Ask the Judge, 12/30/2005: Feature Friday

Instant Replay
It's been a good while since I wrote one of the columns that had my name attached to it, but that's primarily because of the fine run of guests we've had: excellent articles by Peter Jahn, Lee Sharpe, and the original proprietor of this here column here, Sheldon Menery. That hasn't kept me entirely out of the loop, though, and this week is the first installment of a two-parter inspired by the daily version of Ask the Judge. Let's dive right in!

In Chris Richter's column on Thursday, he addressed a situation where a player resolved Cranial Extraction, missed a copy of the named card in his opponent's graveyard, and both players failed to notice until the opponent targeted the missed card with a Reclaim. Chris's response, along with some thoughts that I added, raised some good questions in the forums. How do we handle such a situation? What are the options a judge has, and how will the ruling judge select from these options? Is the policy on such situations clear, or are players at the whim of the judge?

I aim to address some of these issues here.

Chris and I agree on the broad issue of how to deal with the situation. I don't imagine you'll find a lot of dissent on this topic among most senior judges:

As the very first step, we should make sure that we actually have an issue here. Are we positive that the card was in the graveyard when Extraction resolved? If it was in the player's hand or library, then it is possible that it was legally overlooked, and we don't have a problem to resolve, except perhaps to make sure that our Extractor isn't trying to pull some funny stuff.

Next, we establish to the best of our ability that missing the card was an oversight by both players. A card being searched for in a public zone, like the graveyard, must be found. That's the rule. That obligates both players to assist in maintaining the proper game state by pointing out and removing the named card. Investigating for intentional misconduct is highly situational and translates very poorly to online hypotheticals, so let's presume that we've satisfied ourselves on that score and move on. I will point out that this search is necessary here, as the Extracted player had a good motive to pretend the card didn't mention graveyards.

The players have, then, collectively committed a Procedural Error, probably of the 'Major' variety. Absent more information, it's hard to put more blame on one player than the other, although (again) circumstances might lead us to do so. But the straightforward case involves PE: Major penalties (warnings) for both players.

So far, so good. But what to do about the card? It is here that the tone of Chris's answer and mine differ. Chris writes that he would most likely remove the card and back up the game to prior to the announcement of the Reclaim. I wrote that "a card being in the graveyard while a player holds a Reclaim will often be exerting an impact on the game state". I think that the difference here lies less in an actual difference in judging philosophy and more in our interpretations of the question, which was light on details. Here are a couple versions of the sequence of events:

If the Reclaim was played immediately after the Cranial, or very close, it's easy to take corrective action and pull the card from the graveyard (Chris and I would certainly agree that we rewind the Reclaim announcement if and only if we change the game state). How do we measure "very close"? This is a judgement call, but the units of time passing are irreversible actions (which is primarily drawing or shuffling, and to a lesser extent, revealing private information) and decision making. This means that if the Reclaiming player played the Reclaim on the next turn, but was tapped out when the Cranial Extraction was played, his action is effectively closer in time to the Procedural Error, and it is easier to come to the conclusion that we can undo the damage that was done.

Many players are under the misconception that a draw, being irreversible, marks the point at which we lose the power to back up. The mere presence of an irreversible action does not by itself prevent us from backing up the game, though it is a significant step in the game. However, the two fundamental reasons that a card draw will prevent us from reversing are that we often can't accurately undo it (we don't know which card was drawn) and that the player gained information from the draw. These reasons will not always be present, though—the player may have no other cards in hand, and it's important to realize that an advantage in information can only be realized when a player has an opportunity to make choices that affect the game.

If the Reclaim was played after a turn or two, and the player has had a number of decisions to make, our decision becomes more complicated. Here we have to consider the specific cards involved, and the nature of the game being played. If, for instance, there was an extra card in a graveyard, and that player was playing a Threshold deck, I'd lean strongly towards leaving the card. I'd probably also be extra thorough in my investigation for shady behavior. Likewise, a player making a game plan based on the potential of returning a card from the graveyard to her hand, and then later having that card removed by a judge, is laboring under a disadvantage that is probably disproportional to her share of responsibility for the existence of the problem. In many formats, a card in the yard is much less likely to exert an influence on the game state, and if called by a player noticing it, I might be more inclined to rectify the situation, even if I couldn't rewind the game to the point where it occurred.

Rather than put words in his mouth, I'll invite Chris to weigh in in the forums if I've described an approach or mentality that deviates from his. I've described the basic framework in which we make our decision, what the options are, and how I draw the line between an error that I'd correct and one which I'd leave.

Next week, I'll tackle the thornier issue: how do judges get to be consistent on these issues? What's the impact on Magic when Chris and I disagree on how to handle a particular kind of situation? I'll give you a hint, though: the existence of columns like this one are working to your benefit.

I'm off now to the Oregon coast, where I'm going to sit in a hot tub until sometime next year. It's been a frantic December for me—I started a new job a couple weeks ago, and holiday preparations and travel have kept me going at a breakneck pace. Have great New Year's celebrations; be safe (watch out for drunk drivers, be they in other cars or your own); and feel free to drop into the forums and let me know how horribly wrong I am about everything. I'll probably not read any responses until Monday, but I'll give them my full attention when I return.

-Seamus