AP after thinking in the Main Phase says: ‘Cycle. Draw.’ However, NAP hears ‘Cycle. Go.’ so he untaps and draws a card at which point AP calls a judge. My initial ruling (after investigating what happened and why) is HCE-W for NAP for having excess cards in hand. However, for a fix I would like to back up and put a random card on top of the deck. But after thinking about it more, IPG does not allow (or at least I am not able to find it).

What are your thoughts for a fix and why?

You should investigate what was said and done exactly by both player, if any previous pass turn shortcuts had been established etc. Based on what you wrote, I completely agree with the HCE. AP did not make a mistake, there was no GRV, NAP just drew a card without the game letting them draw one. It is a harsh penalty, but it is the one that should be applied here. If the card had not yet touched NAP's hand, then you can and should still rule LEC and shuffle that card back in the deck.

Whatever happened, seems like both players are confused with what just happened. It is reasonable enough to cycle in the main phase ans pass afterward. Just as well as it is understandable to mishear word ‘draw’ with ‘go’. Especially, after a long day

Originally posted by Floris De Baerdemaeker:

If the card had not yet touched NAP's hand, then you can and should still rule LEC and shuffle that card back in the deck.

Yes, it has. For me, it is clearly HCE but I am wondering about the fix. Shuffling random card because of this miscommunication seems unreasonable but leaving on top of the library is not allowed by IPG.

Shouldnt it be GRV + Rewind? The first mistake was untapping, then Drawing.

From what I understand of the situation, I see no reason this should be HCE. The mistake was NAP moving to his turn when he shouldn't have- once that happened, the card draw was perfectly legal. AP had a chance to notice the problem before the card was drawn, when NAP untapped his lands.

IPG:
Be careful not to apply this infraction in situations where a publicly-correctable error subsequently leads to an uncorrectable situation such as a Brainstorm cast using green mana. In these situations, the infraction is based on that root cause.

I'd issue a GRV to NAP and back up the game to AP's main phase.

I stand very much corrected. Of course the untapping lands or starting a turn is the root error. Hence GRV. The back-up would then simply be to put a random card back on top of the library and NOT shuffle. I apologise, I did not pay enough attention and replied too quickly.

Edited Floris De Baerdemaeker (Aug. 30, 2017 03:05:11 AM)

Hi all,

Do you give a GRV to the player having misunderstood or to the player who didn't communicate correctly? Why not both?

The mistake here is not that a player untapped when he shouldn't have. From his point of view, he was in the beginning of his turn and he was doing everything correctly. The mistake was misunderstanding what his opponent was telling him and acting accordingly.

This is a miscommunication between players, it happens and is not covered by the IPG. We rewind up to the point the problem happened and tell them to please communicate better.

Here an article about the subject. It might be a little old and some of the example might not work anymore but the basic concept is still sound.

greets
jeremie

I'm lazy, so I just link the solution of the last KP scenario:
https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/37767/?page=1#post-233622

It's an ability now that's still on the stack, but that shouldn't change the solution right?

This is really not the same thing at all.

In the KP scenario, both player know exactly where they are in the turn structure. There was no verbal miscommunication. They just both forgot an object on the stack.

There's no infraction here, just confusion about which player's turn they're in. As judges we listen to what happened and try to find the last place both players agreed on and rewind to that point, if reasonable. We then stress how important it is for players to be clear when communicating.

I had a scenario once where two players had not actually agreed on the game state for many turns (10+) and had effectively been playing two separate games of Magic. In that scenario the decision was to leave things as they were and both players to move on from there.

Originally posted by Norman Ralph:

There's no infraction here, just confusion about which player's turn they're in. As judges we listen to what happened and try to find the last place both players agreed on and rewind to that point, if reasonable. We then stress how important it is for players to be clear when communicating.

Can we do a back up if there is no infraction? The problem still exists - a player has an excess card in hand, so there must be an infraction.
EDIT: And yes, this is my opinion, not a fact. So, if you can give me reason to believe it otherwise, I will be grateful

Edited Gediminas Usevičius (Aug. 30, 2017 12:36:44 PM)

I have some issues with this not being an infraction. I understand it was born out of a miscommunication, but that should not absolve the players.

Originally posted by Gediminas Usevičius:

Can we do a back up if there is no infraction? The problem still exists - a player has an excess card in hand, so there must be an infraction.
EDIT: And yes, this is my opinion, not a fact. So, if you can give me reason to believe it otherwise, I will be grateful

Not every mistake is an infraction. A lot of things are not allowed but as there is no “TE - Other” and thus they will not warrant a formal infraction (just a “Do not do it again” which allow us to have a defined infraction if he does it again).

The root cause of the mistake is a miscommunication between 2 players. This resulted in permanents being untapped and a card being drawn. Communication problems has not been codified (except pertaining to the type of information given MTR 4.1) and thus, would fall under “Something other than what we have”.

It is important not to reverse engineer a penalty: We would like to backup so we look at the infractions allowing us to do that, pick the one that fits best and go with that…. That's just not okay.

To answer your original question: Yes, you are allowed to backup to the moment both players were in synch with of course the warning to use common sense before doing it and, if at a GP, ask a TL or L3 if that's okay.

Originally posted by Floris De Baerdemaeker:

I have some issues with this not being an infraction. I understand it was born out of a miscommunication, but that should not absolve the players.

You also have to take players from all around the world into account when thinking about rules: What would happen if a German player and a Chinese player where having a match and had to communicate in English (Nationality of the players chosen at random)?

Try to think from the viewpoint of a very competitive player. If this was a Warning, a competitive player would do his utmost to be as ambivalent as possible to create a situation where is opponent makes such a mistake. This would quickly result in upgraded warnings and magic would become a lot less fun.

For my part, I'm really glad it is not a Warning :)

Edited Jeremie Granat (Aug. 30, 2017 01:05:56 PM)

Can I get a confirmation that is an ‘O’ answer?

Edited Gediminas Usevičius (Aug. 30, 2017 01:17:31 PM)

Jeremie, but we absolutely do have an infraction which by definition covers things that are clearly wrong but do not fall into any other category. Beginning your turn early is pretty obviously in this category. While I can sympathize with someone who makes this mistake, there's little doubt here as to who messed up. It's also highly abusable, and as such, it needs to be recorded.