Originally posted by Chuck Pierce:

Thomas: I think another important point to make is that GRV is the catch-all last choice for a Game Play Error infraction. We only apply GRV if we don't have another category which fits better. In this case, the error is Nadia drawing a card when she wasn't allowed, so that's what we have and we don't keep looking for a GRV since we already have a category that fits.

That is not right, Chuck, please take a closer look at what I wrote. GRV is surely the catch all thing, so far you are right, but most GPEs will be GRV, but a GPE is not DEC when there was any GPE before it and here there was one. This can´t be DEC, because there was no illegal Card drawn, as mentioned before, Nadia drew a Card of Electrolyze, that´s fine, there was no Spirit of the Labyrinth on the board when she did that.

Originally posted by Chuck Pierce:

Except that Arjun did not use OOS, he sequenced everything correctly. She cast Electrolyze passed priority, he passed priority back (Saying “sure, still done”), it resolved and dealt 1 damage to the Spirit, he put the Spirit into the graveyard. That is the correct order and not at all “Out of Order Sequencing” as he did exactly what the rules tell him to do. Then, after that, Nadia drew a card, thinking that she was continuing to resolve Electrolyze. Unfortunately for her, with the game state as it was, drawing a card was not a legal part of resolving Electrolyze, and so she has committed the error of drawing extra cards (just like if she had cast Ancestral Recall and drawn 4 cards instead of 3). The fact that she drew it after he put the Spirit in the Graveyard, because of her flawed understanding of the interaction, does not mean that Arjun did something wrong.

Your Version of the Story does not reflect what happened.

1.) Electrolyze started to resolve, it dealt 1 damage to Spirit and Arjun.
2.) Arjun placed Spirit into the graveyard while Nadia was still resolving Electrolyze

How can you say Nadia finished resolving Electrolyze when she says she did not, shouldn´t she know that better than you? Remember she is not lieing. I can´t blame/punish a Player for something I know / believe he did not do.

Originally posted by Chuck Pierce:

Edit: Also note that except for cases of cheating, player intent shouldn't be coloring our Game Play Error infractions. It doesn't matter that Nadia thought she was resolving Electrolyze correctly, what matters is that she did so incorrectly by drawing a card when she wasn't allowed.

This Looks very wrong to me, we should use every piece of useful information when trying to find out what exactly happened and when an error was commited by whom. Players Intents are helpful as well.
We are even using Player intents a lot to prevent GPEs, look at OOS, as long as the intent of a player is clear, we will not give them a GPE if they for example “declare a blocker, animate a Treetop Village, and then attempts to block with that Treetop Village.”.

Besides that, Players intentions are sometimes important to find out what exactly happened in a given Scenario.
It surely matters if a Player has wrong Information about what is actually happening or has happened in a game. Nadia might not have drawn the Card if the Spirit did not die while resolving electrolyze, but it did. Nadias Explanation of what her intent was lets us find out what really happened. She cast Electrolyze, destroyed the Spirit and drew a Card. Sadly neither Arjun was acting in any way that could make Nadia believe anything else than what she was planing to do happened nor was Nadia giving Arjun the Chance to notice that what he was doing is wrong, so she drew the Card after the Spirit died (and while still resolving Electrolyze).

Edited Thomas Ludwig (Oct. 6, 2014 05:32:25 PM)

I would be really interested in seeing a game where a player plays an Electrolyze and the opponent asks “Are you done resolving it? Then I'll apply SBAs.” before putting their creature on the graveyard.

Aside from that, if the Game Rule Violation was completely invisible to both players and could never be otherwise, was there really a GRV? Or an OoOS for that matter. This may sound pretty philosophical, but it's at the core of the problem.

I agree with others that there was no GRV committed prior to the card drawn from Electrolyze, so the infraction is DEC.

We have the option of downgrading and rewinding if the card was “placed into an empty hand” and if “the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption”. The first is true but the second is debatable. I suspect the official answer will suggest no downgrade, but I can't think of a way either player might gain an advantage if we backup entirely by undoing Nadia's draws (the first card being the first point of error) and applying an additional fix for L@EC. I lean towards downgrading the DEC and backing up.

When the Players don´t notice a GRV that does not mean it´s not there.
If Nadia said “kill your dude, deal 1 to you and draw a card” and Arjun approves that, we would call it a GRV, even if none of them had noticed it, so not noticing a GRV for whatever reason, seems to be a bad indicator for its existence?

While this mistake is very very rare and really unusual, I think we still have to follow the rules, we can´t argue that players are rarely communicating clearly enough to catch such a mistake and therefor it is none. Nor can we argue that players will always use OOS in such situations when placing a creature in the yard. There is simply no rule to use against Nadia here.

Originally posted by Thomas Ludwig:

Your Version of the Story does not reflect what happened.

1.) Electrolyze started to resolve, it dealt 1 damage to Spirit and Arjun.
2.) Arjun placed Spirit into the graveyard while Nadia was still resolving Electrolyze

How can you say Nadia finished resolving Electrolyze when she says she did not, shouldn´t she know that better than you? Remember she is not lieing.

Why was Electrolyze not done resolving after step 1? There were no further instructions on Electrolyze to carry out after the damage was dealt, since Spirit prevents the card draw.

Assessing a GRV to Arjun in this situation sets a double-standard for technically precise play.

Nadia is not held accountable for drawing a card when she shouldn't have.

If Nadia put Electrolyze into the graveyard before Arjun says “Sure, still done”, Arjun is held accountable for putting a card into the graveyard based on nothing. If Nadia put Electrolyze into the graveyard at any point after “Sure, still done”, Arjun is held accountable for needing to both notice the Electrolyze still on the stack, and infer that fact means Nadia is not done resolving Electrolyze.

Arjun will be further confused when he calls for a judge after his next round's opponent casts Harrow, puts it into straight into the grave, puts a land from the battlefield on top, then searches his library - only to be told that's acceptable.

If in the exact same Situation Nadia and Arjun both would agree on “Electrolyze destroying the Spirit”, would we not call that a GRV?

In the scenario there was no agreement, but everything else is the same, both Players have the same Information and do exact the same things, except they did not communicate with each other about what was happening and all of a sudden we have no GRV?

I do not like the idea to give Arjun any penalty at all and I doubt I would do so.
On the other Hand, all Nadia did wrong was destroying a creature with Electrolyze, the Card draw resolved out of that.

I am sure 100% of the Players in Arjuns spot would have behaved the same. But is that important?
Nadia did not know how SBA worked with lethal damage and therefor commited an error, her opponent did/could not notice the error and tat lead to Nadia doing another error, but that one was the result of the first one. So if I do an error and my Opponent is not noticing that, does that “invalidate” the error for the case of a GPE not being DEC?

Originally posted by Thomas Ludwig:

When the Players don´t notice a GRV that does not mean it´s not there.

I agree with that, but I was not referring to them not noticing it. I said it was not visible to them, in reference to this other post:

Gareth Pye
Thomas: How was it visible to Arjun that Nadia had commited the GRV the proceeded the illegal drawing of a card? I don't believe it was visible and thus there was no visible GRV before the DEC so we award the DEC infraction.

I agree with Gareth that the GRV was not visible (and I also think that there was no such GRV) because nothing in the game or board state made it evident. How do you know that the Electrolyze was still on the stack? Was it because Nadia hadn't yet put it into her graveyard (even though the scenario does not state it)? In that case, would your ruling change if the Electrolyze was alredy on Nadia's graveyard? Would you rule GRV if Nadia had put the Quicken in her graveyard before drawing?

Choosing an arbitrary gamestate that avoids the DEC infraction instead of looking at the actual sequence of events that led to the current situation is a dangerous proposition, and one likely to take you down the wrong path.

Edited Claudio Martín Nieva Scarpatti (Oct. 6, 2014 08:22:56 PM)

I can´t find out why it is needed for a GRV to be visible to be one? Can you post that?

I don´t like this way and I feel like this is a problematic Situation / bad solution, but that does not mean it´s wrong already.

How is it arbitrary? We got two actual sequences of what has happened, either Arjuns or Nadias and both of them reflect what the game state looked like. Asking how Arjun could notice the game state is not as he thinks it is, is the same as asking how Nadia can notice that the game state is not as she thought it is, they couldn´t.

Therefor I started to look why they believe different things happened and the first thing that I found was a Spirit being placed in the yard while Electrolyze is resolving using OOS. Sure this sort of OOS happens tons of time every day, but does that really disable the need for an OOS to be clearly understood by both Players? This time obviously Nadia did not understand the OOS and drew a Card of electrolyze. While I would never expect any Player to act different than Arjun, I think we cannot punish Nadia for drawing an extra Card here, because the OOS was not understood by her.

Originally posted by Thomas Ludwig:

Your Version of the Story does not reflect what happened.

1.) Electrolyze started to resolve, it dealt 1 damage to Spirit and Arjun.
2.) Arjun placed Spirit into the graveyard while Nadia was still resolving Electrolyze

How can you say Nadia finished resolving Electrolyze when she says she did not, shouldn´t she know that better than you? Remember she is not lieing. I can´t blame/punish a Player for something I know / believe he did not do.

Again, it doesn't matter whether she thinks she finished resolving Electrolyze or not, because she is wrong. By the rules of the game, as soon as the damage is dealt Electrolyze is finished resolving, and the only thing left to do is put it into the graveyard. There is no card draw, because Spirit of the Labyrinth is in play. Once the Spirit is put into the graveyard, that means Electrolyze is done resolving. Arjun putting the Spirit into the graveyard before the Electrolyze is actually a valid OoOS (since the only other thing to do be done is Electrolyze going to the graveyard), except that then Nadia draws a card, which isn't valid and is the first time an actual error has occurred.

It seems like you are trying to punish Arjun because he didn't do the highly technical “Are you finished resolving Electrolyze? Okay then now Spirit dies.” play, while at the same time trying to avoid punishing Nadia for not knowing the rules of the interaction. The problem here, is that while neither of the players did everything to a precise technical limit, what Arjun did led to the correct game state, while Nadia's actions did not. If the game had proceeded exactly correctly, the only thing Arjun would have had to do was put Spirit of the Labyrinth into the graveyard, and Nadia would have had to put Electrolyze into the graveyard. That is exactly what Arjun did, while Nadia did her part and drew a card, which is the problem.

Edited Chuck Pierce (Oct. 7, 2014 09:00:53 AM)

A GRV needs to be visible because otherwise we judges can not see it either. As I said in my previous post, nothing in the game or board states is illegal or infringes on a game rule (except for the possible OoOS of who put their card in the graveyard first, which is not mentioned in the scenario, and is therefore deemed irrelevant). Since there's no visible evidence of a Game Rule Violation, we cannot rule one based on invisible assumptions. That sounds very much like crafting the game state to fit our needs instead of interpreting the actual events.

If Nadia does not draw a card for Electrolyze, what GRV are you issuing?

I am trying to understand the argument for the GPE - DEC penalty as applied to Nadia, given the following:

Unless my understanding of this is fundamentally incorrect, Spirit of the Labyrinth's static ability is a continuous effect that changes the rules of the game. I would like to draw a comparison with Deathcult Rogue, which, as I understand it, also has a static ability that is a continuous effect that changes the rules of the game.

If Arjun attacked with a Deathcult Rogue and Nadia blocked with a Spike Rogue, would the infraction not be GPE - GRV for Nadia and GPE - FtMGS for Arjun assuming the block happened, other game actions were taken afterward (pass the turn post combat, Nadia untaps and draws for the turn), and then it was caught (Arjun asks for the Oracle text on Spike Rogue, determines it does not have Rogue in the type line)?

In this case, as in the Electrolyze and Spirit of the Labyrinth case, an action taken by Nadia is in violation of a static ability of another permanent that creates a continuous effect that changes the rules of the game.

Is this truly a GPE - DEC violation on the part of Nadia simply because the rule-changing continuous effect in question applied to the drawing of cards rather than any other game rule?

I think the line of thought from people has to be a little bit more direct
in this case, here. Let's think for a second:

What did Nadia do wrong?
Why did she do it? What caused her to commit the error?
Is not knowing the rules, in a Competitive REL, an excuse to not apply an
infraction?

Edited Andre Tepedino (Oct. 7, 2014 11:30:07 AM)

Originally posted by Jacob Milicic:

Is this truly a GPE - DEC violation on the part of Nadia simply because the rule-changing continuous effect in question applied to the drawing of cards rather than any other game rule?

Yes, that's exactly why it's DEC instead of GRV. In the IPG, Game Rule Violation specifically says:

IPG 2.5
It handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play
Errors.

In the case of drawing cards that aren't allowed by the rules, we have a Game Play Error Infraction that specifically covers the situation, so we apply the more specific infraction instead of the general catch-all GRV. In the Philosophy section for DEC, it points out why there is a specific infraction for this scenario and why the penalty is more strict:

IPG 2.3
Though this error is easy to commit accidentally, the potential for it to be overlooked by opponents mandates a higher level of penalty.

In the example you gave, we don't have an infraction that specifically addresses “Illegal Blocking,” so that would fall through to the catch-all Game Rule Violation.

Edited Chuck Pierce (Oct. 7, 2014 11:15:19 AM)

Originally posted by Chuck Pierce:

Yes, that's exactly why it's DEC instead of GRV. In the IPG, Game Rule Violation specifically says:

IPG 2.5
It handles violations of the Comprehensive Rules that are not covered by the other Game Play
Errors.

In the case of drawing cards that aren't allowed by the rules, we have a Game Play Error Infraction that specifically covers the situation, so we apply the more specific infraction instead of the general catch-all GRV.

Ah, that is what I was missing here. So since the first illegal act taken by Nadia is putting a card into her hand when she was not allowed to, as part of the instructions of Electrolyze…

IPG 2.3
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 Rule Violation or Communication Policy Violation had been committed, and the error was not the result of resolving objects on the stack in an incorrect order.

…this is, in fact, GPE-DEC, and a Game Loss to Nadia since we cannot guarantee that we take the extra card drawn into her empty hand and put it back in the correct zone as there are two cards currently in her hand.

IPG 2.3 Drawing Extra Cards, Philosophy
If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, or was placed into an empty hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.

Emphasis mine.

Thank you for setting me straight.