So, let’s take a moment to reassure them that a L@EC infraction isn’t the end of the world; find out why they’re trying to avoid it, educate them a bit about infractions, and then point out that bit about errors of dexterity.

If it’s just not feasible to review the game state and actions taken, to determine if it’s a GY or Library card, and if the player doesn’t notice anything missing from his/her graveyard, and your investigation & understanding of the game state & knowledge of that mystery card don’t lead to Cheating, then it’s fine to assume it must belong in the library, and the L@EC remedy should be used here, for all the reasons it makes sense when a card is seen, or **might have been** seen.

A similar scenario occurs much more often – a player drops a card while shuffling his opponent’s deck. He immediately freezes up – we’ve all seen this! – and calls for a judge. He explains that he knows he dropped a card, but he doesn’t want to look down – you can almost see his neck muscles tense up, making sure he’s looking up & not down, and not looking at anything.

At this point, I usually say something like “here, I’ll get that for you” and then, after carefully putting it back into the deck unseen, I’ll continue “you know, L@EC is really only a problem if there’s a suspicious pattern to how and when you’re doing that; since I can’t KNOW that you didn’t see it – even though I believe you! – I’ll have to record the infraction. Just be careful shuffling the rest of the day, it shouldn’t be a problem.”

A similar explanation would be in order in the original scenario – but the infraction probably does need to be recorded. After all, the people we do need to worry about – i.e., those repeatedly angle-shooting various infractions – are also the most likely to beg you to NOT record a “silly little mistake” like this… honest players have nothing to worry about.
Approved by: Scott Marshall, L5, Lakewood, CO, USA
Source: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/14585/

I suppose we could derail this and argue about the “technically detailed level” – but let’s not. Clearly, the NAP didn’t understand the rules at the necessary level.

So, what about Section 4.1 of the MTR? “The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and…”
Does that imply that the NAP should NOT have an advantage here, due to a lack of understanding of the rules?
And, for that matter, do we eliminate OoOS, just because the player can’t clearly communicate the correct sequence?

To me, that fifth example of OoOS (block, animate, block) is a pretty clear indication that we can and probably should apply OoOS to this scenario, too – even if the player can’t grasp the correct sequence. To exaggerate and thus illustrate:

AP: attack like this
NAP: OK, block here, Charm, use those tokens to block there and there
AP: nope, you can’t do that – Judge!
Judge: I’m sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
NAP: Oh, how does it work?
Judge: nope, not gonna tell you – figure it out!
NAP: $#*&%????????

If a player did exactly what that fifth example says – block, animate, block – and the opponent called us, we’d say “OK, that’s out of order, but we got to a legal point; next time, animate before you block, OK? Carry on…”

So why not do the same thing here?
Approved by: Scott Marshall, L5, Lakewood, CO, USA
Source: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/14972/?page=1