You may be tempted to upgrade this situation to a game loss, however consider the following:
What if the player was losing the game and only had one card in hand? Do you feel comfortable in this situation issuing the game loss to the opponent who shuffles in the one card? I don't, and for sake of consistency, I don't feel comfortable in the proposed scenario.

GRV - Warning

At the same time, the general philosophy behind upgrading something like DEC is:

Because there is a significant potential for advantage and it is impossible for the opponent to verify what card was drawn incorrectly (other than cases where the card is or was at one point uniquely identified - only card in hand, was once on top of library due to a tutor effect, etc), we upgrade the penalty. Same thing with Failure to Reveal - the potential for abuse is significant enough to warrant upgrading the penalty, in this case because it is an infraction that the opponent has no way to verify the legality (or lack thereof) of the play in question.

To those who suggest a strict interpretation of the policy of GRV - GPE and a Warning: Can you please explain why, philosophically, accidentally drawing an extra card is so advantageous that it warrants an automatic upgrade to GL, but accidentally shuffling one of your opponent's cards into the library (which, all things being equal, should be about the same potential for abuse) is not crossing that threshold?

@ Mr. Flatford: I do feel comfortable issuing the GL in this situation - Judges should not consider the game state when determining whether to issue a penalty, except when the penalty is for a missed trigger and the trigger is one where whether it is beneficial or detrimental is one that has to be determined based on the game state (i.e. Angel of Serenity). While it is regrettable that the GL may turn a “won” game into a loss, we make no determination on other grounds (if you draw an extra card and swing for lethal, it's still a GL, although in some cases it may make sense to apply the GL to the next game (or into the next match, if applicable).

Simply put, the difference between drawing an extra card and shuffling a
card from your opponent's hand into his library is the same as the
difference between drawing 4 cards for Brainstorm and casting Brainstorm
for U with Thalia in play.

In one case, the player draws an extra card and his opponent has no
plausible opportunity to stop him before it's too late. In the other case,
if the opponent were paying sufficient attention to the game, there would
be an opportunity to intervene before the cards were drawn.

Originally posted by Trey Cizek:

To those who suggest a strict interpretation of the policy of GRV - GPE and a Warning: Can you please explain why, philosophically, accidentally drawing an extra card is so advantageous that it warrants an automatic upgrade to GL, but accidentally shuffling one of your opponent's cards into the library (which, all things being equal, should be about the same potential for abuse) is not crossing that threshold?

So, it's time to revisit a bit of history. Especially because the definition of the various infractions goes back to when we used to have the Penalty Guidelines. Back when we had the Penalty Guidelines, we didn't have specific infractions for errors that players made during the game in progress. (Okay, there were some more specific infractions, but those usually related to tournament stuff.) Instead, we had a suite of Procedural Errors: Minor, Major, and Severe. Each one corresponded to a different penalty. If you received a Caution, it was Minor. If you received a Warning, it was Major. And if you received a Game Loss, it was Severe.

Now, stop if you see something wrong with the system above. Specifically, why did we used to put the penalty first? Well, that's because judges tried to figure out how “affected” the game was, and the rule accordingly. If the judge “felt” the game was too adversely affected, you might issue a Game Loss. If not, perhaps you'd just issue a Warning or a Caution. Essentially, you figured out how “bad” the situation was, and progressed accordingly.

That caused a mess of things, especially with consistency. And too little consistency between judges and rulings is negative customer service. (Yes, I'm going to appropriate Flat's term here.) It means that players can't rely on a consistent approach, or even understand why one situation is handled one way, and why another situation is handled another way. Especially when a judge is assessing “damage to the game”.

With that in mind, the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide was developed. We put infraction first, and the penalties were designated with specific outcomes in mind. Those that were deemed appropriate for a Warning were designated as such, and those that were deemed appropriate for a Game Loss were designated as such. As part of that determination, certain decisions were made about what exactly each penalty did/didn't mean in that situation. And the situations where an upgrade is warranted is also set in policy.

In this situation, we put the infraction first, then assess the penalty per that infraction. Does that mean that some situations are really garbled up? Yes. Sometimes its all on one player, other times it's more than a little negligence from both players. But, trying to determine “damage to the game state” or the “advantage/detriment” of the mistake is no longer a decision we should be making. That is no longer an allowance we have, and it is important to recognize that while the definitions for various penalties exist, those are relics from the previous document and there to help understand why the decisions have been made for the existing infractions we have to work with. And our role is to identify infraction and work within the framework of that infraction.

Originally posted by Trey Cizek:

Judges should not consider the game state when determining whether to issue a penalty, except when the penalty is for a missed trigger and the trigger is one where whether it is beneficial or detrimental is one that has to be determined based on the game state (i.e. Angel of Serenity). While it is regrettable that the GL may turn a “won” game into a loss, we make no determination on other grounds (if you draw an extra card and swing for lethal, it's still a GL, although in some cases it may make sense to apply the GL to the next game (or into the next match, if applicable).

Except that the reason for issuing a Game Loss in this original situation is based on some theoretical “damage to the game”. In which case, you are assessing the game state. Perhaps not directly for one player versus the other, but you are indeed modifying your procedure to address some specific “damage to the game state” that feels above and beyond the normal penalty or remedy. In fact, because there seems to be no remedy here, that Game Loss feels more attractive, doesn't it?

What really is the difference here, than say someone who overlooked that you can't normally Reanimate a Blightsteel Colossus and only realizes it two turns later when they're staring at lethal? There's been just as much theoretical “damage to the game state”. Why is the OP's situation any different?

The only allowance we have to deviate, is if in the Head Judge's opinion, the situation is significant and exceptional. And even then, we've some pretty high standards to meet there. How does this situation meet those standards? Not just because this is “unusual” or even “odd”. Is this situation truly significant and exceptional?

Additionally, DEC is not “upgraded” to a game loss. That is the appropriate penalty, except when it's possible to downgrade it.

And the reason this scenario is not a game loss is because we have to find an infraction that fits first in order to get consistent results. Going backwards from the penalty to arrive at your desired outcome is not going to give consistency in rulings. Since none of the other Game Play Errors cover this error, it can only fit in Game Rule Violation since it wasn't intentional. It doesn't fit the clause to upgrade for an opponent's inability to notice the error.

This isn't a common enough problem to be defined as an infraction other than GRV. If it was defined as “Game Rule Violation - Shuffling opponent's hand into library”, it would probably be assigned a Game Loss penalty… but until that time, it's probably best to stick with the guidance we have. You can even add a direct instruction not to do that again, so you could apply USC Major the next time it happens, but since this error is so rare, chances are slim that would ever be necessary.

Originally posted by Trey Cizek:

Can you please explain why, philosophically, accidentally drawing an extra card is so advantageous that it warrants an … GL, but accidentally shuffling one of your opponent's cards into the library … is not crossing that threshold?

Note that the IPG considers not just the advantage, but also the likelihood of an action being recognized. To quote the IPG philosophy for DEC, “the potential for it to be overlooked by opponents mandates a higher level of penalty.”

What is the potential for your opponent to overlook it when you shuffle one or more of their cards into their library?

Originally posted by David Hibbs:

Trey Cizek
Can you please explain why, philosophically, accidentally drawing an extra card is so advantageous that it warrants an … GL, but accidentally shuffling one of your opponent's cards into the library … is not crossing that threshold?

Note that the IPG considers not just the advantage, but also the likelihood of an action being recognized. To quote the IPG philosophy for DEC, “the potential for it to be overlooked by opponents mandates a higher level of penalty.”

What is the potential for your opponent to overlook it when you shuffle one or more of their cards into their library?

True, but what if we reach a situation where you present your deck and your opponent grabs your hand and starts shuffling before you have the chance to interject? I know that I'm milking the cow a bit, since this type of situation is very rare, but I do know a few players that play the game by using the penalties to work for them. I say this because I know one such person who would, especially with the newer Cheating policy, shuffle in the opponent's hand and say “Oops, I didn't mean to do that. So, I get a warning right? Cool.”

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

But if you believe the player has done this on purpose then you can do an investigation and DQ for Cheating.

You don't need to prove it, you just need to reasonably believe it happened.

Originally posted by Michael White:

Peter Richmond

But if you believe the player has done this on purpose then you can do an investigation and DQ for Cheating.

You don't need to prove it, you just need to reasonably believe it happened.

And I agree with that, but it's entirely possible for any player to act genuinely surprised and apologetic while still having the intent of lessening their opponent's chances of winning a match - assume that the player's acting skills are indeed enough to make it so that the HJ isn't comfortable enough to DQ the player. (This isn't necessarily bad, but we don't want to DQ truly innocent players for honest mistakes). And, do note, that they need only do it once during a tournament, perhaps when they are on the more desperate side of things. The infractions that we specify are designed to make up for this by the amount of advantage that they potentially gained.

It's not that I disagree with any arguments that the shuffled-in hand may not matter in the long run, but that same argument could hold over accidentally drawing a second card in a turn or forgetting to de-sideboard one card. Both of these infractions are Game Losses because they can be abused if neither player catches it. That's why I point out the question where we have an opponent who shuffled in his opponent's hand into his library before he even had a chance to stop him.

If we determine that it was not Cheating, is the advantage still so small that we assign a Warning and leave that player without a hand as a result? Because, at least in my opinion (everyone, please share yours on this matter), the advantage an opponent could gain from this action meets, if not exceeds, that of simply drawing another card for yourself.

And that's why penalties are reported and tracked. Which means that even if
that player does have a good acting skills, the amount of previous simillar
offences will eventually overwhelm him.


2013/4/12 Peter Richmond <forum-3768@apps.magicjudges.org>

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

It's not that I disagree with any arguments that the shuffled-in hand may not matter in the long run, but that same argument could hold over accidentally drawing a second card in a turn or forgetting to de-sideboard one card. Both of these infractions are Game Losses because they can be abused if neither player catches it. That's why I point out the question where we have an opponent who shuffled in his opponent's hand into his library before he even had a chance to stop him.

Further illustration on the scenario as proposed showed that the player got distracted by something. In that respect, the player did have a reasonable opportunity to detect the error; instead, he didn't pay attention to what was going on. (The upgrade clause for a “hidden error” in GPE-GRV is when the player's error can't be reasonably detected even by an attentive opponent.) Furthermore, the player's placement of his hand near the library after presentation also made it possible for the opponent to think that the cards were part of the library.

So, I see fault on the player's part here. And that may be very unfortunate, but there are plenty of unfortunate errors that judges simply can't fix. Sometimes that error does a significant amount of damage to the course of the game, but that is why the players need to be more responsible and attentive to what is going on.

Originally posted by Peter Richmond:

If we determine that it was not Cheating, is the advantage still so small that we assign a Warning and leave that player without a hand as a result? Because, at least in my opinion (everyone, please share yours on this matter), the advantage an opponent could gain from this action meets, if not exceeds, that of simply drawing another card for yourself.

As I previously quoted, section 2 of the MIPG is pretty clear…

As a result, no attempt should be made to determine or correct any advantage gained in assessing the penalty and associated procedures for fixing the offense.

…so applying a Game Loss instead of the normal Warning because of the “potential for advantage” is something that people should not be entertaining here. Especially not without first justifying whether “significant and exceptional” circumstances are present to justify any kind of deviation to begin with. Which is something that needs to be decided upon first.

Applying a Game Loss because it seems the best fit is really trying to reverse engineer things. And that is the kind of behavior that we, as judges, must avoid.

I agree with GPE - GPV warning.

I wonder about the fixed.
How about:
Firstly, try to find if any card is known in his hand. Put it back to his hand.
Then, the player draws cards to as many as cards he originally has.

Originally posted by Simon Lee:

I agree with GPE - GPV warning.

I wonder about the fixed.
How about:
Firstly, try to find if any card is known in his hand. Put it back to his hand.
Then, the player draws cards to as many as cards he originally has.

The first part of that certainly seems appropriate. If the opponent had just resolved something like Gitaxian Probe or Duress and wrote down everything in the player's hand, we can “rebuild” the game state based on that.

I don't know about the second part. It feels too much like making even more changes to the game state to fix the ones that were (inadvertently) already made.

I like the first part because it's an attempt to “revert” the game to before the mistake happened, which is a common fix for GPEs. The second part feels like trying to “provide relief” to the aggrieved player, to use legal parlance, which is certainly understandable to want to do, but is perhaps beyond the scope of what we can do.

While I appreciate the stances that have been espoused here (and Brian's excellent piece on the history of the IPG and the reasons it's the way it is), I'm going to come down here in favor of a Game Loss.

The IPG has an allowance for “a situation that has no applicable philosophy for guidance” to go along with the usual S&E caveat. We're talking about a situation where one player takes an action that the other player has no way to prevent, but the consequences of the action are almost universally to the detriment of the player not taking the action. That's *extremely* unusual. A core underpinning of the GPE section of the IPG is that both players have to be held partially responsible for any illegal action, as that encourages players to catch things as soon as possible. This scenario undermines all that.

So we're in outside-the-IPG-land here. But that doesn't mean that there aren't philosophies that can provide guidance. Here's the ones I think are relevant:

1) The Game Loss section talks about “in which it is impossible to continue the game due to physical damage”. That's for situations where something happens that makes the physical representation of the game unreconstructable. I make a sweeping gesture that happens to catch the edge of my playmat and send my deck, hand and battlefield crashing together into a pile on the floor, we've hit a point where it's physically impossible for the game to continue most of the time. This would seem to parallel the scenario here - a single player is responsible for enough damage to the game state that we can't realistically continue with anything that's going to look organically derived. (Note that sometimes we allow the game to continue even in this case, such as the scenario where you shuffle your own hand into your library. Carry on and good luck!)

2) In GRV, we have reference to “An error that an opponent can’t verify the legality of should have its penalty upgraded.” As mentioned above, this is reinforcing the idea that the game state is a joint responsibility. It's why FtMGS isn't given out if a player calls the judge immediately. Immediate calls are, for the most part, able to be fixed. (Yes, it can be a little messy in a DEC situation, but even there everything gets back to something approximating normal in a turn or two). In situations where joint responsibility for the game state is not possible, the IPG comes down fairly harshly on infractors.

Combine those two principles, and I think we have sufficient guidance that this is a situation where a Game Loss infraction is reasonable given an investigation to confirm that the two principles above have been reasonably violated. The IPG is not written to handle crazy once-in-a-lifetime situations - nor should it be! - and when you encounter a highly unusual situation where the underlying principles in the IPG seem to contradict the implementation, plus produce an outcome that's problematic from a customer service standpoint, it's worth asking if you're in that no-man's-land and need to stray from doctrine. This should not be a regular, or even uncommon, practice.

Toby, why isn't this still a grv though? Didn't the opponent still resolve farseek incorrectly?