Originally posted by Russell Gray:

we absolutely do have an infraction … and as such, it needs to be recorded.

So, which infraction is that, according to the IPG?

Originally posted by Russell Gray:

It's also highly abusable, and as such, it needs to be recorded.

Remember you don't have to issue an infraction if this is your only reason for doing so. You can log a penalty in the tournament software to record things if they don't match an infraction

Edited Gareth Tanner (Aug. 30, 2017 02:14:33 PM)

Dustin, GPE-GRV covers exactly what we have here - a gameplay error which isn't covered in any other category.
Gareth, that's a good point, but I don't think it's necessary here. If an investigation led me to think that “cycle, go” had been commonly used in their match perhaps, but I would expect any reasonable player to verify such a strange communication before acting on it.

Originally posted by Russell Gray:

Dustin, GPE-GRV covers exactly what we have here - a gameplay error which isn't covered in any other category.

As others have already stated in this discussion, GPE-GRV does not cover this situation. I agree with Norman and Jeremie, and issuing a Warnign for GRV just because you want to have some infraction is a very dangerous idea.

Originally posted by Norman Ralph:

There's no infraction here, just confusion about which player's turn they're in.

Originally posted by Jeremie Granat:

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.

Originally posted by Russell Gray:

GPE-GRV covers exactly what we have here - a gameplay error which isn't covered in any other category.

Definition of GRV (emphasis mine):

This infraction covers the majority of game situations in which a player makes an error or fails to
follow a game procedure correctly. It handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not
covered by the other Game Play Errors.

Is there something in the Comprehensive Rules about when to actually start a game?

Jeremie

I'm not proposing to issue a GRV just to have an infraction to record. I'm saying this falls squarely into GRV. Yes, there was some confusion which precipitated the error. When players take illegal actions in the game because they're confused, that often leads to a warning. The fact that NAP misheard something does not give him carte blanche on gameplay errors.


Jeremie: About when to start a turn? Absolutely.

Edited Russell Gray (Aug. 30, 2017 04:00:49 PM)

Originally posted by Russell Gray:

I'm not proposing to issue a GRV just to have an infraction to record. I'm saying this falls squarely into GRV. Yes, there was some confusion which precipitated the error. When players take illegal actions in the game because they're confused, that often leads to a warning. The fact that NAP misheard something does not give him carte blanche on gameplay errors.

This is of course my point of view and interpretation and it might be totally wrong but:
- There is nothing in the Comprehensive Rules about communication between players
- There is nothing in the Comprehensive Rules about when exactly both players are allowed to start the first turn

So I don't see it as a GRV (which is explicit about being only for comprehensive rules errors).

I think we might want to stop the discussion here and wait for a answer….

This isn't the first turn of the game. He started his turn while there was an ability on the stack waiting to resolve.

Closing topic until answer is available…

jeremie

Confirming that Jeremie is correct.

Years ago, at a GP, I issued a Game Loss for Drawing Extra Cards; a young (pre-teen!) player heard “Go”, so he did. He had nothing to untap, so he just drew, at which point the opponent stopped him, and called for a judge. It was a feel-bad moment all around, esp. when my ruling made the kid cry. :'(
It was late in the day, and the venue was noisy and acoustically horrible, and I have no doubt the kid did hear “go”; I'm fairly certain the opponent didn't say “go” and then use that for a free win. Just a very unfortunate outcome, and one I'll remember for a long, long time.

I won't pretend to the arrogance of claiming that this was a watershed moment. However, it certainly biased my views for the policy discussions afterwards, when we replaced DEC with HCE, and a way to fix and continue - a huge step forward from the earlier thinking that this had to be a game loss, since it was irreperable.

We've come a long way since then, helping players enjoy the game they're trying hard to play correctly.

For those stuck on “must be a GRV, starting your turn in the middle of AP's turn”, I'll remind that you're looking past the root cause here - a miscommunication. (And I think we're all clear that this is not a Communication Policy Violation!). As Jeremie, and his article, have shown us, we deal with these misunderstandings as best we can, but that doesn't mean we'll always have infractions.

d:^D

I'm hugely in favor of this interpretation! What I'm confused about is whether there is any policy document support for backing up. The IPG section says “Some infractions in this document permit the judge to consider the possibility of a backup,” and I don't immediately see anything about backing up at other times. If it is the case that you can only reach this correct conclusion by reading a particular article or this particular forum thread, that seems unfortunate.

Originally posted by Jake Eakle:

I'm hugely in favor of this interpretation! What I'm confused about is whether there is any policy document support for backing up. The IPG section says “Some infractions in this document permit the judge to consider the possibility of a backup,” and I don't immediately see anything about backing up at other times. If it is the case that you can only reach this correct conclusion by reading a particular article or this particular forum thread, that seems unfortunate.

There's a reason we ask judges to judge events and develop experience and it is because not everything that can happen in events is covered under written policy and it could never be. We want judges to exercise some judgement and that comes from experience and communication. Fora posts, articles, tournament reports and their ilk all make up that experience and form part of the communication channels. The philosophy of the policy is what governs this, so we can use the IPG etc and use the underpinning theory to help us arrive at the solution that Jeremie and Scott have outlined.

I guess this just seems like it hits a sweet spot where specific written policy guidelines would be especially valuable.

This is because a) it happens a lot; b) the guidance we're given in this thread seems to directly contradict the instructions in the IPG, which warn strongly against backing up too liberally, and only grant permission to back up when an infraction's remedy specifically calls for it; and finally c) the outcome when a judge does not have access to this guidance is likely to be very bad, ie, Scott's story about making someone cry.

Originally posted by Jeremie Granat:

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.

Nice article. May I suggest another, to be read after this?

https://blogs.magicjudges.org/whatsupdocs/2015/09/30/miscommunication-you-need-to-make-a-decision/

Sorry for casting an Animate Dead here.

A topic was closed because it presented a situation similar than the one that was discussed here. I would like to quote Dustin's reponse in the closed topic so that I could make my point:

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

It seems to me that you already stated the most important aspect of the distinction between GRV and HCE in this scenario: did NAP get the chance to stop AP, or did NAP allow AP to draw the card? This is one of the classic “you had to be there” situations, but based on your description “it's almost impossible for NAP to catch the mistake in any timely manner” I will also rule HCE in 99% of the cases.

Both situations are very similar, and have a common component: There was a card that shouldn't be drawn, and that card was not drawn upon the opponent's confirmation. There is no way to use public information to correct this issue, so one of the conclusions a judge could reach is that it is a Hidden Card Error.

However, Scott's response here stated that there should be no infraction, and to back up the game to the point both players agreed on the game state (which I have done, too, at times). I'm inclined to agree with Dustin on the other post and rule HCE, but please correct me if I'm missing something. Also, is there any difference I'm not seeing between this scenario and the closed one that would make the ruling different?