After reading the discussions previously happened in this forum, I’m quite clear about the border of GRV and DEC in most cases, the difference of which is whether there is Game Error happened before the player put the card into his hand.

For example, a player activated and resolved the second ability of Sensei's Divining Top in response to Krosan Grip targeting it. The result of putting the extra card into his hand is based on the player actives the ability illegally.

If I’m correct, the philosophy behind this rule is that we think it is common for players to make game rule errors and at that circumstance his opponent has the opportunity to stop the player from committing such mistakes. But for real “Draw Extra Cards”, that player’s opponent would have a slight chance to stop that player or even unawares of such infractions. That’s the reason why IPG punishes DEC more severely than GRV.

But, how about drawing extra cards during the resolve of a spell or a ability? This may even present like putting a card in the wrong zone, which is the player’s hand. Let’s just see several examples. All the following examples are unintentional and by mistake.

1. A player draws 4 cards after casting Ancestral Recall. (Which is the example given by IPG)
2. A player casts a spell and his opponent casts Memory Lapse in respond. That player mistake it for Remand and gets the spell back to his hand other than put it on top of the library.
3. A player casts Enlightened Tutor at the end of his opponent’s turn. He searches for an artifact card, reveals it and put the card in his hand.
4. A player casts Enlightened Tutor at the end of his opponent’s turn, but the player doesn’t reveal the card and put it in his hand.
5. A player casts Vampiric Tutor at the end of his opponent’s turn. He searches for a card and put the card in his hand.
6. A player casts Sylvan Scrying, searches for a Swamp and put it into the battlefield.
7. A player casts Rampant Growth, searches for a Swamp and put it into his hand.
8. A player casts Plagiarize at his opponent’s upkeep, but his opponent still draws a card in the draw step.


Quoting Scott Marshall’s opinion, “the first indication that something is wrong is when the card is drawn - in effect, the error is drawing the card, and there is no “other” GRV at that time. “

But in the cases above, at the same time the player drawing extra cards, he doesn’t follow the spell or ability instructs him.

It’s quite clear that Question 1 is DEC and leads to a GL. Question 6 is GRV and leads to a warning and backup if possible. How about the others? Is there a clear line between GRV and DEC when resolving a spell, especially when the card could be identified (for example, revealed) and both the penalties and remedies are the same?

My personal opinions to the examples:

1: DEC
2: I would see this as DEC, but downgrade to a warning. The spell was known to all players and can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption. (Corner Case: Morph Spell :D)
3: DEC, Downgrade to Warning. I think this a classic example for the downgrade, because the card was known to all players and can be returned to the correct zone.
4+5: DEC in my opinion.
6: GRV - because he hasn't put a extra card in his hand, so DEC doesn't apply.
7: DEC with downgrade
8: DEC.

For me, “fail to follow the instructions of a spell” is not a GRV. Is a violation of the Gamerules and a Game Play Error. Which concrete Game Play Error depends how the player screwed up. And if it is screwing up by putting a card in his hand that doesn't belong there it is DEC.

I think it's quite interesting especially for Question 4 and 5, because the situation also meet “Fail to Reveal” of the old version of IPG(Absorbed in GRV now), and either you quote GRV or DEC, the penaly will be a Game Loss.

Originally posted by Martin Koehler:

My personal opinions to the examples:

1: DEC
2: I would see this as DEC, but downgrade to a warning. The spell was known to all players and can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption. (Corner Case: Morph Spell :D)
3: DEC, Downgrade to Warning. I think this a classic example for the downgrade, because the card was known to all players and can be returned to the correct zone.
4+5: DEC in my opinion.
6: GRV - because he hasn't put a extra card in his hand, so DEC doesn't apply.
7: DEC with downgrade
8: DEC.

For me, “fail to follow the instructions of a spell” is not a GRV. Is a violation of the Gamerules and a Game Play Error. Which concrete Game Play Error depends how the player screwed up. And if it is screwing up by putting a card in his hand that doesn't belong there it is DEC.

On Wed May 15 09:34, Martin Koehler wrote:
> 4+5: DEC in my opinion.
>
> For me, “fail to follow the instructions of a spell” is not a GRV. Is a violation of the Gamerules and a Game Play Error. Which concrete Game Play Error depends how the player screwed up. And if it is screwing up by putting a card in his hand that doesn't belong there it is DEC.

Isn't Enlightened Tutor to hand without a reveal a GRV with upgrade (nee Failure to Reveal) and Vampiric Tutor straight to hand just OOOS / a shortcut (assuming they don't also draw for the turn)? (ditto ET with a reveal straight to hand)

Matt

What if a player does your Vampiric OoOS at my EoT and I have Thought Scour in hand, which I would like to play to ‘counter’ his Vamp Tutor? Rewinding this by the book (take a random card from his hand, put it on top) clearly does not solve this, so I would consider this a substantial advantage to be gained by OoOSing the Vamp Tutor, which shouldn't happen…

I therefor agree with Martin on 5 and would give DEC (This also does not meet ‘Failiure to reveal), since there was nothing to be revealed).
For 4, GRV upgrade would be the correct way to go, because the ’failiure to reveal'-infraction happened prior to the ‘put a card into your hand that doesn’t belong there'-infraction.

So let's make a model for this discussion.
A spell or a ability has two parts, A + B.

If a player does A + B + C, which C is the reason to make him has one extra card. Then this is a DEC.
For example, draw 3 cards but draw 4 cards accidentally.

If a player does A + C, which missing B but conducting C is the reason to make him has one extra card. Then it's still a DEC.
For example, A is serching for a card, B is put that card on the top of library, C is accidentally put it in the hand.

If a player does A, which missing B causes him to have one extra card. GRV or DEC?
For example, A is draw two cards, B is discard a card. The player didn't discard a card, then GRV or DEC?
Then extend this question, if discard a card is a cost of the spell or ablility? According the previous discussion, does it turn to be GRV?

To extrapolate a little more, most Game Play Error - Drawing Extra Cards infractions are due to people not following game rules properly. People don't just put extra cards in their hand for no reason, they often misplay a card or an ability. So there is often something else involved in the infraction.

Keep in mind that Game Play Error - Game Rules Violation is the “catch-all” infraction for Game Play Errors that doesn't fall into any other category. I understand that some judges, advert to giving Game Losses, try to first push for GPE-GRV instead, but that's actually the opposite: we first try to see it the infraction fits GPE-DEC, and if not (and none if the other infractions), we move to GPE-GRV, its penalty and its fix.

Also, the documents for GPE-DEC says:

A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

We don't look if another GPE or CPV was committed (again, this is usually the case). We look if another GPE or CPV was committed before the card was drawn. If at this point, everything was legal, it's a GPE-DEC.

It's quite clear for putting a card into the hand, but how about not to discard a card? This cause the player having one more card? Putting that card into his hand is legal, and he knows exactly why he has one more card.

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

To extrapolate a little more, most Game Play Error - Drawing Extra Cards infractions are due to people not following game rules properly. People don't just put extra cards in their hand for no reason, they often misplay a card or an ability. So there is often something else involved in the infraction.

Keep in mind that Game Play Error - Game Rules Violation is the “catch-all” infraction for Game Play Errors that doesn't fall into any other category. I understand that some judges, advert to giving Game Losses, try to first push for GPE-GRV instead, but that's actually the opposite: we first try to see it the infraction fits GPE-DEC, and if not (and none if the other infractions), we move to GPE-GRV, its penalty and its fix.

Also, the documents for GPE-DEC says:

A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

We don't look if another GPE or CPV was committed (again, this is usually the case). We look if another GPE or CPV was committed before the card was drawn. If at this point, everything was legal, it's a GPE-DEC.

What fits into this discussion is right now in limited Blast of Genius. What should you do as a judge when the player forgets to choose a target before drawing, especially to fix this situation in a competitive event? Since drawing first gives him a significant advantage by being able to choose the target according to the amount of dmg the spell would deal.



Blast of Genius

Types:
Sorcery
Card Text:
Choose target creature or player. Draw three cards, then discard a card. Blast of Genius deals damage equal to the discarded card's converted mana cost to that creature or player.

Edited Christian Genz (May 18, 2013 10:45:16 AM)

Originally posted by Haitao Jia:

It's quite clear for putting a card into the hand, but how about not to discard a card? This cause the player having one more card? Putting that card into his hand is legal, and he knows exactly why he has one more card.

That's just GRV. See the Brainstorm example in that category. It's also one of the exceptions that always should be fixed, even if it's partial:

• If a player forgot to discard or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player does so
  

Edited Toby Hazes (May 18, 2013 01:09:27 PM)

The reason why we seperate GRV and DEC is that the latter infraction is more likely to be overlooked by opponents, quoted from IPG. When resolving a spell or ability, usually both players would put an eye on how it resolves. If A player forgot to discard a card, while B player misread the oracle and put the card which should be put on the top of the library into his hand. Both of the examples will cause the player has one extra card in hand which his opponent has no idea what it is, but the first one would be a warning and return a card to the graveyard, the second one would be a game loss. I'm just wondering why making mistakes when resolving a spell or ability would cause this huge difference.

So back to IPG, do you really think making mistakes when resolving spells and ablities which causes you have one more card has a high possibility to be overlooked by your opponents and should be punished more severe?

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Haitao Jia
It's quite clear for putting a card into the hand, but how about not to discard a card? This cause the player having one more card? Putting that card into his hand is legal, and he knows exactly why he has one more card.

That's just GRV. See the Brainstorm example in that category. It's also one of the exceptions that always should be fixed, even if it's partial:

• If a player forgot to discard or return cards from their hand to another zone, that player does so
  

Regarding the Blast of Genius question, the basics are the same as with any targeted spell. The genius gets a GRV for not choosing a target. Ask what happened, but typically the opponent should get a Failure to Maintain for not asking what the target was before passing priority. Here, due to the potential for abuse, I'd ask more questions, like how was Blast handled earlier if at all, to check for potential Cheating.

As for fixing/rewinding the game… assuming that nothing complicated happened in response to the Blast, you can rewind to the point where targets should have been declared, putting the cards back, as discussed under Additional Remedy for GRV. While you would normally put cards back on top of the library, since that clearly affects the targeting decision, I would shuffle the cards in, keeping in mind any known portions of the deck. While this provides some potential for abuse by a player sandbagging lands or something, it's better than allowing them to ignore targets that won't be killed given the cards coming up.

If the genius knew what all 3 cards were before drawing any, due to Index or something, then don't shuffle the cards back in - the player had full knowledge when picking targets, no reason to change that. You can skip the physical rewind unless the opponent is trying to do something in response. Given that the Blast has already started to resolve, I'd still give out warnings as appropriate.

If the genius has a “play with top card revealed” suck as Melek in play, then typically players would have only known that card. So when rewinding, that card should go back on top, but cards should otherwise be shuffled back in. Note that the opponent will have seen the other 2 cards when drawing them.

Originally posted by Tom Wyliehart:

While you would normally put cards back on top of the library, since that clearly affects the targeting decision, I would shuffle the cards in, keeping in mind any known portions of the deck.

This is a GIGANTIC deviation from the fix for this situation given in the IPG. Also, the potential to shuffle away cards that were already in his hand and he might have been planning around is too great to justify shuffling anything away like that. Yes, the player who cast Blast of Genius made a mistake, but it's not such a huge mistake that we should be completely blowing up his game plan over it.

Also, our fixes aren't there to be altered because of the current game situation. Remember this section of the IPG:

IPG
These procedures do not, and should not, take into account the game being played, the current situation that the game is in, or who will benefit strategically from the procedure associated with the penalty. While it is tempting to try to “fix” game situations, the danger of missing a subtle detail or showing favoritism to a player (even unintentionally) makes it a bad idea.

Edited Casey Brefka (May 20, 2013 08:24:08 PM)

So just to be clear Casey. You suggest issuing a GRV and allowing the player to essentially retroactively choose a target knowing what he's about to draw? I've seen this situation come up repeatedly at Regular REL. I expect I'll encounter it at competitive sometime. I'd like to be sure of the proper way to deal with it in either circumstance.

Either way, obviously note the infraction and keep an eye out for the same player doing it again, etc, etc…

Casey's point is valid. While Tom's suggestion might seem more “fair” in some aspects, it's a major deviation from the appropriate fix and there are no circumstances that warrant that deviation.