So i was judging a GPT today and in the final round of swiss, the player at the top of the standings calls me over, after G1 is over.
He informs me that he has identified a couple cards that, while he never drew/saw in the game, were from his sideboard, and were in his deck in g1.

He deomnstrates awareness and shows these were not cards for the matchup he was playing against now, so I was confident that he was not cheating, and he was not hiding the information, so no DQ thankfully.

I looked in the IPG, and didnt see anything specific for this situation, certainly not in terms downgrades.

I issued a game loss, but then contacted my local L2.
He advised me that since it was between games, the player could sideboard, and we could not have any evidence showing the mistake.

Thankfully the penalty did not affect the outcome of the match, and after the round I explained to the player what shuld have happened. (Nothing, except a caution tk be more careful)

My point here is that I can't be the only L1 to have made this mistake, is there a reason why the IPG doesn't mention this?

This is the line in the infraction that fits the issue you are describing:

Originally posted by IPG 3.5:

The contents of the presented deck and sideboard do not match the decklist registered.

To break this down in order for this line to make sense we have to be within the context of a game, because we have to have a presented deck. If we are not within the context of a game then there is no “presented deck” that we can check the contents of against the list. While sideboarding the players have not presented their decks, while shuffling between games the players have not presented their decks. When drawing a hand, the player has presented his deck (because the opponent has to shuffle before they draw a hand).

I hope this information helps you better understand this infraction. Thanks!

Edited Nicola DiPasquale (April 17, 2016 06:28:06 PM)

I understand now why theres no penalty, but this is something that could easily come up, and with no other judges around to confirm, could easily have a big effect on a tournament.

“If a deck problem (e.g. didn't de-sideboard) is discovered after the completion of a game, there is no penalty, as the incorrect state cannot be confirmed.”

This can likely be tidied up a bit, but a single line culd make a difference.

I believe the situation is simpler than that. You have to have a game to have a presented deck. If you do not have a game, then you have nothing to check against the contents of the list, since you do not have a presented deck. There infact is no “deck problem” because you are not within the context of a game and have no presented deck.

As devil's advocate: there WAS a presented deck during game 1, and it was illegal at that time. Most other infractions can be issued retroactively (for example, GRVs may be pointed out several turns later), even though we have no direct evidence at the time the judge is called that those infractions took place. Why is the policy different for D/DLP?

The IPG can't mention every situation where a penalty should not be given. Almost every situation falls under that. The IPG lists when penalties should be given, and anything else does not incur a penalty. There are numerous “mistakes” which have no associated penalty, like this one, or most violations of the MTR. If no penalty is listed for the infraction, no penalty is given, even if it was a violation of some rule.

In this case, the deck was legal at the time it was brought to your attention. It may have been illegal during game 1, but we don't know that for sure and we can't go back in time.

Edited Isaac King (April 17, 2016 09:08:41 PM)

Well said Isaac.

I think telling the player we don't know for sure there was a problem when they are basically telling you there was a problem and if you check the deck it probably does show there was a problem. Either we are telling the player “I don't believe you” or that you don't want to believe them.

Realistically what we mean is - we don't want to change the result of the game just played, and really that's what we've been educated by the judge program for a long time - don't change a result of a just played game/match unless you are DQing someone that played in that game/match. If we've investigated and are confident it wasn't deliberate then why don't we tell the players this -

“Thank you for your honesty, but we are unable to change the result of that game, please be more careful in future because if this had been caught during the game it would have resulted in a game loss for you. Please make sure you do call us if you do notice during a game.”

Originally posted by Isaac King:

The IPG can't mention every situation where a penalty should not be given.

Agreed, but that's not the point which I believe is being made here. In the IPG, some situations are clarified with examples, and there are situations specified where an error does not apply. Some quotes to illustrate this:

“A player is not considered to have looked at extra cards when he or she places a card face down
on the table (without looking at the card) in an effort to count out cards.”

“This infraction does not apply to simple dexterity errors”

“Be careful not to apply this infraction in situations where…”

I think that this particular situation is sufficiently unclear and that an additional clarification would help. Players receiving game losses incorrectly is fairly impactful on the tournament and could seriously ruin someone's day.

Granted, more experienced judges will probably know this, but it's currently only loosely implied in the documentation.

While I feel there is more than a loose implication under current policy, this is certainly one of the more common errors among new judges because it requires an unusually close and technical reading to get right. There may be a comprehension barrier here worth resolving.

“An illegal decklist may result in an infraction at any time. A deck must be in its legal configuration between the time it is presented to the opponent and the end of the game. If a deck is first discovered to be in an illegal configuration outside of this time, do not issue an infraction.”

I think this can really be simplified a lot more than what I've read, so far.

At the moment the player tells you what happened, is there an infraction? No, because there's no game in progress, so they can even have a Black Lotus in their Shadows Over Innistrad draft deck, and that's not a penalty.

Similarly, if a player approaches me in Round 3 and says “Judge, last round (!) I did this and this, and I'm thinking maybe I screwed that up?” - you educate, correct or confirm their rules knowledge, and thank them for talking to you about it. Maybe even toss in a “be more careful” and/or “please, always call me when you aren't sure!”

During a game, if players tell us about a GRV from several turns ago, we will still record the infraction (if they are both sure about what happened), but - other than a possible partial fix - we'll leave the game as is. As soon as that game is over, the “statute of limitations” runs out for most infractions (Unsporting Conduct, esp. Cheating, lives in a different space/time continuum…)

Hope that helps?

d:^D