Hi All,

I judged a PPTQ this past weekend and during the final round I had two different interactions that were on the line between outside assistance and not. I wanted to share about each and get some feed back. Both of these cases involve spectators who had IDed into top 8 and were watching other matches.

So first Case Active player cast radiant flames says it is for 2, taping a ru dual and 2 rw duals. 2 damage is enough to wipe the board. Spectator says to another spectator it should have been 3, thinking he is quite enough to not be heard by active player. Active player then says, I guess it is three.
I decided rightly or wrongly that because, this changed nothing I would not rule outside assistance. However, I did talk to the spectator about how close to the line that was, and asked him to be much more careful about what he says around active matches. Thoughts?


Second case
Active player has dynavolt tower in play, casts harnessed lightning targeting opponents only creature, which was needed to block to avoid lethal. Opponent says in response cast Hirspire infusion to possible push it out of leathel range. Spectator calls judge as soon as I get that he say non-active player didn't specify if it was in response to the harnessed lightning or the dynavolt tower trigger. Non-active player then says I guess it is in response to the trigger. Active player gets annoyed saying non-active player has never done that yet that match so thinks he only did it because of the spectators questions, but then proceeds to say it doesn't matter any, I have another instant in hand, which will give enough energy to make harnessed lightning kill the creature anyway.

I decided not to rule outside assistance because, the question did not have an effect on the game, and even when I though though the result of all the triggers on the stack it didn't really change anything, where the infussion was placed on the stack. But, I did let the spectator know that in the future, if your watching a match and need to call a judge you are much safer ask the players to pause the match, step away from the table and ask the judge the questions, instead of asking it where the players can hear it. Did I make the correct call here?

I have no experience with OA, never given one or received one, but I noticed that in both cases you say that you made your ruling (or non-ruling rather) mainly on the argument that it wouldn't have changed the game, or didn't have an effect of the game.

Unless that is a specific excemption from the IPG, I would say that: as I read these scenario's they both seem like OA to me.

I should also mention that it is entirely possible that ruling OA in the first scenario could have prevented the second scenario from happening at all.

I don't know that I agree with the non calls in these situations. Players maintain a responsibility to ensure that they are not providing Outside Assistance - whether intentional or not. This is competitive REL, and players are playing under the premise that they understand tournament rules (especially in this case, where you're talking about people that have ID'd into the top 8). Players are tested on their knowledge of not only the cards and interactions but the rules of the game.

In both cases, regardless of the outcome of the games and/or matches, players made decisions or changes to what they announced based on what they heard from spectators. It may not have been either player's intention, but the spectator in the first scenario (from the brief description above) made a comment about the attempted resolution of a spell on the stack that changed the play of the game. In the second scenario, the player that called a judge had a responsibility to protect what they were reporting so as to not give either player an advantage, and failed to do so.

My only experiences with OA come as talking through whether or not OA had happened with an HJ in events where I was a floor judge so let that note be mentioned.

Now, here is how I'm inclined to think with these.

In the first one, AP says specifically that he is casting it for two. If he had just cast it and not declared that number, I'd argue that the cavern of souls presumed benefit kinda deal could apply but thats not the case. He clearly said two. As such, I'd say an Argument for OA can be made. A spectator said “coulda been three” and he changed it to three. However, let us note the IPG says “Gives play advice or reveals hidden information to players who have sat for their match.” for this particular scenario. I would say that he did not do either of these things. He commented on a card that had been cast and essentially said “He should have cast that for 3” What should have happened here is that the player who made the mistake should have been required to cast the card as declared, where X is 2. And that the player would be coached to be more careful when speaking about an active match.

Now for the second one, its a bit less clear and I'd say that we need more information. As it sounds like, the spectator was trying to help by halting a game where he saw a problem and called a judge. Whether or not he called a judge and then proceeded to influence the game is another question and one where we would need more information about the exact wording that was given.

Regardless, in both scenarios, the barometer is never whether or not the advice would have impacted the game. If advice was given, you act and access. Doesn't matter if that advice was bad advice or good advice, its still OA. And needs to be dealt with as OA.

Edited Ryan Freeburger (April 3, 2017 09:58:55 AM)

The first example sounds very much like Example B from the IPG: "A spectator points out the correct play to a player who had not solicited the information“. The only difference is that in your situation, the spectator was talking to another spectator, not the player in the match. So I would strongly consider this as OA. On top of that, the player very clearly changed their mind based on hearing this. If that's not a sign of Outside Assistance I'm not sure what is ;)

As for the second scenario, there are some things to take into account before we even start looking at whether OA has occurred:
- Did AP add the 2 energy from the trigger (or try to)?
- Previously, how have the players handled tower triggers - do they get verbally announced? Does AP shortcut through everything and say things like ”Cast Attune with Aether, get 4 energy and a land“? Or ”Cast Harnessed Lightning, and do 5 to <that creature>“?
- Has NAP responded to Spell + Tower trigger situations before, and how did that go?

Essentially, I would be trying to figure out what historical precedent, if any, there is. That will help me determine my baseline for whether the tower trigger has resolved or not. If there's no precedent between these two players, the default is that NAP is responding to the trigger. It sounds like the spell has been cast at the earliest opportunity.

I don't think this situation is OA. In fact, the person most likely to be receiving assistance is AP - they're the one who is at risk of missing a trigger (they clearly haven't though). But I would have a word with the spectator.


As a more general rule of thumb, here's what I do when a spectator calls me over when they believe there's a problem:
- I ask them to not say anything in front of the players
- I quickly scan the board so that I get a rough idea of what's going on
- I take the spectator aside and ask them to tell me what they think the issue is

Taking the spectator away means they can't accidentally say something too loud. Also, if it turns out there's no issue, I can tell the players to play on, and then return to the spectator and we can talk in more detail about why there's no issue, without disturbing players right next to us.

Scanning the board means that I avoid this situation: spectator whispers something to me away from the table; I return, pick up a card to read closely; AP or NAP wonder ”why that card?“ and it ends up giving away some strategic information (”oh yeah, it has prowess!").

The last piece of advice I have is this: whether or not the assistance made a difference or not is irrelevant. OA does not care. This is true of most infractions in the IPG - what the persons DID is the issue. The person who mistaps mana to cast a blocker, but dies to a removal spell off the top anyway, has still committed a GRV. The person who deliberately sneaks an extra card or two yet still loses, has still committed Cheating. The person who says something grossly offensive to me has still committed UC-Major, even if I personally, am not offended by it or them.

Or put another way, not penalising an infraction because it didn't matter is results oriented thinking ;)

To maintain the integrity of all rulings… We can't judge according to the impact or not in game… Throw a rock aim to someone is an act of violence even if hits or fails…

The 2 scenarios, in my guess, are OA… Someone tells an extra information… and a player uses it!

Scenario 1 I see no reason to not hold AP to casting it as declared. It was a legal play to cast it for the value of 2. I also would not consider this outside assistance, as presented. It sounds like no play advice was given, but rather an offhand comment was made about how the player could have had it be higher than needed/intended. You could make the argument that maybe the player forgot that they had access to all 3 colors of mana with those 3 lands, but that's likely a bit of a stretch.

The second, however, sounds a lot like OA to me. Also a great opportunity to instruct spectators about the proper way to pause a match where things aren't clear or they think an error has been made: to ask the players to please stop and call judge, and then speak to the judge away from the table. This prevents the players overhearing what is being said, which can at times provide outside assistance (the most common example being missed triggers). This OA falls both into potentially reminding BOTH players about the Tower trigger (which was potentially not announced, which is fine so long as the energy is adjusted at the correct time) OR that it's potentially advantageous to be responding with the trigger still on the stack (I guess?).

PS: The answer is that he's responding with the trigger still on the stack, unless he specifically stated otherwise. You know, had the player asked away from the table. I wouldn't have even brought it up to the players at that point.

As always with OA, however, a lot boils down to you had to be there.

The first situation is not OA. The lands tapped could have conceivably produced two colors of mana, and the player declared their intent quite clearly; spectator simply inferred some bad information based on the physical actions taken, and openly stated their confusion toward the game state. Cautioning the player here is still wise, as different circumstances could have resulted in an OA situation. No penalties for anyone here.

The second situation is OA as you've described it. Spectators shouldn't be stopping the match unless they believe an error has occurred, not just because they didn't hear when someone responded to a spell. And players have to understand the nuances of when to act on the stack by their own knowledge - a question like this clearly leads them to a particular conclusion, or at least affords them the opportunity to “re-think” a play they've already made.

It's an unfortunate lesson if the spectator happens to also be playing in the event, but that's why the infraction exists and penalty is so harsh - we can't undo the damage of the knowledge gained, and instead have to communicate to everyone both involved and watching/nearby that this is Not Good and how to avoid these kind of unintentional leaks.

In the 1st situation, If AP call to play with X=2… the mana was locked when AP add to pool to pay… Why We must able AP to change of mind in consecuence of a spectator's chat??

In the first situation, I would not give OA. AP clearly announced that he was spending 2 colors of mana on the spell- he can't change his mind later. I will have a talk with the spectator about being more discreet, and a talk with AP as to why he thought it was appropriate to try and change how he cast the spell. No penalty for the spectator, maybe a penalty for AP depending on how the investigation goes.

In the second situation, I would give OA. Even though he was talking to a judge, he has reminded both players of a trigger which has a significant effect on the game state. This scenario demonstrates why you should always ask to talk to spectators away from the table if they have something to say.

We never take the player's choices based on the information given into account when determining if an action is OA. The definition for OA says “gives play advice”, not “gives play advice that is then accepted”. This philosophy applies to pretty much all infractions- we look at what happened when determining if an infraction occurred, not at the effect it had.