Conflicting main and classics finals

I wanted to start a discussion to get feedback so we and others can learn from the issues we had at the CNEPC this weekend.

Background. The building we are in is open 10am to 10pm. The 10pm is a mostly hard stop. I think they would need to have a security guard watch us and then escort us out of the building to make sure we don’t steal from the vendors.

For Sunday, the attempt was to schedule Women’s finals, main finals and also run a daily classics with finals. Participants were welcome to participate in each event. Women’s finals was at 10:15, main at 12:15 and classics at 5. Main and Women’s used the same banks.

The women’s finished close to ontime, but we might have been a little late starting main, I honestly don’t know. Main ran longer then scheduled (there was probably not realistically enough time to serialize all 3).

By the time we got to the semi finals tie break in main, there were 3 players, one in that tie break and 2 in the final 4 in both events.

The TDs discussed our options and decided that the best thing we could do was stick to our written schedule and our rules as best we could (which we actually did wrong, because I didn’t reread the IFPA rules, but more on that later). So we informed players that they could play both, but that they had a strict 60 seconds to be present at the machine after the previous player finished or we would plunge the ball. I should have read the rules, it says first delay will be a warning and second and subsequent will be a score of zero. I think in this case we wanted to plunge to give them a chance to skip on ball, but this was off book a bit.

This had a bunch of not great side effects. There was a lot of yelling to inform players they were on a timer. There were people running back and forth across the room, which was probably pretty distracting for the other players. There was also one player who after coming last on a game decided to walk away to get a drink and go to the washroom, but didn’t tell anyone. The TD put them on a timer for order selection, then a timer for their first ball, then plunged it. We felt we needed to be strict for everyone. If they had informed someone in their group or the TD we would have waited.

In the end, I am happy with the choices made on the day. There was some disagreement with how we handled it in the chatroom for the stream. So I wanted to open it up for discussion so we can all learn from it.

BTW, here is the rule quote.

“No player may wait for more that 60 seconds from the end of the previous player’s turn to begin their turn. The first violation as witnessed by a Tournament Director will result in a warning. A second violation and all subsequent violations of this rule during a tournament will result in a score of zero on that game for the player.”

I think an abbreviated Sunday Classics or no Sunday Classics is the way to go here.

I don’t have much to say as far as how it was handled, but I’ll point out that it was possible for one group (in Classics or Main) to have 2 or even 3 players who were attempting to play in both finals. This gives a significant unearned advantage to the other players in those groups.


the first major tournament i played in was so poorly organized time wise that the entire B division was put in a line and told to play one game of iron man, while the festival was closing, because it was the sole remaining game left on the tournament floor for them to choose from. youll be alright.

That being said, i would elect the way of less tournaments with no potential for overlap as opposed to the current scheduling.

If im reading this right, a player could be playing a game in one finals, have their turn come up on another game in another finals, and have sixty seconds to decide whether to keep playing their current ball, or let it drain and run to the other so it doesnt get plunged?

1 Like

Sounds like symptoms of WPPRitis.

Agreed with the sentiment of cutting back on events that may overlap. Less is more.


I haven’t thought enough about overlapping finals to contribute anything, but given that you had a Classics Division every day, I see nothing wrong with scheduling Classics 3 to intentionally overlap with the other finals (letting the players know that they cannot play in both).

There were two other classics finals they could have played in, and there is nothing wrong with Classics 3 only being a viable option for those who didn’t qualify in Women’s and/or Main.


I believe to be eligible for WPPRs you cannot exclude anyone based on them participating or based on qualification in another tournament. However, there is not requirement to to make accommodations for people choosing to do both. It is the same as someone trying to participate in my Monday night strikes and your Monday night strikes at neighbouring bars.

Correct me if I’m wrong, @gammagoat

The posted schedule for this year’s tournaments suggested that a person could play in Sunday Classics Finals and Main Finals. People who paid for entries in these tournaments essentially got a bit less than they were promised.


Yeah, good distinction. You can’t tell them they can’t play in both. But, you could also just treat them as a no show if they aren’t available to play any of their balls…yes? You wouldn’t have to wait 60 seconds and plunge on every single ball I don’t think.

I was making a suggestion for future events (ie: you don’t have to schedule in such a way that someone could conceivably play all finals).

Yeah, WPPRs are cool, but there is nothing wrong with TD’s timing an event such that it can’t be reasonably played by finalists in another event.

I don’t think that is necessarily even true. For instance, it is my understanding that anyone choosing to participate in WIPT this year was not going to be eligible for finals of Intergalactic (since both events took place at the same time.)

Help @pinwizj, we need a ruling!

From an IFPA perspective you can’t restrict someone from playing in a tournament by saying “If you are playing in Tournament X, you can’t play in tournament Y”

But there is nothing about making them choose that would restrict WPPRS.

That choice is always prevalent. Do I travel to play at ReplayFX or stay home and play in local tournament scheduled at the same time.

I think next year we will just say up front. “Players are free to qualify in any division they would like but may not play in both a classics final and main at the same time, which they choose to participate in must be stated at the start of the main finals”

1 Like

Before groups are decided and in time to make room to bump up other players into the finals, right?

TECHNICALLY you have to let a player attempt to play in both at the risk of DQ’ing themselves from either.

For example, if finishing in 40th place in Intergalactic is a guaranteed $1000 in cash, and that player qualifies in WIPT, you couldn’t force them to forfeit earning that qualifying spot in Intergalactic and having the right to those WPPR’s/prize/etc.

You would simply have to put them on the clock and follow the written rules of the tournament with respect to delays until they are ultimately DQ’d based on their own choices of how they conduct themselves with the opportunity.



How does this stance relate to queuing between main and classics. We allow one tournament (division, but that is irrelevant from the IFPA) to restrict when you are allowed to play/queue in the other.

Queuing limitations during an open qualifying period are not nearly in the same realm as limiting the opportunity for a player to participate in the finals of an event altogether (especially if the finals of both events offer some prizes to be had in the form of cash, WPPR’s, etc).

1 Like

I think you NEED TO SATE THAT UP FRONT or be ready to give out refunds / bump people if things change and there are delays that force an no wait over lap.

If it’s stated in the tournament rules that a player will be DQed for a delay of game, than it’s already stated up front.