Last tournament I made an error while judging. I wrongly upgraded a GRV to a game loss. I discussed this with my local judges and they convinced me I was wrong in upgrading it. However I still would like to put the situation open and hear what other judges have to say about it. I'm not necessarily looking for a “see I was right in the first place”, no I'm more into “why do we let this happen as judges”.

Situation:
Andy plays Swords to Plowshares targetting his opponent's Grizzly Bears. Andy than plays Surgical Extraction targetting the exiled Grizzly Bears. Neo agrees with this, reveals his hand and Andy quickly picks up the library to search for any remaining Grizly Bears. While Andy is searching, Neo realizes this exiled Grizly Bears couldn't be targetted by the Surgical Extraction and calls Judge right away.

What we have here is a clear GRV from Andy, he targetted something that couldn't be targetted. Neo on the other hand shouldn't have let this happen and will Receive a F2MGS.

Now the question obviously is, do we back up, and what type of Penalties do we hand out. I think most of us would follow IPG guidelines would say, we simply back-up and give both players a Warning respectively for GRV and F2MGS.

What happened in my case was that I upgraded this to a game loss. In my defense this was only my second Competitive event and I did not have access to IPG (there was no internet available at the location).

The reason why I upgraded was that the integrity of this specific game was lost. Andy shouldn't have gotten the information and it was clear that Andy was at a too big advantage right now. I realized that Neo could have prevented this, but he was honest and said he was in a type of autopilot “yes go ahead”, only realizing quickly afterwards that there were restrictions to the target.

While trying to recall as much as possible from the IPG (as I wanted to be sure if there is anything else at play), I remembered this line:
IPG 2.1 Game Loss … It is also used for some infractions that have a higher probability for a player to gain advantage.

I am going to be honest and say that I knew that nothing in section IPG 2.5 mentioned that this type of offense could be upgraded. But this felt “right” to do, the upgrade to game loss, as I thought the GRV player had a high probability of gaining an advantage with this action.

Yesterday I was discussing this with my fellow regional judges and they obviously corrected this young eager judge. But I still felt that somewhere “in my gut” that I was right, not right according to the IPG, but right as in the spirit of the game.

I can honestly find a good number of situation where a player could play/resolve a card wrongly in order to gain advantage on information, information he should not get. My example is such an example. A player who willfully would play this wrong is always at an advantage:
- If his opponent spots he targets something wrong: GRV and he gets his card back, nothing to really be afraid of initially. (As we all know players who willfully do something wrong, know how to answer a judge in order to avoid severe penalties)
- If his opponent doesn't spot it: He gains information
- If his opponent spots it too late: Okay, though luck, but he still gained the information and backing this “information gain” is not possible.

This information gain is in my book a high probability of gaining an advantage as described in IPG 2.1. I'm not trying to bend/change the rules to prove I was right in the first place, all I'm trying to discuss is “can this information gain be seen as a higher possibility to gain advantage”

Originally posted by Niki Lin:

While trying to recall as much as possible from the IPG (as I wanted to be sure if there is anything else at play), I remembered this line:
IPG 2.1 Game Loss … It is also used for some infractions that have a higher probability for a player to gain advantage.

This line is simply part of a general description why different infractions have different penalties listed. It is not meant to encourage judges to deviate from the listed penalties.

Basically, it's saying: "there are some infractions that usually bring a big advantage to the player, so we'll punish occurrences of that infraction with a game loss, regardless of whether that big advantage was actually gained in a specific case“. Conversely, it also means ”other infractions do not normally bring such a huge advantage that we feel a game loss is necessary, so we will not punish them with a game loss, even if in some instances a big advantage is there".

We don't want players to be sitting on infractions to bring them up later to get a more serve penalty for the opponent. So the severity of a penalty is always based on the assumption that the other player spotted the penalty as early as realistic possible. That for is in my opinion one of the reasons that Drawing Extra Cards is a GL compared to the Warning for a GRV. Because in the DEC Case the information advantage could not be prevented by the opponent and we can not revert the advantage (If we can it most likely falls into one of the downgrade clauses).

Warnings are recorded. If a player keeps trying this play, a pattern of
behaviour will build up, and when they eventually get DQ'd for cheating
(which will happen at some point) their Warning history will be reviewed
and they probably won't be playing Magic for a long time. Intentionally
taking advantage of this is Cheating after all.

You also miss the potential for advantage from Neo. Let's say Neo knew
that Andy couldn't target the bears, but he also knew you'd probably award
a game loss if Andy started the search. As Neo, what would you do? Call a
judge and prevent the illegal search? Or wait those extra few seconds,
call a judge and *win the game*? We do not want Neo to have that choice.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

Thanks, great input. Good to be aware that the severity of a penalty is based on the assumption it is spotted right away, this indeed prevents the non-violating player from being able to “be on top”.

Great learning experience :)

In addition to what has been said, one of the keys to how we approach infractions is to determine what the infraction is first, and then apply the appropriate penalty. We don't start with determining what penalty we want to assess and then derive an infraction from that.

Originally posted by IPG 1.3:

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 a 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.

We deviate from the guidelines only under “significant and exceptional circumstances” (e.g. in cases where it is likely that the situation at hand wouldn't have been considered by the IPG's authors). These circumstances are not significant and exceptional.

Originally posted by Niki Lin:

The reason why I upgraded was that the integrity of this specific game was lost.

Note that many, many infractions cause some integrity loss to a game. We specifically don't want judges trying to determine where the appropriate lines are - very old versions of the judge guidelines used to try that, with inconsistent results.

Neo had several opportunities to prevent the problems here, and likely even took the physical action of putting the Bears in the graveyard. He, too, is complicit in the error, which should provide you with a fine explanation should he question your decision.

Originally posted by Niki Lin:

I did not have access to IPG (there was no internet available at the location).

Slight tangent - I suggest browsing the Judging Technology Forum, to see if there are apps that work on your preferred device (phone, tablet, laptop) and without internet.

I use MTG Guide on my iPhone and iPad, and I just verified that it works fine without WiFi or cell service (i.e., in “airplane mode”). You won't be able to install updates, but if you remember that in advance, you'll be all set.

Originally posted by Niki Lin:

Good to be aware that the severity of a penalty is based on the assumption it is spotted right away, this indeed prevents the non-violating player from being able to “be on top”.

Also please be sure to be careful not to take this too far. Sometimes an error is not spotted right away by the non-violating player. This should not automatically be presumed to be intentional or any reason for upgrade. Often, players will become too engaged or distracted in a game and not notice an error for a step or phase or even a turn or two. Do not let yourself become worried about an appropriate penalty just because you might feel it was not spotted immediately enough.