spectator/s and game play

[raziel]

Guy's, I would like to have a few people respond to this one if possible. I know spectator interference is against the rules, but I would like to hear from some of you judges on how you would respond to this. Keep in mind this is during Sanctioned play.
 
Spectator/s that want to peek:
     This is the guy/s that wants to look at the top card, or maybe three of the library, peek at a graveyard, or sideboard during a match.  Thanks for any and all responses.

[Jebus]

Spectators should watch and only watch.

They should never be touching the cards or getting into locations that would distract or annoy the players.

If a spectator is creating a nuisance, a judge should be called and that player will either be asked to behave, asked to leave, or will be removed.

[Jacob Orlove]

Keep in mind this is during Sanctioned play.
 
Spectator/s that want to peek:
     This is the guy/s that wants to look at the top card, or maybe three of the library, peek at a graveyard, or sideboard during a match.  

Absolutely not. Under no circumstances would that EVER be allowed.

[TracerBullet]

In sanctioned play, hell no.  You immidiately ask the spectator to either behave or leave, and make sure that they comply.

In unsanctioned play, you have a little more leeway.  Sometimes it's appropriate for all involved to just let them play how they want to play, but remind all involved that should you reserve the right to eject them etc.

Pat

[raziel]

Thanks for the replys. 3 more follow up questions. Let's say cards have been touched/picked up, a judge is called.
 
1. Am I and/or opponent in danger of a warning or game loss because someone picks up my/his sideboard, graveyard, or library?

2. X- cards are picked up from Library. How is it determined cards went back in the same order if either player brings up that question?

3. What if X- cards are seen by one or both players?

Thanks in advance for any and all answers.

[Jebus]

1.  Not if you didn't do anything like "Hey, take a look at this!"  If he just reaches in there and starts messing with stuff, the players won't be in trouble.

2.  This really comes down to case by case basis.  If you can reasonably determine what the order was, then you put it back that way.  Otherwise, they'll have to go back in a random order.

3.  The game state will definately have been damaged severely at this point, and at no fault of the players.  I first, throw a chair at the spectator, then toss him out.  However, there isn't much you can do about the cards that were shown except to put them back.

[raziel]

Jebus, thanks for the answers.

[PucktheCat]

On a similar note, what about spectators reminding players of non-optional effects that are being forgotten about/ignored by both players?  I am thinking here of Trinisphere, etc.

Appropriate or no?

Leo

[ProZachar]

UTR Section 14:
Spectator and Press Responsibilities
Spectators are expected to remain silent during matches and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while matches are in progress. Players have the right to request that a spectator not observe their matches. All such requests must be made through a judge.

Spectators and members of the press who believe that they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the match.

[CmdrSam]

UTR Section 14:
Spectator and Press Responsibilities
Spectators are expected to remain silent during matches and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while matches are in progress. Players have the right to request that a spectator not observe their matches. All such requests must be made through a judge.

Spectators and members of the press who believe that they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the match.

It's clear from this that you aren't supposed to tell the players when you see an obvious rules problem that the two players are missing.

Should you raise your hand immediately and call for a judge, or simply let it slide?

--Sam L-L

[Jebus]

UTR Section 14:
Spectator and Press Responsibilities
Spectators are expected to remain silent during matches and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while matches are in progress. Players have the right to request that a spectator not observe their matches. All such requests must be made through a judge.

Spectators and members of the press who believe that they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the match.

It's clear from this that you aren't supposed to tell the players when you see an obvious rules problem that the two players are missing.

Should you raise your hand immediately and call for a judge, or simply let it slide?

--Sam L-L

Inform the judge.  But, try not to interrupt play.

[Addolorisi]

Jebus, if you know the reasoning behind that, I'm curious.

I can only assume that it's so the DCI can record what happened to keep track of how often that stuff happens, but it seems that if they keep playing after an infraction, then it could end up causing a lot more trouble.

======

Oh, and I don't think this deserves its own topic as I'm fairly certain of the answer, but I'd like to hear a judge's opinion. It's not too big a deal, as while it should have cost me the match, it didn't.

I'm playing at regionals with an Ivory Mask in play (and no creatures) when my opponent tries to Shrapnel Blast me. I inform him that I'm not a legal target, and he must choose a legal target -- either himself or one of his creatures. He calls a judge and the judge rules that we back up to the last legal action and tells my opponent to untap his lands and put the Blast back in his hand. I was under the belief that the last legal action was announcing the spell.

Edit: Thanks for the reply, MoreFling. The first line of rule 401 cleared it up for me (I had previously been looking at an older version in my bookmarks).

[rvs]

@Addo: announcing the spell involves setting it's char's. That includes (but is not limited to) targetting. I'm pretty sure I would've made the same ruling.

[Jebus]

The DCI doesn't want players to play games where rules infractions have occured.

Along with tracking trends for infractions, it is also good to catch issues when they happen so that they do not become an issue futher down the line.

The game has rules.  People need to play by them, even if it seems harmless.

Regarding the second part, MoreFling and the judge in question are correct.

Playing a spell or ability is really like one action, but with several steps to it.

If at any time you do something in those steps that makes playing that spell illegal, you back up.

See rule 409.1 and the rules for section 422 for more clarification.

[ProZachar]

Addolorisi (about Shrapnel Blast vs Ivory Mask):

422.1. If a player realizes that he or she can’t legally take an action after starting to do so, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled. No abilities trigger and no effects apply as a result of an undone action. If the action was playing a spell, the spell returns to the zone it came from. The player may also reverse any legal mana abilities played while making the illegal play, unless mana from them or from any triggered mana abilities they triggered was spent on another mana ability that wasn’t reversed. Players may not reverse actions that moved cards to a library or from a library to any zone other than the stack. Players may not reverse actions that involved a random choice or random zone change.

(other question)
The main reason that nobody but the judge should interfere is that it's extremely easy to tilt the scales in one player's favor.  It's like the problem with quantum computing: any attempt to retrieve a result changes the state that the system is in.  If I stroll over and ask "how many cards are in your graveyard", that could make you realize that your Tog is lethal (if you weren't aware of it before), or, god forbid, you see a Deep Anal that you forgot about.  Even asking about something as innocuous as life totals can remind a player about something that s/he was oblivious to.  That's why you want to minimize the amount of intrusion into the game by leaving it to the judge(s) to resolve the issue.

Also, you don't want malicious (or just plain incompetent) intrusion into the game from anyone, so prohibiting Joe Random from interfering is another layer to protect the game from that.

[Addolorisi]

Alright, I understand where they're coming from on interference a bit better now. Thanks.

...but did no one see my edit?

[Jebus]

Alright, I understand where they're coming from on interference a bit better now. Thanks.

...but did no one see my edit?

Yes I did see your edit.

But I wanted to make you aware of as much information on the subject as possible.