No, I don’t need to define “Abandoned” here because it wasn’t part of the rule definition I presented and besides, you know exactly what it means; you’re just trying to be contrary for no good reason.
And how on earth is offering up a rule that doesn’t arbitrarily DQ a particular player for a relatively common occurring event: “kind of dictating how people can play and that’s not a road I want to go down”. HUH ? That rule doesn’t dictate anything. It would merely state that a player who plays an EB left over from the previous player won’t be DQ’ed for it!
So “It is always your responsibility as a player to check to make sure it’s your turn before you touch the machine”, but somehow in your mind it isn’t a player’s responsibility to make sure their turn is actually over before they decide to stop playing ?? really ? That’s the inconsistent part that makes the current DQ rule so arbitrary. In all the actual, real life times someone was DQ’ed by the current rule, it occurred because the player before them didn’t know (or forgot) they had an extra ball to play (or a no-switch ball) and the next player forgot to be “skeptically optimistic” about their turn and plunged that ball out of turn . It’s that simple. No one took a break, or walked away to grab a smoke, fully intending to come back to the machine at a later time and pick up with that EB… that doesn’t happen. What does happen (pretty regularly, really) is what I described and its asinine to DQ someone for it. Hell, I totally agree with @keefer that if you must DQ someone, then both players should be DQ’ed, because, sure, the second player didn’t check that it was his turn, but sure as shit the first player screwed up too by incorrectly “finishing” their turn before it was actually “over”.
IFPA and PAPA don’t want to change this rule, and that’s fine; it’s their show and we’ll play by their rules, but returning back to the OP who wondered why when the DQ was explained to a non pinball person they came to the same “bullshit” conclusion… that’s easy. it’s because it is bullshit.
The simple thing about that situation is that the rules weren’t followed, and that sucks. I don’t know why it happened, but it didn’t happen under the current PAPA director, isn’t anywhere in the PAPA ruleset, and shouldn’t happen again.
The proposal has a lot of problems: do phantom ball saves count? do trough-pass-throughs count? do bonus balls like Space Station’s count? It would be weird to let a player error slide in certain circumstances but not others. The biggest problem to me is that any new rule would be more complicated than the current rule: play your turn. What is so difficult about making sure the game says it’s your turn before playing?
Also, I get that your opinion differs and that’s fine. I feel there’s no need to call others’ opinions asinine or bullshit.
But Adam, what you propose also gets into this weird situational inequality, where the exact same violation (playing someone else’s ball) maybe doesn’t get penalized (like if it’s caused by an EB, ball save, etc) and maybe does (like if it’s caused by just plain playing out of order). Now you anger a different subset of errant players, who will rightfully complain “Hey, Player B played out of turn and there was no penalty, but when I played out of turn you DQ’ed me!” It’s just moving the problem around, when again, the REAL SOLUTION is simply for all players to make sure it’s their turn before they plunge that ball, and then they don’t have to worry about being penalized. It’s really easy.
(@bkerins, do you happen to have any stats on how many played-out-of-turn penalties were assessed at Pinburgh? I’d bet it’s a minuscule fraction of total balls played.)
Of course you can play by any rules you want for tournaments and leagues that you run.
A pretty foolproof/fair way to deal with this abandoned ball situation is a dual confirmation by both players A and B that a.) player A’s turn has ended and that b.) player B’s turn has begun. Easiest would be a verbal confirmation to a third party. At that point both players are responsible and a dual DQ is totally justified. If player B plunges the ball of player A without confirmation, only player B is DQed and the current rules are followed. This prevents the ‘speed plunge to double DQ’ scenario.
Negatives are that it might be more time consuming, annoying, easy to forget, potentially impractical, and introduces more questions and rulings. But it kind of puts responsibility squarely on the players and it “seems fair”. It also makes players take that extra second to make sure their turn is really done before walking away. Just a thought. Not that I think there is anything really wrong with the current rule, you should definitely just make sure your ball is actually yours. But there are some weird ways that rule can be bent.
Please go back and re-read what I wrote. Your conclusion doesn’t match my argument. I essentially said that if someone wants to take a chill in the middle of their ball, say after locking a ball and getting a plunger feed, then that is fundamentally different from earning an extra ball, draining, and walking away from the machine. In both situations, the player is a) not at the machine, and b) the next player could walk up and plunge. But, it’s is clearly not the intent of the player taking a chill to abandon anything, they’re just taking a break. If we define “abandon” as “walking away from the machine” then we have removed the ability of players to take an extended chill to collect themselves in whatever way they feel appropriate. I don’t want to do that.
Yes, the point of this is to catch situations where a player walked away from a machine thinking they were done with the ball, which is why I think “abandon” needs to be defined here.
I don’t have a good solution here, since just about anything I can think of has abuse cases, some of which have been noted here already. I maintain my position that ultimately each player has the responsibility to play only their ball.
My point here was to note that just because a rule is “simple” doesn’t mean it’s necessarily simple to implement or get right by everyone.
I dunno. seems pretty simple to me. If Player X played Player X-1’s ball because Player X-1 left it behind (EB, NSEB, TKT (Trough Kick Through), IAOPG (Immaculate Act of Pinball Gods), etc.), then its play on, (and, both players receive a Yellow Card warning so they will pay better attention because they know if they get a second Yellow Card, they could be DQ’ed, and nobody wants that… Do they ? I’m starting to wonder…)
I’m pretty sure I only called an inanimate concept (i.e. the rule inquestion), “bullshit” and asinine and not anyone else’s opinion of said rule, but if I have offended anyone, then I sincerely apologize for it. So just to be clear: I think the rule is bullshit (#FUEBDQ!) ; Everyone who likes the rule and all those who correctly apply it in tournaments are all OK in my book!
Not a bad suggestion. You could make players shake hands to confirm that both understand the turn has been passed. I like stupid rules, so don’t be surprised if you end up playing in a tournament where you have to pass around and wear a giant Mr. T gold chain to signify turn.
The rule is solid as-is. You have to pay attention.
I got “Fireballed” at Pinburgh–not an EB situation, but it involves a lock/drain sequence that can make you think you’re still playing (if you’re not paying close attention). I innocently plunged the next player’s ball. Bowen explained to me that this happens to someone every year, it just happened to be me this year.
And you know what? I learned an important lesson about Fireball which is now filed away in my admittedly-limited pinball knowledge repository. Was I bummed? Yeah. Did I learn something that might help me in the future? Yep!
I’ve heard you can hire Lefkoff & Associates, LLP to represent you in these rulings situations. He charges 33% of the winnings you take home at the event, but he doesn’t get paid unless you do!
I’ve used Lefkoff & Associates in the past with great success! The contingent payment structure means it’s literally NO RISK to give their firm a shot!
All the more reason to have a solid set of rules, and clear rulings that can be made, to avoid and combat the perception of an insular network of players helping one another to win. PAPA and IFPA have done a lot in the last five years to solidify rules and rulings.
… at the start of your ball. got it. At the end of your ball, it doesn’t apparently matter - just wonder away. If the next player is paying attention for you, you may get to play that extra ball you might have left behind. If they aren’t paying attention… well, that’s one less player you’ll have to actually beat with skill in the game because they will be DQ’ed. W00t for Simple Rules!
… but you could say the same for paying attention at the start of your ball. If you’re not paying attention, it’s not like your turn will be skipped, the other players will eventually pay attention for you. If they aren’t paying attention, they might be DQ’d.
Wow, this topic just blew up just like that! A few possible scenarios I’d like some clarifications on. (You might remember I’ve been up against my share of people in non-pinball events who have complete disregard for the rules and will try to eliminate their opponents in any way possible, so I’ve seen these things happen.)
Player A absolutely refuses to play the extra ball and will insist until the heavens collapse that there is no extra ball and that it’s Player B’s turn, or coerces or threatens Player B into playing the extra ball. This is done only when there is no official around; when Player A sees one, he or she will keep quiet and say that he wants to take a breather. In other words, Player A is a bully. What should be done here?
Player A leaves with an extra ball, and a tournament official tells Player B to come up to the machine and start playing. If Player B does what the official says without question and plays Player A’s extra ball, whose fault is it?
Player A gently encourages Player B up to the machine, and Player B starts playing the extra ball. Is this the fault of Player A or B?
I agree with you Adam that both parties are at fault and the current system only penalizes one individual. We can go around and around about how taking responsibility for your own ball makes this apparent injustice go away but as you have rightly argued it doesn’t. No more than any other bad law or rule in life goes away because people state they are ok with it and learned to accommodate it.
Here is my 2 cents which I am sure will be recirculated through the old paradigms resulting in the same outcome (sigh). If somebody walks away or wanders away or is caught wondering, there is currently a 3 min or 15 min (depending on who you ask) rule at which point you can launch their ball. It is a penalty for not playing in a timely manner. Should this rule not apply when a ball save, extra ball, or any other such event occurs in which a player fails to play or complete their turn in a timely manner? I would change the current rule from plunging the ball to being Dq’d. The player who abandons (defined as 3 min and/or walks away without informing his opponents that he intends to complete his turn) shall be Dq’d. A player who plays another players ball is Dq’d.
Side note: I would also say that a player who withdraws from a tournament or does not complete a tournament is considered DNF or WD and is not awarded points. This happened at extreme in which a player who qualified for the finals did not show up.
