Arnold, Beth, and Chuck are playing a multiplayer game (e.g. Commander or Free-for-All).
Arnold has Maralen of the Mornsong:
Players can’t draw cards. At the beginning of each player’s draw step, that player loses 3 life, searches his or her library for a card, puts it into his or her hand, then shuffles his or her library.
Beth has Dictate of Kruphix:
At the beginning of each player’s draw step, that player draws an additional card.
Currently, it’s Chuck’s turn. He begins his draw step, and chooses that Dictate of Kruphix’s ability go on the stack, and Maralen’s ability go on top of that. Because Maralen is on the board, Dictate’s ability is essentially useless (Maralen prevents players from drawing cards).
Using Maralen’s ability, Chuck tutors up a card. Suppose Arnold really hates Beth. After Maralen’s ability resolves, Arnold concedes. Because Arnold has conceded, Maralen is no longer on the field.
800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player
control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled
any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease
to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that
player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It
happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left
the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to
the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.
Chuck now proceeds to draw 2 cards (1 from the draw phase and 1 from Dictate of Kruphix).
Obviously, this isn’t an ethical thing for Arnold to do. But is it within the rules of the game? Or am I mistaken? Would something else happen instead?
A separate question: would this result in Arnold being banned from future tournaments?