In a Standard PTQ, Averroës has Courser of Kruphix in play and a Stomping Ground on top of his library.

He puts the Stomping Grounds on the battlefield and returns the top card of his library, saying “I'll look at the top card to decide whether I put my land tapped or untapped”.

You happen to be passing by at this moment. What do you do?

Step in, you've just witnessed a Game Play Error - Game Rule Violation. Granted, it's a case where the player just doesn't understand how things work - but it's still a GRV.

Isn't this Looking at Extra Cards if the player has already looked at the
next card?
On Mar 11, 2014 11:30 AM, “Scott Marshall” <

The GRV is revealing the top card before completing the process of playing the land - and that's where the education is needed. And yes, it does make sense to apply the remedy for L@EC as part of the remedy for their GRV.

If the player doesn't say anything and just flips over the top card, is it safe to assume the player has chosen the default action of playing the land tapped?

Right, so it's L@EC and not a GRV, since a GRV is a GPE infraction that
doesn't fit another class of GPE.
On Mar 11, 2014 11:37 AM, “Scott Marshall” <

No, Adam. That's only for missed triggers.
On Mar 11, 2014 11:40 AM, “Adam Zakreski” <

So, randomize the unknown portion of the library and let the player choose to pay 2 life or have the shockland enter the battefield tapped, then reveal the (new) top card of the library.

And, nitpicking: we give a Warning for GRV - GPE, not for L@EC, because the looking was caused by the GPE of incorrectly playing the land. At least, that's how I interpret the IPG, and Uncle Scott's post above seems to support that interpretation ^^

We only ever give a GRV when it doesn't fit another GPE category. This
infraction (if the next card was turned up) clearly involves looking at
extra cards, so that's what the infraction is. Yes, the player played the
land incorrectly, but that resulted in him looking at extra cards when he
shouldn't have.
Additionally, we pretty much need to shuffle the library here, and we can't
just apply the fix for L@EC for an infraction that's not L@EC.
On Mar 11, 2014 11:59 AM, “Dustin De Leeuw” <

PotAto, PotAHto…

And, yes, we can apply the L@EC remedy when - as in this case - a GRV also results in Looking at Extra Cards.

d:^D





On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:07 AM, Charlotte Sable <forum-8950-07c1@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

We only ever give a GRV when it doesn't fit another GPE category.
This
>infraction (if the next card was turned up) clearly involves
looking at
>extra cards, so that's what the infraction is. Yes, the
player played the
>land incorrectly, but that resulted in him
looking at extra cards when he
>shouldn't have.
>Additionally,
we pretty much need to shuffle the library here, and we can't
>just
apply the fix for L@EC for an infraction that's not L@EC.
>On Mar
11, 2014 11:59 AM, “Dustin De Leeuw”
<
>
>——————————————————————————–
>If
you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or
view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/613533/
>
>
>Disable
all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8950/
>Receive
on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8950/?onsite=yes
>
>You
can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

Thanks for the answers. I did intervene, but I was not sure whether to a) give a GRV; b) give a LEC; c) not give a penalty, but impose that the land comes in play tapped, with the same reasoning as Adam.

The difference between the more common GRV and the less common LEC can be significant for upgrades purposes in a eight rounds tournament.

All the examples from LEC & the Philosophy section seem to indicate that LEC is primarily an offense of accidentally looking at the cards, hence why it's mentioned that it's easy to do and probably why it's a Warning.

Examples
A. A player accidentally reveals (drops, flips over) a card while shuffling her opponent’s deck.
B. A player flips over an extra card while drawing from his deck.
C. A player sees the bottom card of her deck when presenting it to her opponent for cutting/shuffling.
D. A player activates a Sensei’s Divining Top that is no longer on the battlefield, and sees 3 cards before the
mistake is noticed.

Philosophy
A player can accidentally look at extra cards easily. Drawing extra cards is a separate, more severe Game Play Error

Here, the player has mistakenly misunderstood how the replacement effect of the shock land works, thinking it would allow him to see a top card while it's moving from the library to play. I think that's not an accident, it's misunderstanding game rules. I agree with GRV.

Example D seems incredibly analogous here:
D. A player activates a Sensei's Divining Top that is no longer on the
battlefield, and sees 3 cards before the
mistake is noticed.

Kevin Binswanger

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

PotAto, PotAHto…

And, yes, we can apply the L@EC remedy when - as in this case - a GRV also results in Looking at Extra Cards.

d:^D

I don't understand the repeated advice to take this approach. Forums discussions are pretty specific about sticking to the options given in the IPG for adjusting the game state after a GRV: #1 do nothing #2 full rewind #3 take actions on the bulleted list #4 upgrade for misplaying hidden information. We repeatedly advise people to not go down the dark path of applying minor fixes that happen to seem right.

Well, shuffling the card into their deck is not on the bulleted list. Shuffling their card into the deck is not a full rewind, as the card was only turned face up. And this is the opposite of hidden information. So the advice here is basically to take a dark path which seems completely unnecessary. If we want to call it LEC and shuffle the card away, fine, let's just do that. If we want to call it GRV and turn the card face down… that and the potential FTMGS seem excessive, but at least they're in line with the IPG. y u dark side?

Tom

Originally posted by Tom Wyliehart:

I don't understand the repeated advice to take this approach. Forums discussions are pretty specific about sticking to the options given in the IPG for adjusting the game state after a GRV: #1 do nothing #2 full rewind #3 take actions on the bulleted list #4 upgrade for misplaying hidden information. We repeatedly advise people to not go down the dark path of applying minor fixes that happen to seem right.

IPG Section 1.3
Separate infractions committed or discovered at the same time are treated as separate penalties, though if the root cause is the same, only the more severe one is applied. If the first penalty would cause the second one to be inapplicable for the round (such as a Game Loss issued along with a Match Loss), the more severe penalty is issued first, followed by the less severe penalty in the next round.

There are two separate infractions here: the GRV of taking the actions out of order, and the L@EC of revealing a card. Both of these have the same root cause (and indeed were committed with the same physical action). Only one penalty is assessed. Since the penalty is the same, and the GRV is closer to the root cause, it should be preferred. Then, remedies are applied. Since there is a L@EC component, we should apply the remedy for that error, and this obviates a fix for the GRV since applying the L@EC remedy has effectively already restored the game state to what it was immediately before the error.