Hello faithful readers and devoted judges, the next scenario puts us in a slightly different perspective. For once there isn't a stretched out arm and a desperate call for a judge from a player. But does that mean we approach it differently…? Let's see what we have to work with:

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=1220

You are the Head Judge of a Modern PPTQ, wandering onto the floor to watch some matches. The first one catches your eye; Anakin is attacking with a bunch of creatures, including an Arcbound Ravager with no counters. You don't see any effect pumping his toughness so you assume it is a 0/0 and step in.

“Excuse me gentlemen, why is that Ravager still in play?” Anakin looks at the board, quickly picks up a die that was next to the playing field and sets it (showing 1) on the Ravager, saying: “I must have forgotten to put it on when I cast it.” Naberrie looks at the die on the Ravager, and goes back to considering his blocks.

What do you do, and why?

Lets give L1's a chance to answer first, higher levels please wait until after your FNM has ended to join the discussion.

No infraction, no penalty, carry on.

The game state is clear to both players even if its not clear to spectators, so there's no FTMGS. No penalty

Ditto. Both players understood it to be a 1/1 Ravager; if they agree, that's the way the game is.

I made a bit more elaborate answer so I thought I'd post it. =)

I would confirm with Naberrie that this is correct, put the counter on, and remind both players to play more carefully.

You could argue that according to policy, Anakin should receive a Game Play Error: Game Rules Violation and Naberrie should receive a Game Play Error: Failure to Maintain Game State warning, then a full backup should be performed to the moment Arcbound Ravager entered the battlefield or if not possible, Arcbound Ravager should be put into its owner's graveyard the next time state based actions are checked. However, firstly, that would be more disruptive and quite silly. Secondly, I would argue that the counter was there and both players knew it, they just didn't put it there.

So basically, my thought process is that no infraction or backup for the same reason no infraction would be given if somehow a bunch of +1/+1 counters spilled onto Anakin's Arcbound Ravager and neither player noticed right away. Both players know the board state. They just aren't physically representing it properly.

Edit: Also IMO Anakin would never have <spoiler>turned to the dark side</spoiler> if Padme hadn't insisted on playing her Stasis deck all the time.

Edited Alexander Traplin (Jan. 9, 2015 01:37:37 PM)

I love questions like this for which A) I know the answer and B) I have no idea where to find the answer in the rules to back it up.

I'm a judge. I need proof. Show me the policy!

So often, when I quickly scan the IPG to back up an answer, I jump straight to the definitions of individual penalties, skipping over the wealth of policy included in the introductory sections of the IPG and even the introductory sections of each GROUP of penalty. But, that's that's precisely where we find this line about Game Play errors, in section “2.” which is safely tucked away before “2.1”: “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 issue any penalty.”

Both players clearly understand the game state. We ask the players to clarify it for spectators and judges by putting the counters in place, then move on without issuing a penalty.

Thanks, KP, for making me reread the parts of the IPG that are easy to skip right over!

While the game state may not be represented correctly using the physical objects on the table, the game state is known correct to and agreed upon by both players. Infraction: None. Penalty: None. Fix: Unneeded; no fix. Play on.

As judges we are sometimes swayed by wanting to do too much. Everybody that took some time to answer in the forum responses had it right, a special shout out goes to John Trout who took time to find and quote the applicable part of the IPG. It is clear in this case both players agreed on the game state, that all that was needed was a clarification for spectators and to make sure this doesn't become an issue later on.

Clarifying the game state, thanking the players and wishing them a good game is all we need to do here.