Hello fellow judges,
during my last PPTQ a very interesting situation has occured, where the Headjude and I have disagreed on a situation. I wish, with his consent, to share the situation and ask for opinions.

Scenario:

I was playing on table 4 and it was the last Swiss round before the cut for Top 8, so there were Win and Ins played next to me. On the table next to me, the following has happened:

Player A attacked with a couple of creatures and Player N blocked. The damage has resolved and they proceeded to the end of combat step or second mainphase. Combat Damage has happened and was written down by both players. Then a spectator (relevant note: the spectator was a friend of player A and they both came from a different country to this pptq) asked if he should call a judge. Both players stopped and didn't know what has happened *Edit: During the investigation all three players confirmed, that the defending player has asked what was wrong before they called a Judge. The spectator points at a Howlpack Resurgence and says that player A forgot the trample. One of his attacking and blocked creatures was a Werewolf and thus affected by the enchantment, and he could have dealt 1 trample damage. Player A asks player N if he takes 1 more damage and both agree. Then I called the Judge and told him, that I consider this outside assistance. The judge made asked both players if what has happened is correct and if player N agrees to the extra damage. N agreed (note: he was already losing the game and knew that the 1 damage was irrelevant). The judge asked the spectator why he intervened and the spectator claimed to not know how trample works. Since player A didn't assign any trample damage to the defending player, I believe that on a competitive REL it means that he has assigned all the damage to the blocking creature.

The judge ruled that everything is okay (including the additional damage) and no penalty has to be given.

After the round I spoke to the judge and we argued about if it was outside assistance or not. Here are both our arguments:

HJ says no, because: He doesn't believe the spectator had bad intentions, and the defending player agreed on the extra damage.
I believe yes, because: The spectator wanted to help his friend, and not knowing how trample works and intervening, instead of calling a judge is not acceptable on competitive REL, in my opinion.

In the end we friendly agreed to disagree on this scenario.

I am curious to see how other Judges see this scenario.

1) Do you believe it is outside assistance? If no, what is it?
2) If a penalty has to been given, which penalty and to whom? (it was the last round before top 8, and Player A, N and the spectator made Top 8)
3) Should I or the Headjudge have done something different?

Edited Mark Litvak (June 29, 2016 08:12:52 PM)

Im the IPG, one of the examples of OA its: "A spectator points out the correct play to a player who had not solicited the information"

I think it´s just the same kind of action… even if the impact on the game was low.

Maibe the problem is where is the line… because i think about rules and, as nooby in introspection, new judges are more severe or strict… and see whales in the pool ^_^ because we want hunt whales (unconscienctly), or at least i think it´s my case.

Do you feel the impact on the game should be taken into account when
determining OA :)?

If yes, do we only OA if we determine the strategic advice was good and
should the Judge be expected to determine this?

If no, what arguments remain for this to not be OA?

Cheers :)
/Eskil

Den 29 jun 2016 13:55 skrev “Iván R. Molia” <

I very much believe this to be OA, and would assess the penalty. The most common OA to give is generally when a spectator points out missed triggers. This is often done because the spectator doesn't know any better, thinks that they have to happen, and feels that pointing them out “fixes” the game state. Just because the spectator didn't have bad intentions doesn't make them safe from this infraction.

“Last time I read the MTR, it was assumed that maximum trample damaged was assigned to the defending player. So I believe they just both made a GRV and that the HJ should investigate NAP for cheating. I was not providing strategic advice, just pointing out that they broke the game rules and did something very illegal. And as a mere player, you can't expect me to read the new MTR every 3 months. I think you damage tournament integrity in general if you punish me now by effectively DQ'ing me (yes, a Match Loss right before start of Top 8 in which I would play, that's effectively the same as a DQ).”

/Devil's Advocate.

Originally posted by Dustin De Leeuw:

“Last time I read the MTR, it was assumed that maximum trample damaged was assigned to the defending player. So I believe they just both made a GRV and that the HJ should investigate NAP for cheating. I was not providing strategic advice, just pointing out that they broke the game rules and did something very illegal. And as a mere player, you can't expect me to read the new MTR every 3 months. I think you damage tournament integrity in general if you punish me now by effectively DQ'ing me (yes, a Match Loss right before start of Top 8 in which I would play, that's effectively the same as a DQ).”

/Devil's Advocate.

“Actually, at Competitive REL, we do expect you to be familiar with the rules– and that includes the rules and changes to the MTR. I understand that this feels pretty harsh, and I appreciate that you wanted to help, but next time, if you believe something illegal has happened in a game, ask the players to pause the match and come talk to a judge away from the table. That way, there's no chance of you accidentally providing strategic advice.”

I do not believe this to be OA.
At least not how I understood your scenario. If I understand it correctly the relevant part went like this:
Player A attacks with a werewolf for simplicity lets say it is a 2/x and player N blocks that werewolf with a y/2. After combat damage Spectator S says: “Hold on you forgot the enchantment you should have had trample and dealt one damage to N.”

If we take this apart the underlying problem is a GRV namely that A forgot the enchantment that bosted the werewolves and S made the players aware of this GRV. This in my eyes can never be outside assistance.
The only issue we could have with this is that the players fixed this without consulting a judge. But the IPG actually let's them do so

Originally posted by IPG 1. General Philosophy:

If a minor violation is quickly handled by the players to their mutual satisfaction a judge does not need to intervene.

So I have no problem with this scenario and how the players handled it. Yes the spectator should have called for a judge and then we could have a talk if the players forgot the +1/+1 and trample or if A decided to really kill the blocker. So tell the spectator to call a judge the next time something like this happens but do not give him OA for making players aware of GRVs.
I, however, do diagree with the reasoning of the HJ. Bad intentions are not a requirement for OA.

Edited Simon Ahrens (June 29, 2016 09:45:58 PM)

@Dustin:
“If you believe there was need for Judge intervention in match that you were spectating, you should notice a Judge. However, MTR from its beginnings state, that if you stop the game, you shouldn't tell the players what is the case, but only tell Judge, in distance from the table. It's common knowledge, also, Judges act on competitive events with assumption, that players are familiar with current rules and policy. Unfortunately, since you provided strategic information to one of the players (trample isn't mandatory and can be ”missed“) I can't do anything other than issue you OA with ML. While it might have the same result as DQ from how the event will end for you (not being in TOP8) it's not. DQ is more severe penalty that came with additional investigation by PIC. I encourage you to bring that kind of situations in private next time, and for being up to date with MTR changes, there are articles released when new documents are live with summary of changes, I encourage to check them from time to time.”

@Simon: and what about if attacker was 2/2 but was blocked by 1/1 creature? Player could forget about that whole ability, but from rules point of view, he's allowed to do that. If he forget about +1/+1 and trample or just about trample, outcome is that same, he hasn't assigned 1 damage to his opponent. As a Judge I would assume, that he remembered both, but choose to assign X+1 damage to blocking creature, because, we can do that. Its unlikely, and to determine if he is missing thole +1/+1 I would stick around and watch how the game will go after that.

I think this is a pretty clear cut OA to the spectator. Assigning trample, and knowing what creatures you control are Wolves or Werewolves, is a skill. A spectator assisting with this is definitely providing strategic advice.

The unfortunate thing here is that the spectator could have resolved the situation without providing OA by stopping the game, calling for a judge then talking to the judge in private. The spectator was good all up until he decided that he would get the players the determine if the “error” he caught was judgecall-worthy.

The conversation with the spectator might be uncomfortable since we are (as Dustin says) effectively DQing him. Not only that but we are not allowing a new player to reach top 8 in his place. It might be that the player has a non-updated knowledge of the rules, but that is not something that we can take into account. I truly hate the “this is Comp REL, you should know the rules” because that implies that the players should have a equal-to-better knowledge of rules/policy as the HJ which I do not feel is the case.

I would not give OA to any of the players sitting at the table, and I would not force them to correct the damage back to before the spectator intervened.

“A spectator points out the correct play to a player who had not solicited the information”

Damage had already been written down/assigned - so the Spectator is only checking for clarity here (no decisions are being made or reversed - we either rule that the trample damage occurs or that it is all dealt to the blocking creature).

The correct play is not being pointed out because we're past the point that a decision is made.

No Outside Assistance, no penalty. Maybe a little discussion to the Spectator that when he stops play he shouldn't inform the players of anything (since the details only get brought up because NAP asked).

(If the player had pointed out the trample before blocks/damage then OA comes into play as this would affect the decisions made by the players)

@Edward: and what about upcoming combats? Now AP realised that his creature have trample and will not make mistake and assign damages optimally. If I control Wind Drake, I have my opponent at 2 life without any way to block it, but I forget about flying and don't attack with him, according to your reasoning, it would be fine to tell me in 2nd Main “hey, you had lethal attack” since we are past point that decision what creature I attack with. However now I will know to attack in my upcoming turn.

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

@Simon: and what about if attacker was 2/2 but was blocked by 1/1 creature?

Then A would have told N to take two damage instead of one. I do not see the relevance here.

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

player could forget about that whole ability, but from rules point of view, he's allowed to do that

He is not allowed to forget the ability. It is not a missed trigger. If he did not say anything about trample we assume he “really wanted to kill the blocker” and that would most probably be my ruling if the spectator had called us instead of talking to the players and this is something I would have told the players after they had fixed the problem by themselves.

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

If he forget about +1/+1 and trample or just about trample, outcome is that same, he hasn't assigned 1 damage to his opponent. As a Judge I would assume, that he remembered both, but choose to assign X+1 damage to blocking creature, because, we can do that. Its unlikely, and to determine if he is missing thole +1/+1 I would stick around and watch how the game will go after that.

I do not understand what you are trying to tell me here.

Outside Assistance asks for play advice (“You should attack” or “cast that”) not if a spectator makes players aware of GRVs (“you forgot this card in damage calculation”) and I know missed triggers are awkward here because those are OA but that is an exception for Triggers not the other way around.

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

@Edward: and what about upcoming combats? Now AP realised that his creature have trample and will not make mistake and assign damages optimally. If I control Wind Drake, I have my opponent at 2 life without any way to block it, but I forget about flying and don't attack with him, according to your reasoning, it would be fine to tell me in 2nd Main “hey, you had lethal attack” since we are past point that decision what creature I attack with. However now I will know to attack in my upcoming turn.

Interestingly, I thought of this type of counter-example before pressing send - but decided to put out my original statement for the purposes of extending the discussion :)

There is a little bit more nuance to this specific example though, namely:
Attackers and blockers had already been declared
The spectator only provided the reasoning after being asked by NAP (I'm not sure if this excuses them or not)

@

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

@Edward: and what about upcoming combats? Now AP realised that his creature have trample and will not make mistake and assign damages optimally. If I control Wind Drake, I have my opponent at 2 life without any way to block it, but I forget about flying and don't attack with him, according to your reasoning, it would be fine to tell me in 2nd Main “hey, you had lethal attack” since we are past point that decision what creature I attack with. However now I will know to attack in my upcoming turn.

This is entirelly different everybody would rule the Wind Drake example as OA.

“You should have dealt 1 damage because of this static ability” Can by my definition never be OA because it is something that N should tell A otherwise we would investigate N for cheating. I know that the trample makes it awkward because we expect players to know that they can overkill the blocking creature but that is not how the players usually play the game.

Originally posted by Eskil Myrenberg:

Do you feel the impact on the game should be taken into account when
determining OA :)?

This is another example of my mistaken sentences, sry. I know than the impact in the game isn´t relevant when judging (unless in invetigations). If Nap was at 1 or 60 lifes, the problem and santion will be the same.

Originally posted by Eskil Myrenberg:

If yes, do we only OA if we determine the strategic advice was good and
should the Judge be expected to determine this?

If no, what arguments remain for this to not be OA?

I think this is OA… but I feel mysel on events like a “punisher searching the evil” and maibe i don´t have enought exp to recognize the line betten yes OA and no OA arguments.
I think this is OA and the same if a player/spectator gives a hint to play something even if that move was suboptimal.