unaccounted for card, only to have a player discover their exiled Meandering Towershell on top of his deck box.

Originally posted by Zohar Finkel:

Uncle, we won't do things not supported by policy, but the policy isn't set in stone.
Bottom line this is meant to be a discussion if such an idea could make for a better policy.

I'm a bit disappointed by the fierce, disapproving reactions of some people here. Zohar made it really clear from the start that this is a philosophical discussion, aimed at possibly changing the MIPG/philosophy for the better. We all agree what current policy says about this type of situation, but that's not the point: is this what policy should say? We have way too few of these discussions, and I'm very glad we are having this one now. Please be open minded, and give solid arguments in defense of the current policy.

True story: some 3 years ago, I tried to start a policy discussion with my team (I was L2 back then and was Team Leading Day 2 of a GP, hoping to get my Team Lead Check). My challenging thesis: maybe DEC shouldn't be a Game Loss. I was honed away. I tried bringing it up again, but was told to stop trolling. In my review for that day: “nice that you tried to start discussions, but please come with a more serious topic. Obvious troll is obvious.” Look at how we treat DEC nowadays…
Oh, I didn't have a clue back then, I did not have current policy in mind, I just wanted to challenge some rules that were apparently set in stone and see what could happen from there on. Just be open for discussion, and be kind to people who dare come up with challenging proposals.

That being said, I don't feel much for this change either. DEC/HCE is only discovered after the fact, playing an extra land can and should be noticed immediately. Letting the opponent Thoughseize you instead of a Game Loss seems fair to me, Stone Rain/Boomerang in stead of a Warning does not. In my experience, playing extra lands unnoticed doesn't happen often enough to warrant a special treatment, nor is it much more impactful IMHO than getting to play with a 4/4 flyer that you did not have the (correct) mana for. These are some reasons why I don't think we should change the policy here, but I want to thank Zohar for bringing this up for discussion. It got me thinking about the reason why policy is worded like it is, and that's a valuable thing to cherish. Zohar, thanks, and keep on challenging us!

Thanks Dustin. If this was Facebook I would give you a “like”.
Nevertheless, it seems many people are giving overwhelming valid arguments against the idea, so it's likely either flawed or premature.

One of the biggest problems with trying to introduce new partial fixes is making sure they're not going to cause other issues or create further problems.
There are quite a few “landfall” triggers these days, even ones without the ability word landfall. Would we also have to reverse a trigger that could have or did resolve because of the extra land on the battlefield? What about a transformed Nissa, that had been activated at least once, if removing the “extra” land drops the land count below Nissa's trigger?

The current partial fixes definitely seem like they would cause less of these kind of problems, although I'm sure someone would be able to come up with an example for each simple fix (please don't try, it's not really going to further the discussion).

All valid reasons.

Thanks for bringing up so many examples, helps me understand the rulings much better.

Another thing to think about here is that the more exceptions and special
fixes we add to the IPG or other bits of policy, the harder we make it for
judges around the world to be able to apply that policy fairly and
consistently. The goal isn't to have perfect policy, just to have policy
that's good enough to make the game fair for everyone the vast majority of
the time.

I want to point out that you actually do have latitude to correct certain types of errors here. The object in the wrong zone partial fix may apply if the error was something like putting both lands into play with nissa's pilgrimage. (Note that this is one of the two most likely ways that extra land got there, tied with playing a land in each main phase.)

Investigate thoroughly. Examine your options. Don't invent partial fixes, but also don't assume policy can't do the job until you've tried.

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

But you can count the Ramp spells?

I mean if its turn 5 and there is one Sylvan Ranger in play and the players has 6 lands in Play its clear what happened, isn't it?

I'm not entirely sure it is - they could have played an additional land in turn 4 forgetting they'd already played one. In the OP the situation was that neither player was certain when it happened and there were ramp spells in the graveyard, there just being one ramp spell doesn't mean it was the problem.

But even if we were sure that the Sylvan Ranger was the cause of the problem, unless both players can agree what the extra land was how can you fix?

Giving the opponent the ability to massively disrupt a mana base seems very punitive for such a visible error that could have been caught on turn 2, 3, 4 or even 5 before the land drop.