Originally posted by Tim Boura:

I believe I made a mistake in not pointing out that this was outside assistance

What exactly makes you think this is Outside Assistance? I don't think this situation meets any of the criteria for OA, as laid out in the IPG:

•Seeks play advice or hidden information about their match from others once they have sat
for their match.
• Gives play advice or reveals hidden information to players who have sat for their match.
• During a game, refers to notes (other than Oracle™ pages) made before the official
beginning of the current match.

The MTR tells us that at Regular and Competitive REL, Spectators are allowed to ask players to pause their match so they can call a judge if they think they observe a rules or policy violation, which I believe is what this spectator had done.

The fact they did so, is not Outside Assistance, though I understand that it can be perceived as such. The action of the player calling a judge may not have been the direct indicator to them missing their trigger, so much as you pointing it out yourself.

The moment it becomes Outside Assistance is in situations where the following takes place:

*Scarab God in GY*
AP: Pass turn
*NAP untaps and draws*
Spectator: "Can I stop you there, you missed your trigger *JUDGE!*

And even then, I can imagine people giving a stern talking to the spectator over the Match Loss.

I don't want to seem argumentative here, I'm just trying to make sure I understand where the line is here. I still went on to win the match but should I (playing or judging) see a similar circumstance I'm fuzzy on just what is and isn't allowed.

From the way I see it it's not really coincidental that the opponent was reminded they had missed a trigger. The intent of the observer was to help their friend who had missed a trigger. They achieved that by saying “judge” rather than saying “you missed a trigger” but the end result was still the same - it reminded them they had missed it and made it much more likely that they would not miss it again that match. When the only actions taken so far that turn is to draw a card it isn't hard to realize what you missed!

Surely this action falls under “Giving play advice” - in that the advice is “Scarab god has an upkeep trigger that you just missed”. Does this mean whenever I see a friend miss a trigger I just need to call “JUDGE” to remind them and that is completely legal?

I agree it's tricky as we don't want to discourage spectators from calling a judge, but surely that is where judge discretion and evaluation of intent comes in.

In the example given: “Can I stop you there, you missed your trigger *JUDGE!*

So the only difference here is between saying ”you missed your trigger *JUDGE*“ or ”*JUDGE*"? When the end result is identical - as soon as the spectator asked for play to stop (which they did as soon as my opponent drew a card) the opponent immediately looked at the scarab god and knew what they had missed.

We want to encourage spectators to do exactly as the person in the example did: if they see something wrong, ask to pause the match and call for a judge.

In this case, happened that a trigger was missed. It also happens that players do not know how the policy of Missed Triggers work exactly. To be fair, it's not an easy one.

However, the line of Outside Assistance is drawn in the information given. There's a clear line between “Hey, please pause the game, I'm going to call a judge” and “Hey, you missed your Scarab God trigger”. The first is exactly what we want spectators to do, the second is the opposite.

While, in this case, the trigger missed was immediately remembered, and it happened to be a trigger that doesn't expire, certainly feels like stopping the game was the reason for the trigger to “happen anyways”. In most cases I've been involved, they either don't notice, or the trigger has been missed.

At the end of this, we explain to players the MT policy (and why we don't interfere), thank them and encourage to continue to do so. Spectators are a strong force against cheating - people tend to be wary of judges, but not as much of spectators.

This may be the case where “it feels like the spectator should not interfere”. If it is so, it is an exception to the directive of see a problem, call a judge. We want to reinforce the attitude that's based on the general situation, not the exception.

Lastly, always remember that, if you don't want someone to spectate your game, you're always allowed to ask a judge to move away spectators - it's your right as a player involved in an official match.

Originally posted by Tim Boura:

So the only difference here is between saying ”you missed your trigger *JUDGE*“ or ”*JUDGE*"?

That's a big difference. We as judges want to only penalize when the spectator clearly informed the table of the correct play. In this scenario, saying “You missed your trigger” is clearly stating that you did something that wasn't the corret line of play. Stoping the match and calling for a judge is not only what we want spectators to do, but it doesn't inform the table of what went wrong. Maybe you drew an extra card and neither player noticed. Maybe you have something on the battlefield that should have died last turn. As Scott said, the fact that player looked at the table and remembered the trigger after the game was paused is coincidental. He could have looked for another illegal play and not have found anything. Granted, it might have made your opponent look back on what COULD be wrong, but it certainly didn't specify what was.

As such, we can't really penalize someone for doing exactly what the rules ask them to do: Pause the game and call for a judge if you believe something is illegal. For all we know, the spectator could think missing that trigger was an illegal action and didn't want his friend to get in trouble

If a spectator is repeatedly pausing a match whenever a player misses a trigger in order to get them to realize, then yes, that is Outside Assistance. But pausing a match once in order to ask a judge how the Missed Trigger policy works is exactly what we want spectators to do when they think a rule may have been broken. If the player happens to remember their trigger while the match is paused, good for them.

Triggers resolving is the default; according to the base rules of the game they're not even optional. They only get missed when their controller explicitly messes up. Players aren't entitled to all tournament participants doing their utmost to make opponents forget about their triggers.

Ok, thank you. That's clearer now.

I would like to add something to this interesting discussion:

1) There may be a case where I learn that the motivation of the spectator was not “I think that something went wrong in the game which may require a judge's presence” but rather “my friend missed a trigger and I want to help him remember it”. For example, the players are part of a team and they have such internal agreement to call a judge in case of missed non-detrimental triggers, and I somehow learn about such agreement.

In this case, we have an infraction. And I can imagine considering it as a cheating DQ (i.e. intentionally breaking a rule with an attempt to gain an advantage).

2) There may be a case, where I am not sure that cheating is in place, but I have doubts about the motivation of the spectator. In such case, even if I do not issue a Match Loss for Outside Assistance, I can still report it as a no-penalty TE-OA infraction in WER and describe the details in it. This would help to uncover such scheme in the player group or turn attention to the spectator's repeated behavior.

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

I would like to add something to this interesting discussion:

1) There may be a case where I learn that the motivation of the spectator was not “I think that something went wrong in the game which may require a judge's presence” but rather “my friend missed a trigger and I want to help him remember it”. For example, the players are part of a team and they have such internal agreement to call a judge in case of missed non-detrimental triggers, and I somehow learn about such agreement.

In this case, we have an infraction. And I can imagine considering it as a cheating DQ (i.e. intentionally breaking a rule with an attempt to gain an advantage).

I'm not comfortable with calling this Cheating.

Intentional? Check.
Attempt to gain an advantage? Check.
Breaking a rule? I have some doubts. Which rule has been broken?

Originally posted by MTR 5.6 Outside Assistance:

During matches, players may not seek play advice from spectators and spectators may not give play advice to players.

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Originally posted by MTR 5.6 Outside Assistance:

During matches, players may not seek play advice from spectators and spectators may not give play advice to players.

Counterpoint:

Originally posted by MTR 1.11 Spectators:

If spectators believe they have observed a rules or policy violation, they are encouraged to alert a judge as soon as possible. At Regular or Competitive Rules Enforcement Level, spectators are permitted to ask the players to pause the match while they alert a judge.

A rules violation has occurred. An infraction has been committed, it just happens to be an infraction with no penalty.

It is only judges that have the catch to not intervene in the scenario of a missed trigger where we are not intending to follow the upgrade path (or where we suspect cheating).

Originally posted by IPG 2.1 Game Play Error - Missed Trigger:

Judges do not intervene in a missed trigger situation unless they intend to issue a Warning or have reason to suspect that the controller is intentionally missing their triggered abilities.

Edited Winter (Sept. 5, 2018 11:12:14 AM)

It's certainly an interesting scenario, it had me puzzling through it afterwards which is why I posted it here.

Based on my limited knowledge of these things we have two conflicting rules here:

During matches, players may not seek play advice from spectators and spectators may not give play advice to players.

If spectators believe they have observed a rules or policy violation, they are encouraged to alert a judge as soon as possible. At Regular or Competitive Rules Enforcement Level, spectators are permitted to ask the players to pause the match while they alert a judge.

Both of these apply in this case. The spectator is giving play advice (“don't forget your trigger”) to the player, but they are doing so by following an important policy (“alert a judge to potential issues”). It's impossible to follow one without breaking the other - hence the confusion.

Does it change anything that they are alerting the judge of a situation where the judge would take no action were they watching the match?

Does it change anything if they know that judges generally don't intervene for missed triggers? At that point the only reason to make the judge call is to help their friend.

I just found this previous discussion, it's not quite the same as it is mostly about the spectator directly intervening rather than calling a judge but it seems relevant:

https://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/27896/

Edited Tim Boura (Sept. 7, 2018 11:09:52 AM)

Your interpretation:
>The spectator is giving play advice (“don't forget your trigger”) to the
player.

Other (Scott's) interpretation:
The fact that this reminded the player of their Missed Trigger is
coincidental

Hence the confusion. Not in the Policy.