(I think this is better here than at TO forum, hope it's ok. As this is not an investigation, I believe is well within the rules of the forum).

Hi everyone

 At this point this is kind of self explanatory, but in case someone missed the drama, I'll link the clip.

https://m.twitch.tv/magic/clip/ThoughtfulSucculentBatFUNgineer-p2YVbx-huFiLa_Rd

This is not to throw shade to the judge involved (I dunno who they were and I don't think it's relevant). But there are at least 2 questions regarding this case that are useful to evaluate the limits of Takeback rules, and some of us will need to face questions regarding this from the players in the next weeks. The summary is something like:

• Seth plays a spell, Ken, says 'ok'.
• About 15 seconds later (or something) Seth asks the judge for a takeback, explaining that it was already cast. The judge allows it.
• Ken has at least 1 card in hand and mana open.
• Decklists are available for both players, and there is only 1 relevant card for Ken (Bitter Triumph). According to some internet posts, the triumph was in the grave.

I'd argue that in a closed decklist tournament, this would be clearly a mistake by the judge. So, if it wasn't, then the knowledge of the decklists might have been taken into account. So the first question would be:

1. The nature of open decklists changes the way we should evaluate takebacks? Judges should take into account that the players know the contents of their opponent deck (and presume they memorize it) when establishing if there has been information gained?

The second, more general one, is the interaction between the profesional rel rules description and the Takeback rule. The profesional rel description specifies that players are expected to have a higher standard of technical correct play. The Takeback rule specifies in it first paragraph that 'Players are expected to consider their options before taking an action and players are not usually allowed to take back an action that has been communicated to their opponent, either verbally or physically', but then, from the second paragraph on, it explains when we allow the takebacks. In practice, the first paragraph is more of a declaration of principles or a baseline than something we enforce, as we generally allow takebacks that fulfill the criteria described after it. So:

2. Should the first paragraph have a stronger weight in professional rel, considering its description?

Thanks for the responses, I think this can turn into a meaningful discussion and give us tools to answer the inevitable questions from players.

I have players already talking about it in my area and asking my thoughts. Would love to see some judges with way more experience than I have weigh in. I think some of the MTR could use clearer language IMO. 

Let's just assume for a second that the card in Ken's hand matters in game 3 of a high stakes match of magic down 2 games in a best-of-5 so much that it could change the outcome in a relevant way. Which card would be better of not being cast there immediately and denying any value etc? 
It does not seem clear to me that open or closed decklists would change the situation and I also believe that there was no gaining of information for Seth. So reversing decisions is a viable option in my eyes. It does not matter in my interpretation that it took him 1 15 or 30 seconds to realize his mistake. The policy is written in a very forgiving way and becomes more and more playerfriendly as we move on.

Also I believe a very important detail is when Seth asks if he may take his spell back and the first person to react is his opponent by saying yes. To quote the general philosophy of the IPG:

 

"If a minor violation is quickly handled by the players to their mutual satisfaction, a judge does not need to intervene. If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not assess an infraction or issue any penalty. In both these situations, the judge should ensure that the game progresses normally. More significant violations are addressed by first identifying what infraction applies, then proceeding with the corresponding instructions."

 

In my interpretation this basically states, that if players can handle their game themselves we should just let them (obviously if one player tries to coerce something out of their opponent we do not allow that).

 

No rule was broken, no information was gained and the opponent was fine with the taksie-backsie. Seems easy to me. I don't see why the REL should make a difference here. 

The question is if information was gained, if it's an open decklist format and the opponent has a deck of 100% sorcery speed cards and abilities I guess you can rule that out but you don't need to for this.

The MTR is generally REL agnostic, the policy on reversing decisions being one such example.

The threshold is if information was gained, both of the 'viral' take backs don't have information gain.

reminder the text is "If that player has not gained any information since taking the action and they wish to make a different decision, a judge may allow that player to change their mind. Judges must carefully consider whether the player has gained information since making the play that might have affected the decision; in particular, players may not try to use opponent reactions (or lack thereof) to see if they should modify actions they committed to. If the judge cannot be sure no information was gained, they should not allow the decision to be changed."

The quench v cavern call the opponent had not responded and the player realized the folly themselves.

The boomerang Basics plus rummage the player again did not gain information that their unable to respond opponent was not going to respond.

"ok" is not a binding tournament shortcut, for example Ken playing a different deck could have said okay and then reversed the decision and countered the spell.