Odd ruling related to inadvertently mucked cards

[Ghaleon]

I'm not sure what happend at this point because I wasn't looking in that direction, but when I turned back around, the dealer was collecting cards and awarding the pot to the raiser.  The raiser's cards were mucked, though one was still in the middle of the table, seperate from the muck pile.

Agian, Im not sure exactly what happened, but either the dealer forgot that the UTG player was still left to act and pulled the raiser's cards in, or the raiser forgot about the UTG player, assumed he had already won the pot and mucked his cards.  Either way, the ruling should be the same ( I think )

UTG player says "Hey wait, I still get to act", but at this point, at least one of the raiser's cards is completely buried in the muck pile and is absolutely not retreivable.  The floorperson is called over and he makes the following ruling

You say that the raiser's hand was mucked. Who mucks cards? When is the winners hand mucked?

You now say the UTG objected immedietly, but that's not exactly what you say in the OP. Besides that, you weren't even watching the table.

By taking the pot away from the raiser you absolutely are penalizing them.

How much should the UTG player get if you award them the pot?

It doesn't matter who mucked the cards.  If the raiser did it himself because he thought the hand was over, he's an idiot and his hand is dead.  If the dealer did it inadvertently, the the raiser should have protected his hand and it's still dead.  That's why it doesn't matter whether I saw it or not.  In either scenario, his hand is dead.

As for "when is the winners hand mucked" I always hold on to my cards until the pot is directly in front of me.  The winners hand is mucked last.

And as for my OP, I clearly state "the dealer was collecting cards and awarding the pot to the raiser".  Present tense, not past tense.  Again, I apolgoize for the confusion

And the UTG player should get 2600 (200 + 400 + 400 + 1600)

Yes it sucks for the raiser.  Yes it SEEMS unfair.  But it's an irregularity, and it's part of a live game.  Those are the breaks.  It's not always fair.  And this forum is FILLED with examples of situations where fairness is vague at best.  We just have to take the rules as they are written.  And the rules clearly say, when you cards go into the muck, they're dead.

I think the traffic cop analogy works here.  Yes the cop said you should go when it wasn't your turn.  But that doesn't mean you should not still watch for oncoming traffic.  And if you hit an oncoming car, it sucks.  Maybe it's the cops fault for telling you to go out of turn, or maybe it's your fault for not looking where you were going.  In either case, your car is still smashed.

And further, your comment that the dealer in a poker game is "like an official in a sporting event" I agree.  However, it doesn't meant that their mistakes can't change the outcome of a game.  Take baseball for example.  Let's say there are runners on first and second base.  The batter hits a hard ground ball toward the shortstop.  However, the umpire has to dart out of the way of the ball and inadvertently gets in the runners way.  The runner is slowed a split second and is then thrown out at third base.  Do we say the runner is safe because the umpire F'd up?

[Don't Miss Me While I'm On My Cruise]

And because the mess was caused by the dealer and because the floorperson decided that neither player had done anything wrong the two players split the pot.

What was it that the raiser did that was wrong, other than not paying attention to EVERYTHING at the table? So do you kill a players hand if they say check if there's been a bet? There actually is no requirement at all that a player know exactly what's going on at the table.

The raiser should have protected his hand until the hand was over.  Which it wasn't.  I dont see why this is even a question.  If a dealer inadvertenly mucks a hand, it's dead isn't it?  It's a pretty common and straightforward rule.

Actually, the hand is over when the dealer awards the pot, which is what he was doing by your very own admission.  So, the player protected his hand until the end of the hand as he/she should have.  I don't even see why this is a question.

To answer your question, if a dealer inadvertanetly mucks a hand during play, it's dead.  Since the pot was awarded, he didn't accidentally muck a hand during play.  So, the rule on which you are hanging your hat does not apply here.

There are only two acceptable rulings here.  1) Rule as the floorperson ruled.  2) Award the pot to the raiser since the limper did not meet his obligation to stop play when he/she was being skipped or because he/she was hiding his/her hand.  The proper ruling would depend on how long the player had to react or if the player hid the cards.  It doesn't sound like there was much time and you have not commented on whether or not the player hid cards.  So, I like the floorperson's ruling.

Gobbs