Alice plays Natalie at a GPT, the score so far is 1-1. N has 2 life, and Alice casts Mugging targeting Natalie. Players shake hands, pack up their decks and realize that the game and the match ended with an illegal play. They call the judge. How do we procede from here? Let's assume this was not intentional of course. Should we declare GRV and not do a backup, therefore awarding A victory? Would declaring the game a draw be an acceptable deviation?
What about Regular?

I don't see any reason for a deviation. A GRV deciding the last game of a match and therefore the match clearly isn't an exceptional circumstance, as described in the general philosophy. A backup is impossible, since both players packed up their cards.

Keep in mind, that both players messed up! While it's unfortunate, we shouldn't try to fix something, because it “feels more fair”. The players could draw the last game by themselves and play on, but we should not arbitrary “steal” the win from one player.

IMHO, the same thing applies to Regular REL (without the GRV-Penalty of course).

Edited Farid Taoubi (March 11, 2013 02:27:23 PM)

I agree with Farid, the timing isn't that relevant. If players are only just shoving their lands together and the game state can still be reconstructed I might do that, but after everything is shuffled together there's nothing I'm going to do to fix it.
Declaring the game a draw seems like a bad idea for two reasons: First, a deviation is not called for, so why do it? Second, if N was at 2 life already, odds are Alice would have won the game without the mugging as well, so it's not a realistic way of making things ‘how they should have been’.

Once players shake hands and pick up their decks, the game is over. The players have already agreed to an outcome. (Alice wins.) You should not attempt to change this.

You really have two options when it comes to post-game GRVs: You can give out a GRV, (with the accompanying Game Loss assessed at the start of the next game/round) or give the player a stern Caution.

In the case of a first GRV for the day with only minor consequences, caught after the end of the game, I would lean toward a Caution. Especially if the player comes up to me and mentions the problem, I don't want to penalize him or her for having a chat with me. I want players to like me, trust me, and be willing to ask me questions. It makes running tournaments much smoother, and it makes for a much happier local tournament community. Handing out GRVs when people casually ask me questions or tell me they made mistakes is not good for anyone.

However, in the case you described, I would certainly issue the GRV and apply the Game Loss at the start of the next round. Both players noticed, and it potentially makes a big difference in the outcome of the game. This has gone beyond a casual chat. The player has been sloppy all day. Now that sloppiness has had serious consequences for his opponent and the tournament. It should have an equally serious consequence for him.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

However, in the case you described, I would certainly issue the GRV and apply the Game Loss at the start of the next round. Both players noticed, and it potentially makes a big difference in the outcome of the game. This has gone beyond a casual chat. The player has been sloppy all day. Now that sloppiness has had serious consequences for his opponent and the tournament. It should have an equally serious consequence for him.

I'd have a problem with this, since IPG allows for a Warning penalty, and upgrade is possible when N can't verify the errors legality. The information was there for N to see, but she failed to do so. Warning for both at most (GRV Alice, FtMGS Natalie).

I thank you for your fast replies fellow judges!

Wow. My bad. I somehow thought this was GRV #3 for the player, causing an
upgrade by repeated infraction. (I think it was because you mentioned
changing the outcome of the match.)

In your actual scenario, it's just a Warning. Definitely not an upgrade
without prior GRVs. No rewind.

Originally posted by Joshua Feingold:

In your actual scenario, it's just a Warning. Definitely not an upgrade without prior GRVs. No rewind.

Why do we even issue the penalty at all in this case, given that the game has already completed? How is it philosophically different than, say, a D/DLP that occurred in Game 1, which isn't noticed until after the game (which we would not penalize)?

At the time the players get you involved, there is no infraction. There WAS one, they both agree to it - and you should thank them for their honesty, and encourage them to watch out for that next time.

I would not issue a GRV, nor an FtMGS; I would probably explain to them what the infractions would be, and what it means to get those penalties (Warnings), etc. That's all part of player education.

Something like this happened just two days ago at the PTQ I HJed.

Player A needed (in his own mind) to topdeck Pestermite for the win. He did, and was very emotional about it. He cast Pestermite and then put Splintertwin on it, then paused for about three seconds (confirmed by both players) to say that he couldn't believe his luck. He then starts tapping the Pestermite to create copies. However, Pestermite does NOT have haste.

Neither player catches it. This is verified to be the first tournament in which the Pestermite player has played the deck, and also verified that a friend gave him the deck 6 hours before. I am satisfied that he did actually believe that Splinter Twin granted hastes.

As he flicks Pestermite back and forth to “make a million copies”, the defending player scoops. A real scoop. All his permanents and graveyard are together, as his his hand. Also, he looked at the top card of his library (his next draw) and also placed that unknown card into the pile.

After about 15 seconds past the handshake and the scoop, a friend of the defending player tells him that the Pestermite doesn't have haste, and he just now noticed it. Now what? The HJ is satisfied that the incident is NOT cheating.

Do you cancel the concession? Will you backup through the unknown card draw? You can, but should you? Basically, I am asking if the hard concession, including a clear scoop and handshak, ends the game.

Would it matter the conceder has a win on the very next turn?

Tough questions. I chose that the concession stands, but this may well be ruled differently depending on the HJ.

-Eric Shukan
Woburn, MA

A scoop is a scoop. The game is over.

I'd remind the player that lost this game that it's also his responsibility to maintain the game state. His failure to do so in this instance cost him the game.

I'd consider allowing the players to change their match results should the winning player wish to do the gentlemanly thing and concede. However, I wouldn't offer any sort of pressure to do so. Maybe a simple question to the winning player separately saying, “Are these still the match results you'd like to submit?”

I'm not sure asking them “are these still the match results you'd like to submit” is really something I'd say. the player who scoop'd probably will try and convince the winning player to change the result, and then we start treading towards players who may not know the wagering/bribery rules as well as they should, walking right into a DQ.

Edited Jason Clark (March 12, 2013 02:25:37 AM)

I agree Jason. When I said ask the question separately, I meant separately from the other player. You definitely have to make a judgement call as to whether the situation is appropriate.

I've seen this happen twice so far. Once the player who won was obviously very flustered, apologizing profusely. I took him aside while his opponent was distracted and said, “I haven't entered the results yet.” His eyes went wide and he nearly shouted, “I CONCEDE!” Long story short, the offending player felt his conscience was cleared, while the other felt he got his deserved win.

Just two weeks ago at a PTQ here a player came up afterwards and asked a question very similar to the example above. I told him he couldn't use that ability the turn it came into play. He went to confront his last opponent who came to confirm what I'd said. I confirmed it, then did a quick interview until I was confident it was unintentional. The player shrugged and said, “Huh… well s*** happens.” and walked off. I didn't bother with this player other than making sure to keep an eye on him the rest of the day.