I too agree that cards accidentally mucked should not be retrieved - even when the player knows his exact cards. The problem here is that the rules do not represent this opinion. My (our) opinion itself may not represent the majority opinion of the TDA. To the contrary, it says that accidentally mucked hands are live if they are 100% identifiable. It makes no mention of who must identify the cards. Is it the dealer? Is it the TD?
The rule clearly says "100% identifiable" is per the judgement of
the TD: "
A player must protect his hand at all times, including at showdown while waiting for the hand to be read. If the dealer kills a hand by mistake or if in TDs judgement a hand is fouled and cannot be identified to 100% certainty"This language specifies two conditions for a hand being irretrievable: 1) "killed by the dealer" which is defined in Rule 14:
"... cards are killed by the dealer when pushed into the muck" AND 2) TDs judgement that a hand cannot be identified to 100% certainty.
If the cards completely in the muck cannot be retrieved it needs to be stated in rule #60. Taking it out-of-context from rule #16 is inadequate.
It's not out of context in 16, it's in context as 16 defines what "killed by the dealer" means.
Most every player who has had this happen can identify his hand with 100% accuracy. With the current rule, it is reasonable for them to expect their hand to be declared live when the dealer accidentally mucks their hand.
There's no guaranteed provision in the current rule for retrieving cards based on what a player says they were. Further, the cards are dead if "killed by the dealer", i.e. "into the muck". These are strong guidelines for a TD to use in determining if he or she thinks the cards are 100% identifiable.
So, question: What kind of language and/or discussion would give you greater direction for making a decision? Perhaps the TDA could discuss the following 12 conditions for non-tabled cards and whether they are retrievable:
Cards not yet in dealers possession X 2 additional possibilities**
Cards in dealers possession but separate from the muck **
Cards in dealer possession but touching the muck **
Cards placed in the muck but thought to be "clearly protruding" **
Cards placed "on top" of the muck **
Cards placed into the muck and unquestionably mixed with other cards **
**Each of these situations with or without player's capacity to identify his/her exact cards by rank and suit.
That would at least give you a matrix of possibilities and most situations would fall into one of those 12 conditions... we could see where the majority opinion lies on these... but even then you're going to have variations and ultimately the only standard that means anything is "identifiable to 100% certainty in TDs judgement".
Thanks for bringing attention to this important issue.