Judge! My opponent shuffled my hand into my library on accident.
Additional information: this WAS an accident. It is at comp. REL. No player has a any credible information about what the cards were.
Penalty/fix? (after slapping them that is)
W may only be paid with white mana. U may only be paid with blue mana. B may only be paid with black mana. R may only be paid with red mana. G may only be paid with green mana. C may only be paid with colorless mana. 1 may be paid with white, blue, black, red, green, or clolorless mana.
This is an exceptional circumstance that should result in the Head Judge being called. Multiple factors will be considered.
Assuming that the shuffling was indeed accidental, the infraction for your opponent is Game Rule Violation.
According to the IPG, it is not possible to "back up" fully here, and this is not one of the situations mentioned in the IPG in which it is appropriate to perform a partial fix. So, if the IPG is strictly followed, the judge should leave the game state exactly as is, which would mean that you have no hand.
The situation is very unfair to you, because you have just lost your hand through no fault of your own. As a result, if I were the Head Judge, I think the most likely outcome is for me to give the person who shuffled the hand into the library a Game Loss, even though the normal penalty is a Warning.
As justification, I would explain to the opponent that the IPG states that a Game Loss is an appropriate penalty for situations where it is impossible to continue the game due to physical damage, and this situation seems roughly analogous. In addition, a Game Loss can be appropriate in situations where there is a significant potential to gain an advantage, and having your opponent lose his hand is normally an advantage.
Because of the potential that some player here was cheating, this situation should also result in an investigation. If your opponent did this intentionally he would be disqualified. And if you deliberately allowed or encouraged your opponent to commit the error before calling a judge in the hopes of getting a free win, you would be cheating and would earn yourself a disqualification.
This actually happened to me at a tournament once. My opponent cast surgical extraction on my mana leaks, set my hand on the table for him to grab, he wrote it down, then looked through my library. Somewhere inbetween that and shuffling my hand was gone.
We called the judge over, he gave ME a warning, would not allow me to get the cards in my hand back despite my opponent writing it down. Needless to say, I was quite upset. After the game ended (which I somehow one) I signed my match slip, dropped despite being 3-0 and still haven't played in an event with that judge again.
The key piece of info is that you are playing at a competitive REL tournament, and yes the head judge must be called. Both players must maintain game state. The opponent that shuffled the cards in is at fault and is likely to be issued a game loss, though you should also receive a warning assuming you let your opponent "scoop up" your hand with your deck and did not maintain the state of your deck/cards. An "accident", especially of this magnitude at a competitive REL tournament is very different than at an FNM.
As a TO/Rules advisor I would do the same at my own FNM because I can't think of a "fair" way to return the game state.
Dandaman: My intuition tells me there is more to your story, but I may be wrong. Also, there is feedback that you can supply the DCI on the judges and TOs via their website. Please use it! We need to know what judges out there are making bad calls so they can be corrected.
I am going to disagree with both TheLizard and Relique21 here. Utilizing the definition of Game Loss and "physical damage", when there's been no actual physical damage involved, is a stretch of the MIPG. It seems to me that applying a Game Loss to this situation is more about reverse engineering a penalty that "seems" appropriate, rather than following the MIPG. Especially the following line from MIPG 2...
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, while the scenario is extremely regretable, applying a Game Loss because it is the "fair" way to fix things is a bit much. Especially as the MIPG doesn't suggest this, and even the JARR doesn't suggest that we should try to do the "fair" thing.
I agree with eepeguy.. a game loss is a bit much, unless there's evidence to prove it was intentional.
You would have to be at least somewhat passive to allow your opponent to shuffle your hand in with your library. For example, if an opponent uses Surgical Extraction: allow him to view your hand first, then get it back from him as soon as he's finished.
I'm not saying it's more your fault than his, but if you are a bit more aggressive in asking for your hand immediately when the opponent is done looking, perhaps the whole situation might be avoided.
In addition, if you call the judge and tell him you were demanding when you requested your hand back, and instead the opponent shuffled it into your library.. it wouldn't look like much of an accident on his part anymore.
Well, I know you (epeeguy) tend to be fairly close to the policymakers on these issues.
But if they really intend for a Warning to be the appropriate penalty even for errors that cause serious and irreversible damage to the game state at the moment they are committed (as opposed to because the players didn't notice and played on), they should include an example of that kind in the Example section for GPE - GRV. All the examples given there are essentially harmless if someone had noticed right away.
Otherwise, it seems appropriate to deviate, because it sure looks like that particular policy was not intended to cover this case.
EDIT: If it was intentional, there's no need to discuss Game Losses.The only options are the regular penalty, or a DQ for Cheating.
But if they really intend for a Warning to be the appropriate penalty even for errors that cause serious and irreversible damage to the game state at the moment they are committed (as opposed to because the players didn't notice and played on), they should include an example of that kind in the Example section for GPE - GRV. All the examples given there are essentially harmless if someone had noticed right away.
The existence of an example is largely irrelevant. As judges, the assessment that needs to be made is "What infraction did the player commit?" And judges need to rely on the definition of the various infractions in the MIPG in order to make that determination. Yes, the examples can help illustrate how a particular infraction should be applied or even some situations that fit the definition. And that can be helpful when distinquishing the general "Game Play Error--Game Rule Violation" infraction from the more specific infractions.
In this situation, we have a very general type of error that was made. Since none of the more specific Game Play Error infractions apply, this is indeed a Game Play Error--Game Rule Violation. As such, the normal procedure applies. Even more so, the only time a deviation is truly allowed is in what are referred to as "significant and exceptional circumstances", and we've even examples of those in MIPG 1.
The situation posed by the OP really doesn't fit "significant and exceptional circumstances". Especially not when the decision is made about doing what is "fair" or even trying to mitigate advantage being gained or lost because of the mistake. The MIPG is extremely clear on that.
Otherwise, it seems appropriate to deviate, because it sure looks like that particular policy was not intended to cover this case.
Regardless, going to the general definition of the various penalties is no reason to decide that a "Game Loss" is appropriate. Especially when the phrase "physical damage" is being incorrectly applied. There's been no "physical damage" to the cards in question here.
Physical damage refers to physical destruction of a card, such as an opponent ripping up one of your cards or a drink spilling on your cards.
No, it means somehow the game is impossible to continue due to something physically happening, such as one player flipping the table, or a player's hand being shuffled into their library.
If a card is ripped up, that is a much more simple fix; issue a proxy for the player to use for the tournament, and infract the offending player for Unsporting Conduct — Aggressive Behavior
No, it means somehow the game is impossible to continue due to something physically happening, such as one player flipping the table, or a player's hand being shuffled into their library.
No, it does not mean any such thing. "Physical damage" means just that, actual, physical damage to the cards themselves. While a game might be "damaged" through physical actions, that is not the same concept.
No, it does not mean any such thing. "Physical damage" means just that, actual, physical damage to the cards themselves. While a game might be "damaged" through physical actions, that is not the same concept.
No, it doesn't.
A Game Loss is issued in situations where the procedure to correct the offense takes a significant amount of time
that may slow the entire tournament or causes significant disruption to the tournament, or in which it is impossible
to continue the game due to physical damage
If i pick up your Jace and tear it up, the game state hasn't actually been altered in a meaningful way. If for some reason the judge doesn't immediately DQ me, he can issue you a proxy and the game can continue exactly where is left off.
But if i flip the table, the game state has been physically damage in a very meaningful way, and it is impossible to continue the game.
Yes, it actually does. "Physical damage" means there has to be actual, physical damage. The fact that cards were moved around and shouldn't be isn't actual, physicl damage.
If i pick up your Jace and tear it up, the game state hasn't actually been altered in a meaningful way. If for some reason the judge doesn't immediately DQ me, he can issue you a proxy and the game can continue exactly where is left off.
Sure, a judge could do that. But that illustrates the point of why judges don't use the definition of penalties to determine the course of action. Those definitions exist to provide some context for why certain infractions have certain penalties. But, they are not reason to decide to apply some "outside the box" thinking. That's especially true when considered in context with the previous phrase I provided from MIPG 2.
As I said earlier in the thread, judges need to start with identifying an infraction first per the definition of the infraction. From that point, then judges figure out what to do. (And procedurally that's important, so that judges are reasonably consistent in approach.) Not with using the definition of a penalty to figure out what to do.
Edit: Years ago, when we had the Penalty Guide rather than the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide, we had an array of infractions that were called Procedural Errors. Minor, Major, and Severe. And a judge used to have to assess the situation to determine "how bad" it was, and then penalize accordingly. Hence, why we defined the various penalties, since we did have to use that definition to figure out the infraction. That required a judgment call and familiarity with what was "bad enough" to merit a Game Loss.
That approach was done away with many years ago with the introduction of the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide, and now we rely strictly on the infraction first approach. The definitions of the penalties, in some respect, are actually relics of as bygone period. Using the definition of the penalties is actually the reverse of the behavior the DCI wants.
But if i flip the table, the game state has been physically damage in a very meaningful way, and it is impossible to continue the game.
If you flip the table, you better have a good reason for having done so. Because the likely outcome is that you're going to be removed from the event for that as well.
And in the event that you flipped the table by accident, then likely we're getting into the possibility of significant and exceptional circumstances. Tables don't generally flip by accident. Hands being shuffled into libraries by accident due to careless placement of cards? That's not really that significant or exceptional.
Can you give an example of a circumstance under which a Game Loss would be issued because a player caused physical damage that caused the game to be unable to continue?
Even assuming the player is a total klutz and is capable of doing almost anything by accident, if "physical damage" is interpreted to mean damage to the cards, I cannot think of any circumstance in which it is possible to continue the match but not the game.
I just scoured all the information I can find and NO WHERE is the definition of what "Physical Damage" means. In fact whenever a card that is damaged as in the case of water spillage or poor shuffling (both actually listed) the only word that appears is damage(d) and has no adjectives not physical, not emotional, not psychological, nothing.
So to illustrate using Oscar Wilde like absurdity.
I am at a tournament and a light from the ceiling falls on the table during my opponents turn and the cards are all destroyed. Do we both get warnings or does he only get one as he had priority? Or is that game loss territory?
Or
I played act of treason and went to reach for my opponents Boros Reckoner and paper cut my self on it to the point of a nasty bleeding flap, Is that physical damage or un-sportsman conduct?
I think this merits a email to wizards as there isnt a clear definition of what "physical damage" is.
Arguing amongst our selves will get us no where with out that definition.
Can we please discuss what we do if we take Epeeguy's side and how we handle this situation if we give the offending player a Warning instead of a Game Loss? I'm guessing we treat this as a GPE - GRV with no potential for rewind? If we do allow the potential for rewind, do we only allow it only if someone other than the offending player knew the number of cards in his/her hand? Does this change if, as in an earlier example, both players were aware of the actual of cards in offending player's hand?
I don't think this is a Game Loss offense - as Epeeguy said, "physical damage" has historically referred to damage to cards, not damage to the gamestate; that is usually referred to as an "unrecoverable gamestate" or something similar. I feel that deviating this far from the IPG would get you into the scary territory of the potentiality for bias. But my biggest question is if we interpret the rules in the "normal" sense, how do we fix this situation if at all?
Obviously we can't just let the game continue if the player accidentally shuffled the entire hand into their opponents deck (maybe while surgical extractioning a card, and putting the hand and deck together with a brisk shuffle when they hand it back). The only thing this fits is a GPE-GRV, but the penalty doesn't seem to make sense. A warning for something that'll basically win the game for the opponent, and was the opponents fault? "You get a warning, and the player affected by all of this gets a pseudo game loss, shuffle thoroughly and have fun."
Could we possible upgrade this from a warning to a game loss under the hidden information upgrade path under GRV? Technically the opponent has performed a GRV that resulted in hidden information being affected in a way that cannot be verified. Ultimately the game state has been ruined in an irreparable way, and it makes no sense to penalize the innocent player in this situation.
Obviously we can't just let the game continue if the player accidentally shuffled the entire hand into their opponents deck (maybe while surgical extractioning a card, and putting the hand and deck together with a brisk shuffle when they hand it back). The only thing this fits is a GPE-GRV, but the penalty doesn't seem to make sense. A warning for something that'll basically win the game for the opponent, and was the opponents fault? "You get a warning, and the player affected by all of this gets a pseudo game loss, shuffle thoroughly and have fun."
Could we possible upgrade this from a warning to a game loss under the hidden information upgrade path under GRV? Technically the opponent has performed a GRV that resulted in hidden information being affected in a way that cannot be verified. Ultimately the game state has been ruined in an irreparable way, and it makes no sense to penalize the innocent player in this situation.
Wait, wasn't the original scenario one where a player shuffled his/her hand into his/her own deck? Wouldn't the scenario completely change in this case, where the player's opponent was responsible for shuffling their opponent's hand into their opponent's deck?
A player should ideally never even be shuffling their opponent's deck, except for the cut (Surgical Extraction clearly states "that player shuffles his/her deck"), and having the player's hand mixed up with the cut seems completely bizarre.
Wait, wasn't the original scenario one where a player shuffled his/her hand into his/her own deck? Wouldn't the scenario completely change in this case, where the player's opponent was responsible for shuffling their opponent's hand into their opponent's deck?
A player should ideally never even be shuffling their opponent's deck, except for the cut (Surgical Extraction clearly states "that player shuffles his/her deck"), and having the player's hand mixed up with the cut seems completely bizarre.
Judge! My opponent shuffled my hand into my library on accident.
Additional information: this WAS an accident. It is at comp. REL. No player has a any credible information about what the cards were.
Penalty/fix? (after slapping them that is)
And although the card states that the affected player is the one to shuffle, it's not uncommon for a player to absentmindedly shuffle the opponents deck they just searched a few times.
I remember talking with two L3's and an L2 about this exact scenario almost a year ago. I'm not 100% certain I remember the reasoning or their answers, but I vaguely recall them settling on issuing a game loss following the upgrade path for hidden information. Granted the IPG has changed a bit since then, it was a conversation had after a long day of judging, and some drinking during judge dinner, and I could just be flat wrong in my recollection.
Can you give an example of a circumstance under which a Game Loss would be issued because a player caused physical damage that caused the game to be unable to continue?
The historic example was a player (or the opponent) spilling water on their cards. Hence, actual physical damage. That coincides with the normal English meaning of the word. At least that had been my understanding of the use of the term in the context of that sentence.
That being said, Toby Elliott's reply on the Magic Judge Apps forum does illustrate that "physical damage" can conceptually apply to the game state as well. So "damage" can include the cards being scattered about as a result of player action. That's his opinion on the subject, and you can take his over mine if you want.
Even assuming the player is a total klutz and is capable of doing almost anything by accident, if "physical damage" is interpreted to mean damage to the cards, I cannot think of any circumstance in which it is possible to continue the match but not the game.
Proxies can be issued in event that cards become damaged during the course of a tournament. That's pretty explicit in MTR 3.4.
I just scoured all the information I can find and NO WHERE is the definition of what "Physical Damage" means. In fact whenever a card that is damaged as in the case of water spillage or poor shuffling (both actually listed) the only word that appears is damage(d) and has no adjectives not physical, not emotional, not psychological, nothing.
As I note, Toby's reply illustrates that "damage" can conceptually apply to the OP's situation. In that respect, an upgrade to a Game Loss is not off limits in this situation. Personally, I think his points illustrate that the phrase would be better as "physical disruption" rather than "physical damage", as that better communicates. But, again, that's a personal preference.
Can we please discuss what we do if we take Epeeguy's side and how we handle this situation if we give the offending player a Warning instead of a Game Loss? I'm guessing we treat this as a GPE - GRV with no potential for rewind? If we do allow the potential for rewind, do we only allow it only if someone other than the offending player knew the number of cards in his/her hand? Does this change if, as in an earlier example, both players were aware of the actual of cards in offending player's hand?
Well, it's certainly a GPE-GRV. The opponent violated the rules and shuffled the hand into the library when he shouldn't have. No other specific infraction applies to the situation, and apply that infraction here is the most appropriate course of action.
Keep in mind that even if you do decide to stick with a Warning, that we don't allow for partial fixes in situations. The normal remedy, if applicable, would be to return the game state prior to the error. So, you'd have to be able to restore the game to that point as closely as possible. If the situation is deemed simple enough.
It is quite possible that this situation isn't "simple enough" to restore at all.
Could we possible upgrade this from a warning to a game loss under the hidden information upgrade path under GRV? Technically the opponent has performed a GRV that resulted in hidden information being affected in a way that cannot be verified.
Take my opinion with a grain of salt, since apparently I'm on a cold streak, but it isn't that "hidden information has been affected", but rather that the person performs an action whose legality can't be verified. For example, searching for a card with a specific quality, which is verified by revealing the card prior to putting it into the hand. If that card isn't revealed, then the action of searching for a card with a specific quality can't be verified.
In this case, shuffling the hand into the library doesn't involve an action who legality can't be verified; it's pretty clear that the opponent can't have done that. Furthermore, the player was in a position to prevent this from happening (keeping the hand and the library adequately separate) and could have interceded if he'd been paying attention and noticed the opponent reaching for player's hand. A simple "Why are you reaching for my hand?" could have stopped this from happening.
However, as Toby noted, the player can't really do anything about the error once it has happened. To quote him on the matter...
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.
...so, again, that should illustrate the thinking here. So, in retrospect, I spoke in error. My apologies, as the Game Loss would be the more appropriate approach.
I think this merits a email to wizards as there isnt a clear definition of what "physical damage" is.
I don't think we need WotC (or even an L5) to give us an "O" answer, but discussions like this might ultimately help shape the evolution and growth of the IPG in the future.
In this situation, because if Surgical Extraction, wouldn't both players know what was in hand? Since it's been established that there's no cheating and this just happened. Regardless of a lack of proof, I'd just ask the players what was in the hand, give out warnings, and have them continue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Afro Dave, @st4rwind on Twitter
Level 2 Judge
Legacy Decks:
- Deadguy Ale WB
- Imperial Bloodwolf R
- Rifter RW
- Rockman WBG
- Burn R
- T.E.S. WUBRG
- Belcher RG
- 10 Land Stompy G
- Zoo (budget) RGW
In this situation, because if Surgical Extraction, wouldn't both players know what was in hand? Since it's been established that there's no cheating and this just happened. Regardless of a lack of proof, I'd just ask the players what was in the hand, give out warnings, and have them continue.
The original poster did not specify that Surgical Extraction had been cast.
In this situation, because if Surgical Extraction, wouldn't both players know what was in hand? Since it's been established that there's no cheating and this just happened. Regardless of a lack of proof, I'd just ask the players what was in the hand, give out warnings, and have them continue.
In the scenario discussed a year ago, that was the first thing we ruled out in order to make it as "oh ****"-complicated as possible. Obviously if both players can agree upon the contents of the hand, or if it was written down, we'd jump to correct the issue, and issue a warning. But for all we know, you presented your deck to be cut (shuffled) and when the opponent reach over to to grab it, they also inadvertently grabbed your hand too, thinking it was some cards the fell off the deck, and started shuffling before anything could be said to stop it.
As a side note, just because it was written down doesn't mean it was written down correctly. But I wouldn't recommend lying about it in order to try and get the win. If the head judge feels you're lying, you'll end up disqualified.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Additional information: this WAS an accident. It is at comp. REL. No player has a any credible information about what the cards were.
Penalty/fix? (after slapping them that is)
Secondly, you have no more hand. There is no reasonable way to fix things.
Assuming that the shuffling was indeed accidental, the infraction for your opponent is Game Rule Violation.
According to the IPG, it is not possible to "back up" fully here, and this is not one of the situations mentioned in the IPG in which it is appropriate to perform a partial fix. So, if the IPG is strictly followed, the judge should leave the game state exactly as is, which would mean that you have no hand.
The situation is very unfair to you, because you have just lost your hand through no fault of your own. As a result, if I were the Head Judge, I think the most likely outcome is for me to give the person who shuffled the hand into the library a Game Loss, even though the normal penalty is a Warning.
As justification, I would explain to the opponent that the IPG states that a Game Loss is an appropriate penalty for situations where it is impossible to continue the game due to physical damage, and this situation seems roughly analogous. In addition, a Game Loss can be appropriate in situations where there is a significant potential to gain an advantage, and having your opponent lose his hand is normally an advantage.
Because of the potential that some player here was cheating, this situation should also result in an investigation. If your opponent did this intentionally he would be disqualified. And if you deliberately allowed or encouraged your opponent to commit the error before calling a judge in the hopes of getting a free win, you would be cheating and would earn yourself a disqualification.
We called the judge over, he gave ME a warning, would not allow me to get the cards in my hand back despite my opponent writing it down. Needless to say, I was quite upset. After the game ended (which I somehow one) I signed my match slip, dropped despite being 3-0 and still haven't played in an event with that judge again.
Message me if your interested in sharing mtgo cards
Currently Playing:
In Limbo
The key piece of info is that you are playing at a competitive REL tournament, and yes the head judge must be called. Both players must maintain game state. The opponent that shuffled the cards in is at fault and is likely to be issued a game loss, though you should also receive a warning assuming you let your opponent "scoop up" your hand with your deck and did not maintain the state of your deck/cards. An "accident", especially of this magnitude at a competitive REL tournament is very different than at an FNM.
As a TO/Rules advisor I would do the same at my own FNM because I can't think of a "fair" way to return the game state.
Dandaman: My intuition tells me there is more to your story, but I may be wrong. Also, there is feedback that you can supply the DCI on the judges and TOs via their website. Please use it! We need to know what judges out there are making bad calls so they can be corrected.
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, while the scenario is extremely regretable, applying a Game Loss because it is the "fair" way to fix things is a bit much. Especially as the MIPG doesn't suggest this, and even the JARR doesn't suggest that we should try to do the "fair" thing.
You would have to be at least somewhat passive to allow your opponent to shuffle your hand in with your library. For example, if an opponent uses Surgical Extraction: allow him to view your hand first, then get it back from him as soon as he's finished.
I'm not saying it's more your fault than his, but if you are a bit more aggressive in asking for your hand immediately when the opponent is done looking, perhaps the whole situation might be avoided.
In addition, if you call the judge and tell him you were demanding when you requested your hand back, and instead the opponent shuffled it into your library.. it wouldn't look like much of an accident on his part anymore.
Sig by Sioux Heroes of the Plane Studios
But if they really intend for a Warning to be the appropriate penalty even for errors that cause serious and irreversible damage to the game state at the moment they are committed (as opposed to because the players didn't notice and played on), they should include an example of that kind in the Example section for GPE - GRV. All the examples given there are essentially harmless if someone had noticed right away.
Otherwise, it seems appropriate to deviate, because it sure looks like that particular policy was not intended to cover this case.
EDIT: If it was intentional, there's no need to discuss Game Losses.The only options are the regular penalty, or a DQ for Cheating.
The existence of an example is largely irrelevant. As judges, the assessment that needs to be made is "What infraction did the player commit?" And judges need to rely on the definition of the various infractions in the MIPG in order to make that determination. Yes, the examples can help illustrate how a particular infraction should be applied or even some situations that fit the definition. And that can be helpful when distinquishing the general "Game Play Error--Game Rule Violation" infraction from the more specific infractions.
In this situation, we have a very general type of error that was made. Since none of the more specific Game Play Error infractions apply, this is indeed a Game Play Error--Game Rule Violation. As such, the normal procedure applies. Even more so, the only time a deviation is truly allowed is in what are referred to as "significant and exceptional circumstances", and we've even examples of those in MIPG 1.
The situation posed by the OP really doesn't fit "significant and exceptional circumstances". Especially not when the decision is made about doing what is "fair" or even trying to mitigate advantage being gained or lost because of the mistake. The MIPG is extremely clear on that.
Regardless, going to the general definition of the various penalties is no reason to decide that a "Game Loss" is appropriate. Especially when the phrase "physical damage" is being incorrectly applied. There's been no "physical damage" to the cards in question here.
540 Peasant cube- Gold EditionSomething SpicyNo, it means somehow the game is impossible to continue due to something physically happening, such as one player flipping the table, or a player's hand being shuffled into their library.
If a card is ripped up, that is a much more simple fix; issue a proxy for the player to use for the tournament, and infract the offending player for Unsporting Conduct — Aggressive Behavior
No, it does not mean any such thing. "Physical damage" means just that, actual, physical damage to the cards themselves. While a game might be "damaged" through physical actions, that is not the same concept.
No, it doesn't.
If i pick up your Jace and tear it up, the game state hasn't actually been altered in a meaningful way. If for some reason the judge doesn't immediately DQ me, he can issue you a proxy and the game can continue exactly where is left off.
But if i flip the table, the game state has been physically damage in a very meaningful way, and it is impossible to continue the game.
Yes, it actually does. "Physical damage" means there has to be actual, physical damage. The fact that cards were moved around and shouldn't be isn't actual, physicl damage.
Sure, a judge could do that. But that illustrates the point of why judges don't use the definition of penalties to determine the course of action. Those definitions exist to provide some context for why certain infractions have certain penalties. But, they are not reason to decide to apply some "outside the box" thinking. That's especially true when considered in context with the previous phrase I provided from MIPG 2.
As I said earlier in the thread, judges need to start with identifying an infraction first per the definition of the infraction. From that point, then judges figure out what to do. (And procedurally that's important, so that judges are reasonably consistent in approach.) Not with using the definition of a penalty to figure out what to do.
Edit: Years ago, when we had the Penalty Guide rather than the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide, we had an array of infractions that were called Procedural Errors. Minor, Major, and Severe. And a judge used to have to assess the situation to determine "how bad" it was, and then penalize accordingly. Hence, why we defined the various penalties, since we did have to use that definition to figure out the infraction. That required a judgment call and familiarity with what was "bad enough" to merit a Game Loss.
That approach was done away with many years ago with the introduction of the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide, and now we rely strictly on the infraction first approach. The definitions of the penalties, in some respect, are actually relics of as bygone period. Using the definition of the penalties is actually the reverse of the behavior the DCI wants.
If you flip the table, you better have a good reason for having done so. Because the likely outcome is that you're going to be removed from the event for that as well.
And in the event that you flipped the table by accident, then likely we're getting into the possibility of significant and exceptional circumstances. Tables don't generally flip by accident. Hands being shuffled into libraries by accident due to careless placement of cards? That's not really that significant or exceptional.
Even assuming the player is a total klutz and is capable of doing almost anything by accident, if "physical damage" is interpreted to mean damage to the cards, I cannot think of any circumstance in which it is possible to continue the match but not the game.
So to illustrate using Oscar Wilde like absurdity.
I am at a tournament and a light from the ceiling falls on the table during my opponents turn and the cards are all destroyed. Do we both get warnings or does he only get one as he had priority? Or is that game loss territory?
Or
I played act of treason and went to reach for my opponents Boros Reckoner and paper cut my self on it to the point of a nasty bleeding flap, Is that physical damage or un-sportsman conduct?
I think this merits a email to wizards as there isnt a clear definition of what "physical damage" is.
Arguing amongst our selves will get us no where with out that definition.
I don't think this is a Game Loss offense - as Epeeguy said, "physical damage" has historically referred to damage to cards, not damage to the gamestate; that is usually referred to as an "unrecoverable gamestate" or something similar. I feel that deviating this far from the IPG would get you into the scary territory of the potentiality for bias. But my biggest question is if we interpret the rules in the "normal" sense, how do we fix this situation if at all?
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
Could we possible upgrade this from a warning to a game loss under the hidden information upgrade path under GRV? Technically the opponent has performed a GRV that resulted in hidden information being affected in a way that cannot be verified. Ultimately the game state has been ruined in an irreparable way, and it makes no sense to penalize the innocent player in this situation.
Wait, wasn't the original scenario one where a player shuffled his/her hand into his/her own deck? Wouldn't the scenario completely change in this case, where the player's opponent was responsible for shuffling their opponent's hand into their opponent's deck?
A player should ideally never even be shuffling their opponent's deck, except for the cut (Surgical Extraction clearly states "that player shuffles his/her deck"), and having the player's hand mixed up with the cut seems completely bizarre.
GX Tron XG
UR Phoenix RU
GG Freyalise High Tide GG
UR Parun Counterspells RU
BB Yawgmoth Token Storm BB
WB Pestilence BW
The original scenario was...
And although the card states that the affected player is the one to shuffle, it's not uncommon for a player to absentmindedly shuffle the opponents deck they just searched a few times.
I remember talking with two L3's and an L2 about this exact scenario almost a year ago. I'm not 100% certain I remember the reasoning or their answers, but I vaguely recall them settling on issuing a game loss following the upgrade path for hidden information. Granted the IPG has changed a bit since then, it was a conversation had after a long day of judging, and some drinking during judge dinner, and I could just be flat wrong in my recollection.
The historic example was a player (or the opponent) spilling water on their cards. Hence, actual physical damage. That coincides with the normal English meaning of the word. At least that had been my understanding of the use of the term in the context of that sentence.
That being said, Toby Elliott's reply on the Magic Judge Apps forum does illustrate that "physical damage" can conceptually apply to the game state as well. So "damage" can include the cards being scattered about as a result of player action. That's his opinion on the subject, and you can take his over mine if you want.
Proxies can be issued in event that cards become damaged during the course of a tournament. That's pretty explicit in MTR 3.4.
As I note, Toby's reply illustrates that "damage" can conceptually apply to the OP's situation. In that respect, an upgrade to a Game Loss is not off limits in this situation. Personally, I think his points illustrate that the phrase would be better as "physical disruption" rather than "physical damage", as that better communicates. But, again, that's a personal preference.
Well, it's certainly a GPE-GRV. The opponent violated the rules and shuffled the hand into the library when he shouldn't have. No other specific infraction applies to the situation, and apply that infraction here is the most appropriate course of action.
Keep in mind that even if you do decide to stick with a Warning, that we don't allow for partial fixes in situations. The normal remedy, if applicable, would be to return the game state prior to the error. So, you'd have to be able to restore the game to that point as closely as possible. If the situation is deemed simple enough.
It is quite possible that this situation isn't "simple enough" to restore at all.
Take my opinion with a grain of salt, since apparently I'm on a cold streak, but it isn't that "hidden information has been affected", but rather that the person performs an action whose legality can't be verified. For example, searching for a card with a specific quality, which is verified by revealing the card prior to putting it into the hand. If that card isn't revealed, then the action of searching for a card with a specific quality can't be verified.
In this case, shuffling the hand into the library doesn't involve an action who legality can't be verified; it's pretty clear that the opponent can't have done that. Furthermore, the player was in a position to prevent this from happening (keeping the hand and the library adequately separate) and could have interceded if he'd been paying attention and noticed the opponent reaching for player's hand. A simple "Why are you reaching for my hand?" could have stopped this from happening.
However, as Toby noted, the player can't really do anything about the error once it has happened. To quote him on the matter...
...so, again, that should illustrate the thinking here. So, in retrospect, I spoke in error. My apologies, as the Game Loss would be the more appropriate approach.
I don't think we need WotC (or even an L5) to give us an "O" answer, but discussions like this might ultimately help shape the evolution and growth of the IPG in the future.
Afro Dave, @st4rwind on Twitter
Level 2 Judge
Legacy Decks:
- Imperial Bloodwolf R
- Rifter RW
- Rockman WBG
- Burn R
- T.E.S. WUBRG
- Belcher RG
- 10 Land Stompy G
- Zoo (budget) RGW
In the scenario discussed a year ago, that was the first thing we ruled out in order to make it as "oh ****"-complicated as possible. Obviously if both players can agree upon the contents of the hand, or if it was written down, we'd jump to correct the issue, and issue a warning. But for all we know, you presented your deck to be cut (shuffled) and when the opponent reach over to to grab it, they also inadvertently grabbed your hand too, thinking it was some cards the fell off the deck, and started shuffling before anything could be said to stop it.
As a side note, just because it was written down doesn't mean it was written down correctly. But I wouldn't recommend lying about it in order to try and get the win. If the head judge feels you're lying, you'll end up disqualified.