A friend of mine was recently playing in a Grand Prix. Domri Rade was on the board and he used his first ability, revealed the card to his opponent and put it into his hand. Immediately after doing this he realized that the card was not a creature and called a judge.
The judge ruled that this was drawing extra cards and issued a game loss.
My issue with this is the card was allowed to be looked at by the player according to Domri Rade's first ability, so the player had no additional information, as would be the case if they drew an extra card. Also the card had been revealed to the opponent so they knew which card had been placed into the player's hand. Also the player was obviously not trying to cheat as they immediately informed their opponent and called a judge.
It seems to me that no advantage was gained by the player and he was clearly not trying to cheat and therefore a game warning would have been more appropriate. However I would like to find out what the official ruling should be for this situation.
This didn't seem right to me (though I'm only a Rules Advisor, not a Judge), so I did some digging in some rules documents and it seems that your friend got a raw deal.
This line is taken directly from the most recent Infraction Procedure Guide from Wizards: "If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the
card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning." Furthermore, the issuing of a game loss is designed specifically for situations which cannot be remedied, and the example you gave clearly can be remedied.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
120.1. A player draws a card by putting the top card of his or her library into his or her hand. This is done as a turn-based action during each player's draw step. It may also be done as part of a cost or effect of a spell or ability.
So it definitely was a card draw, since it didn't meet Domri Rade's condition to have been just moving a card from the library to hand.
Then we have to take a look at the penalties for card draws:
Quote from "Game Play Error — Drawing Extra Cards" »
Penalty
Game Loss
Quote from "Game Play Error — Drawing Extra Cards: Philosophy" »
If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.
So if your friend revealed the card, then it would be up to the judges to decide if returning the card would cause minimal disruption. In this case they ruled it a game loss.
Judges take extra card draw very seriously. Card advantage is so powerful that they have to take a hard line on drawing extra cards.
The philosophy behind the game loss penalty in a situation of drawing extra cards is that if the card that was put in the player's hand cannot be provably identified except by the player's word, the game state is too damaged to be confidently fixed (we can't risk putting a different card in the deck), so that game must be ended.
Now, in the case you describe, this should have been downgraded to a warning in my opinion. Because the card was revealed to the opponent, it is identifiable, and the player called the judge on himself immediatly. The situation can be fixed : just put back the card on top of the deck. The player revealed it to the opponent while he looked at it, but such an action is legal; you can choose to reveal to the other player any hidden information that you're currently looking at.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
120.1. A player draws a card by putting the top card of his or her library into his or her hand. This is done as a turn-based action during each player's draw step. It may also be done as part of a cost or effect of a spell or ability.
So it definitely was a card draw, since it didn't meet Domri Rade's condition to have been just moving a card from the library to hand.
Then we have to take a look at the penalties for card draws:
Quote from "Game Play Error — Drawing Extra Cards" »
Penalty
Game Loss
Quote from "Game Play Error — Drawing Extra Cards: Philosophy" »
If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning.
So if your friend revealed the card, then it would be up to the judges to decide if returning the card would cause minimal disruption. In this case they ruled it a game loss.
Judges take extra card draw very seriously. Card advantage is so powerful that they have to take a hard line on drawing extra cards.
While I understand your logic here, and I no doubt believe that Judges take that action very seriously, the player in question DID reveal the card letting his opponent know exactly what he put in his hand, and called himself out on the error before his opponent even did. For all we know the opponent didn't even realize the error and he could have just been dishonest and kept it in hand. I believe that what happened could definitely fall into the "minimal disruption" category. My personal opinion is that a game loss was definitely harsh given the circumstance... AND the honesty of the player.
While I understand your logic here, and I no doubt believe that Judges take that action very seriously, the player in question DID reveal the card letting his opponent know exactly what he put in his hand, and called himself out on the error before his opponent even did. For all we know the opponent didn't even realize the error and he could have just been dishonest and kept it in hand. I believe that what happened could definitely fall into the "minimal disruption" category. My personal opinion is that a game loss was definitely harsh given the circumstance... AND the honesty of the player.
If the situation is as described I agree that the game loss was harsh and definitely could've been downgraded. Perhaps there were other factors involved. For example: the reveal was very fast and the opponent was not able to identify which card was drawn into his hand.
While I understand your logic here, and I no doubt believe that Judges take that action very seriously, the player in question DID reveal the card letting his opponent know exactly what he put in his hand, and called himself out on the error before his opponent even did. For all we know the opponent didn't even realize the error and he could have just been dishonest and kept it in hand. I believe that what happened could definitely fall into the "minimal disruption" category. My personal opinion is that a game loss was definitely harsh given the circumstance... AND the honesty of the player.
If the situation is as described I agree that the game loss was harsh and definitely could've been downgraded. Perhaps there were other factors involved. For example: the reveal was very fast and the opponent was not able to identify which card was drawn into his hand.
That very well could be the case. And who knows, maybe we are only hearing the one side. Ultra... do you know with any certainty that the opposing player knew what was revealed? I suppose the only way in which a game loss would be justified would be if the opposing player DIDN'T see the card... but at the same time, he could have just lied out of fear of what it was anyway, or knowing he may lose regardless and wanted to jank them out of a win? Who knows. ...people. haha
Yes the opponent knew what the card was and confirmed that when asked by the judge. Essentially there were no discrepancies in the story from both sides. My friend was just the first of them to put his hand up and say "JUDGE!".
Yes the opponent knew what the card was and confirmed that when asked by the judge. Essentially there were no discrepancies in the story from both sides. My friend was just the first of them to put his hand up and say "JUDGE!".
Then I say your friend was thoroughly screwed over. In that case he should have been allowed to put the card back onto his library and given a warning. A game loss was entirely uncalled for.
In those situations where you believe that the penalty given to you is too harsh, appeal to the Head Judge (unless the judge who made the ruling is the HJ, in which case his ruling is final).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a former judge (lapsed), who keeps up to date on rules and policy. Keep in mind that judges' answers aren't necessarily more valid than those of people who aren't judges; what matters is we can quote the rules to back up our answers. When in doubt, ask for such quotes.
When your friend revealed the card and then put it in his hand, did the opponent acknowledge the action while it was revealed?
If he did, one could interpret that as confirmation of the "draw" and make the DEC penalty inapplicable entirely.
Quote from IPG »
If the player received confirmation from his or her opponent before drawing the card (including confirming the number of cards when greater than one), the infraction is not Drawing Extra Cards.
This is true. But I believe the debate here is about the error of putting a card into his hand that he was not allowed to. Domri's first ability allows you to LOOK at the top card of your library, so no confirmation would be needed per say by your opponent, other than informing the opponent you were activating his ability to LOOK. And past that, Domri's first ability reads as "you MAY reveal it and put it into your hand", so technically, based on card rules he didn't NEED to even do that. But it's irrelevant to the situation, just thought it was worth pointing out. But I would say that at the point that it WAS revealed to his opponent and didn't say "hey, that ain't a creature dude, put it back", that would put the opponent at just as much fault. But the player immediately called a Judge on himself and it was confirmed by BOTH players what the card was, leaving NO debate or game interruption or unfairness. He could have just been told to put the card back into his library and the game would have been reset to a point where there was no advantage or disadvantage to either player. Game loss was entirely inappropriate to me.
I don't know, I will have to ask him how the opponent responded to the reveal.
I think either way it is clear that a mistake was made, but that no advantage had been gained and the situation could have been sorted out quite easily.
Thanks for the responses everyone, I really appreciate some confirmation on this. I guess at the end of the day a judge ruling is circumstantial to the situation on the day. In this case it probably should have gone to the head judge and my guess is he would have over turned the game loss and issued a warning.
Thanks again
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The judge ruled that this was drawing extra cards and issued a game loss.
My issue with this is the card was allowed to be looked at by the player according to Domri Rade's first ability, so the player had no additional information, as would be the case if they drew an extra card. Also the card had been revealed to the opponent so they knew which card had been placed into the player's hand. Also the player was obviously not trying to cheat as they immediately informed their opponent and called a judge.
It seems to me that no advantage was gained by the player and he was clearly not trying to cheat and therefore a game warning would have been more appropriate. However I would like to find out what the official ruling should be for this situation.
Thanks.
This line is taken directly from the most recent Infraction Procedure Guide from Wizards: "If the identity of the card was known to all players before being placed into the hand, and the
card can be returned to the correct zone with minimal disruption, do so and downgrade the penalty to a Warning." Furthermore, the issuing of a game loss is designed specifically for situations which cannot be remedied, and the example you gave clearly can be remedied.
Then we have to take a look at the penalties for card draws:
So if your friend revealed the card, then it would be up to the judges to decide if returning the card would cause minimal disruption. In this case they ruled it a game loss.
Judges take extra card draw very seriously. Card advantage is so powerful that they have to take a hard line on drawing extra cards.
Now, in the case you describe, this should have been downgraded to a warning in my opinion. Because the card was revealed to the opponent, it is identifiable, and the player called the judge on himself immediatly. The situation can be fixed : just put back the card on top of the deck. The player revealed it to the opponent while he looked at it, but such an action is legal; you can choose to reveal to the other player any hidden information that you're currently looking at.
While I understand your logic here, and I no doubt believe that Judges take that action very seriously, the player in question DID reveal the card letting his opponent know exactly what he put in his hand, and called himself out on the error before his opponent even did. For all we know the opponent didn't even realize the error and he could have just been dishonest and kept it in hand. I believe that what happened could definitely fall into the "minimal disruption" category. My personal opinion is that a game loss was definitely harsh given the circumstance... AND the honesty of the player.
If the situation is as described I agree that the game loss was harsh and definitely could've been downgraded. Perhaps there were other factors involved. For example: the reveal was very fast and the opponent was not able to identify which card was drawn into his hand.
That very well could be the case. And who knows, maybe we are only hearing the one side. Ultra... do you know with any certainty that the opposing player knew what was revealed? I suppose the only way in which a game loss would be justified would be if the opposing player DIDN'T see the card... but at the same time, he could have just lied out of fear of what it was anyway, or knowing he may lose regardless and wanted to jank them out of a win? Who knows. ...people. haha
Then I say your friend was thoroughly screwed over. In that case he should have been allowed to put the card back onto his library and given a warning. A game loss was entirely uncalled for.
This is true. But I believe the debate here is about the error of putting a card into his hand that he was not allowed to. Domri's first ability allows you to LOOK at the top card of your library, so no confirmation would be needed per say by your opponent, other than informing the opponent you were activating his ability to LOOK. And past that, Domri's first ability reads as "you MAY reveal it and put it into your hand", so technically, based on card rules he didn't NEED to even do that. But it's irrelevant to the situation, just thought it was worth pointing out. But I would say that at the point that it WAS revealed to his opponent and didn't say "hey, that ain't a creature dude, put it back", that would put the opponent at just as much fault. But the player immediately called a Judge on himself and it was confirmed by BOTH players what the card was, leaving NO debate or game interruption or unfairness. He could have just been told to put the card back into his library and the game would have been reset to a point where there was no advantage or disadvantage to either player. Game loss was entirely inappropriate to me.
I think either way it is clear that a mistake was made, but that no advantage had been gained and the situation could have been sorted out quite easily.
Thanks for the responses everyone, I really appreciate some confirmation on this. I guess at the end of the day a judge ruling is circumstantial to the situation on the day. In this case it probably should have gone to the head judge and my guess is he would have over turned the game loss and issued a warning.
Thanks again