Since this “infraction” seems to be somewhat tricky as this discussion has shown, I feel this might be something that should be addressed in the IPG. I think lesser experienced judges might want to stick to the exact wording in the IPG whenever possible to avoid possible mistakes and improper rulings. Because I know I'd do it this way.
In this case this might lead to some bad experiences for those players who make minor mistakes. So, is this something where judges should just be more confident when it comes to deciding whether something is or isn't a mistake that calls for a fix, or is this something where the IPG might need some clearing up?

Edited Hannes Bernsdorf (Aug. 30, 2014 08:35:33 AM)

Hello,

I am confused.

Since I have joined the certified judge club, I have been receiving the message to stay consistant as much as possible. As Hannes has noted, this particular scenario seems to be one of those which may draw the line between the novice approach and “next level” approach. Hopefully, after my brain consumes this, it will be closer to the more senior mindset.

M.

Originally posted by Hannes Bernsdorf:

Since this “infraction” seems to be somewhat tricky as this discussion has shown, I feel this might be something that should be addressed in the IPG. I think lesser experienced judges might want to stick to the exact wording in the IPG whenever possible to avoid possible mistakes and improper rulings. Because I know I'd do it this way.
In this case this might lead to some bad experiences for those players who make minor mistakes. So, is this something where judges should just be more confident when it comes to deciding whether something is or isn't a mistake that calls for a fix, or is this something where the IPG might need some clearing up?

The hardest part about being a judge is the “judgment” part. Because you have to learn a bit of that from experience, which sometimes means making mistakes and applying any rule or policy “too closely”. It happens, and is unfortunate when it does, but we should learn and grow from such experiences. We're not policy robots, and every judge should remember there are as much a part of the Magic community as the players are a part of that community.

That being said, it is hard to put out a policy that says “don't be a policy robot” without it… well… reinforcing that. Thankfully we have things like MTR 4.2, MTR 4.3, and even MIPG 1.3 that reminds us to be a bit more organic in our approaches and keep in mind where we fit in the community. And we have blogs and this kind of discussion to help further with that. :)

Being consistent requires to correctly identify the appropriate infraction first, and that in turn require to not be lured by some phrasing in the documents which could be ambiguous due to the fact that those documents are not comprehensive. Consistency requires a document philosophy understanding that goes beyond simple memorisation.

In this scenario, I do not see myself shuffling an extra card back and making the offending player keeping 5, and it is not a deviation, because I can point out exactly which infraction has been commited, why it's a good fit to the current scenario, and know the penalty and fix for it. Doing so, I preserve the ruling consistency, as I expect other judges to rule the same, for the same reason.

Having discussed this with other judges in my area, we've had 2 that wanted initially to do something else, but weren't quite able to justify this being an infraction other than id@sog, or any reason why this player mistake was worth a downgrade. I'm curious to know what specific infraction you feel this fits under.

“Put the card on top of the library. Please be more careful. Play on.”

This has zero impact on the game, a virtually 0 chance of abuse, and even if there were abuse, it would be covered under another infraction. I think we're fishing for a problem that's not there.

The most I can see here is a GRV Warning. Trying to shoehorn it into ID@SOG seems inappropriate.

Originally posted by David Jimenez III:

Having discussed this with other judges in my area, we've had 2 that wanted initially to do something else, but weren't quite able to justify this being an infraction other than id@sog, or any reason why this player mistake was worth a downgrade. I'm curious to know what specific infraction you feel this fits under.

The operative question is not “what infraction is this?”, but “is this an infraction at all?” To which the answer seems to be (based on Brian's input) no. Not every judge call, nor every KP scenario, is an infraction, and it's perfectly fine to call a spade a spade (or, I suppose, a not-spade, in this case).

Edited Lyle Waldman (Sept. 1, 2014 05:03:23 AM)

This week we saw a ton of discussion about whether this falls under Improper Draw at Start of Game, a generic Game Rules Violation, or no infraction at all. It's clear that something didn't go exactly as desired, but beyond that we have a fair amount of disagreement. So, let's look at the definition of the most likely infraction:

Originally posted by IPG 2.4 - IDSG - Definition:

A player makes an error while drawing his or her opening hand.

That doesn't give us a whole lot to work with, so let's analyze whether anything worth considering an “error” actually occurred. We have a situation where a player randomized her library. She then allowed her opponent to further randomize it. She then counted out 7 cards, and drew 6 of them. After drawing 6, she realized that she wasn't supposed to draw the last one and called a judge. So, has an error actually occurred?

IPG 2.2 - Looking at Extra Cards - Definition
A player is not considered to have looked at extra cards when he or she places a card face down on the table (without looking at the card) in an effort to count out cards he or she will draw.

We get a big hint from the definition of LEC. Anita has only drawn 6 cards out of what should be an opening hand size of 6. She has laid out an additional card face down to count it. However, the Definition of Looking at Extra Cards specifically explains that such an action does not constitute “looking at” cards, much less drawing them. As long as Anita puts only six of those in her hand, and the other goes back the library, the process of counting out cards face down on the table has done its job.

If we really want to drill down into fine technical detail, we might perhaps say that Anita has inadvertently cut her library after the opponent shuffled. However, this is a violation of MTR pregame procedures and has no specific infraction associated with it. And, as Toby pointed out, we don't want to go hunting for infractions that don't matter - just like we don't penalize people for using Out of Order Sequencing or stop a match every time we see a momentary GRV that the players immediately correct themselves. Unless something is actually wrong, just let the players play. Don't be the referee who blows his whistle every 20 seconds.

Anita made an extremely minor technical misstep. But, importantly, she has ended up in the right place. Just like we allow other small technical missteps, there is simply no error here we need worry about or act upon. Anita tried to mulligan to six, and she has done so. No infraction. No penalty. Thank Anita for calling you, put the extra card back on top, give a brief extension, and let the game proceed.

Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion, and we'll be back tomorrow with another new scenario!

Edited Joshua Feingold (Sept. 2, 2014 10:28:13 PM)

I'd personally guess that either

A: She keeps those 6, and puts the 7th on top, or

B: She picks up all 7 and shuffles a random card into her deck, I'd lean towards A though.