This is Drawing Extra Cards. There isn't any reason for the card to be in Ashton's hand, Naomi didn't provide any confirmation beforehand, and there weren't any other errors made before this particular error happened. Game loss for Ashton, nothing for Naomi since she called it out right away. The players didn't both know the identity of the card so there's no opportunity for downgrade.

If we were to consider “the scry wasn't executed correctly, so that just makes this a GRV”, then there would almost never be an actionable case of DEC in any game. For example, "Divination wasn't resolved correctly, and the player drew 4 cards" is obviously DEC but that line of logic could make it GRV.

Since the identity of the card is not known to all players, we can't rewind or downgrade the penalty. Ashton also did not announce his intention to draw the card and receive any confirmation from Naomi before drawing the card. This is GPE - DEC.

Check the IPG 2.3 for more information.

Ashton committed GPE-DEC for having excess cards in his hand that he cannot account for. A game loss will be issued to Ashton and no penalty for Naomi.

Originally posted by Sal Cortez:

I think this is a simple GPE - GRV - Warning for incorrectly resolving a spell. I would have the player randomly put a card on the top of his library.

That's a tough one though, would you put the card on top or bottom? I think the player clearly wanted the card to go on top, but brainfarted and put it in his hand instead. Yeah, I think I'd put it on top.

EDIT: Looking back at the other responses, I disagree; this is not DEC. If he had put the card strait from the library to his hand, then yes. But he started resolving the Scry, IE he looked at the card. As trifle as that sounds, it makes all the difference.

Sal - why do you feel that looking at the card first here makes all the difference?

@Abeed: I feel that looking at the card, then setting the card down indicates that he has started resolving the scry. If he were to simply put it into his hand there was no indication that he started resolving the scry; he just simply drew a card and thus GPE - DEC - Game Loss.

Brainstorm is mentioned in the IPG under GPE - GRV examples, forgetting to put two cards back on top of the library while resolving Brainstorm. It also mentions putting a creature with lethal damage on it into the hand instead of the graveyard, under the GPE - DEC examples.

The difference between these two situations, while both involve cards being in the hand that don't belong there, is one is part of the resolution of a spell and the other is not. In our situation, while the cues were subtle, the player started resolving his scry ability. The card was put into the hand while resolving the scry ability, and thus it was resolved incorrectly.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that this is different from the Divination example. Divination allows the player to draw two cards. If a player instead draws 3 cards, they actually resolved Divination correctly then, for no reason, drew 1 more. This is GPE - DEC. Here with scry, the player looks at the top card(s) and puts them either on top or bottom. The player looks at the top card, but instead of putting it on top or bottom put it into his hand, which makes it GPE - GRV.

Edited Sal Cortez (Sept. 11, 2014 01:58:48 PM)

Originally posted by Sal Cortez:

@Abeed: I feel that looking at the card, then setting the card down indicates that he has started resolving the scry. If he were to simply put it into his hand there was no indication that he started resolving the scry; he just simply drew a card and thus GPE - DEC - Game Loss.

Brainstorm is mentioned in the IPG under GPE - GRV examples, forgetting to put two cards back on top of the library while resolving Brainstorm. It also mentions putting a creature with lethal damage on it into the hand instead of the graveyard, under the GPE - DEC examples.

The difference between these two situations, while both involve cards being in the hand that don't belong there, is one is part of the resolution of a spell and the other is not. In our situation, while the cues were subtle, the player started resolving his scry ability. The card was put into the hand while resolving the scry ability, and thus it was resolved incorrectly.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that this is different from the Divination example. Divination allows the player to draw two cards. If a player instead draws 3 cards, they actually resolved Divination correctly then, for no reason, drew 1 more. This is GPE - DEC. Here with scry, the player looks at the top card(s) and puts them either on top or bottom. The player looks at the top card, but instead of putting it on top or bottom put it into his hand, which makes it GPE - GRV.

Sal- When trying to decide between DEC & GRV, a great question to ask yourself is “What is the first indication that tells me something is wrong?”

If it's GRV- then there should be something indicating that the scry is being resolved incorrectly.
If it's DEC- then the first thing that something is wrong, is that there is a card that was drawn that shouldn't have been drawn.

What if the first thing indicating that the scry is being resolved incorrectly IS that a card was drawn?

Then it is textbook DEC.
On Sep 11, 2014 11:17 AM, “Sal Cortez” <

No Reading answers:

GPE - DEC, as textbook as it comes, it seems. Issue a Game Loss to AP and have them proceed to the next game (if there is a next game).

Edit:
From the IPG:

A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the
instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy
Violation had been committed

At the moment the card was put into AP's hand, the scry was perfectly legal. There is nothing wrong with setting aside the card you're looking at to think things over, so the first illegal action was putting the card into AP's hand. Thus, DEC.

Edited Suhas Arehalli (Sept. 15, 2014 08:39:16 PM)

So Ashton is still resolving Scry when he puts the top card of his deck into his hand, it doesn´t matter that the top card of his deck is actually face down on the table…
The Scry is not yet finished, nor was it done incorrectly, Ashton just drew a card while scrying.

GPE - DEC

Edited Thomas Ludwig (Sept. 12, 2014 09:32:27 AM)

DEC - Game Loss. Pretty easy one here.

Lyle: The player asks “Why?” How do you respond?

Originally posted by George FitzGerald:

Lyle: The player asks “Why?” How do you respond?

Defnition of DEC from IPG:

IPG
A player illegally puts one or more cards into his or her hand and, at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

We check:

a) Has a player illegally put a card into his/her hand? The answer to this is pretty clearly yes. If this is at question, I really don't know how to respond, because it's pretty obvious.

b) Was there another GPE or CPV prior to this? No CPV as best as I can tell, and the only GPE that could happen would be GPE - GRV for Scrying to hand instead of to top or bottom of deck. If this is GPE - GRV and not GPE - DEC, then the same could be said of resolving basically any game action by tacking “draw a card” onto the end of it. For example, if I Doom Blade and then draw a card, is that DEC for drawing an extra card, or is it GPE - GRV for not reading Doom Blade and not seeing that Doom Blade does not say “Draw a card” on it? These two situations seem basically the same to me; the effect did not say “draw a card” (or any equivalent statement to “draw a card”, e.g. “put a card in your hand”, etc), and yet a card was drawn.

c) Was this OOS? As far as I can tell, the stack was empty when this occurred, so there was nothing else to resolve in an incorrect order. You can't resolve one item in an incorrect order, so this statement is trivially false.

Thus GPE - DEC, Game Loss.

If asked to answer this question in not-Judgespeak, I'd use the alternate definition of DEC:

IPG
Additionally, it is Drawing Extra Cards if a player has excess cards in their hand that he or she cannot account for

Where did the extra card in the player's hand come from? Since the only game action that was taken was the scry, and no “draw a card” effect occurred, there is an extra card that can't be accounted for, hence GPE - DEC, Game Loss.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Sept. 12, 2014 03:32:06 PM)

After reading everything I'm still not entirely convinced that this is DEC instead of a GRV.

“Where did the extra card in the player's hand come from?”
The players both can easily agree the card came from a scry. He has misplayed hidden information, which is specifically listed in the GRV section.

Now, the penalty is most likely the same. We ask if the opponent can identify the incorrectly scried card, the answer is most likely no, and the GRV is upgraded to a game loss.

I suppose I would need a clear reason why it's NOT a GRV, and why we aren't trying to identify the card. A judge was immediately called for, which means his opponent was watching like a hawk and being able to identify exactly which card was scried improperly shouldn't be a problem. We can probably return the card to the correct zone with minimal disruption and, if issuing DEC, downgrade the penalty.

Now, given that this is day 2 of a GP, as I said, I sincerely doubt the opponent is going to identify the card, they want the GL to be given for a free win. GRV or DEC, it's going to be pretty hard to avoid issuing a GL here.

Originally posted by Justin Murphy:

I suppose I would need a clear reason why it's NOT a GRV, and why we aren't trying to identify the card.

Remember that GRV covers errors that are not covered by other GPE infractions; you need to rule out DEC -before- looking at GRV. Read the definition of DEC again, and explain why you believe it doesn't apply here.

Originally posted by Justin Murphy:

“Where did the extra card in the player's hand come from?”
The players both can easily agree the card came from a scry.

I'm going to disagree with you here. When the IPG says “account for the extra card”, they don't mean “find the incorrect play that resulted in the extra card”; what the IPG means here (unless I'm mistaken, this is the way it makes sense to me, although this particular section of the IPG is a bit ambiguous so I'm totally open to being wrong) is to count the number of draw steps, cantrip effects, etc, subtract the number of mulligans taken, and count up the number of cards the player has played. If these numbers are not the same (specifically if the former is less than the latter), something wrong has happened and DEC should be issued.

In this specific case, saying “the card came from a scry” is incorrect rationale. No extra card should ever come from a scry, because the Scry ability does not allow a player to draw cards, hence any card drawn as the result of a scry is an “extra” card, as in “drawing extra cards”.

EDIT: After rereading this post I realized that my phrasing was extremely poor and confusing. Hopefully I got the point across, but if not I apologize.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Sept. 13, 2014 02:13:18 AM)