Pinburgh "Exceptionally Good Play" - TGP Question


The point I was attempting to make is when a runaway score is set by the TD, there’s a big difference between the case when another player achieves the score and when no one achieves the score.

If another player achieves the runaway score the integrity of the result is lost, we don’t know who would have won if the TD hadn’t stepped in, so impose a TGP penalty. Heck, make it worth 0 TGP.

In the other case, by imposing a runaway score, the other players can adjust their strategies to increase their chances of achieving the score. They’re given an easier path to get/share the win AND they still can’t reach the score, so then we can be sure that the runaway player earned the win, and no TGP penalty should be imposed.


These adjustment to strategies, offering an opportunity where a win is shared, forcing the player with the huge score to stop even if they don’t want to, etc . . . are all things that immediately impact the integrity of the game being played, regardless if that player reaches the runaway score or not.

I completely understand the point you’re trying to make. We can simply agree to disagree on it.

I would prefer to keep this kind of TD interference out of competitive pinball, and the way we institute this penalty is our way of doing this. We understand that there are situations where TD’s will still utilize this to save on time, but at least they are aware that their interference is not done without consequence.


what about games with an MAX score that don’t roll over?


IV. Miscellaneous

  1. Special Score Handling
    a. Any player who reaches the maximum possible score on a machine that has such, will receive that score as their total. For example, Guns n Roses stops scoring at 9,999,999,990 points.


so no TGP penalty with games with that?


Correct. The TD did nothing to interfere with the integrity of that game by being the one who sets the runaway score.


IMO No respectable tournament puts themselves in that position and doesn’t have a good backup plan. I ran a tournament at a show with a hard deadline under the threat of being booted if we ran over. Instead of potentially compromising the final or competition, we had it in the rules that under the unforeseen rare circumstance of the venue closing players would be transported to alternate location X to finish the final.

Never had to implement that rule, but I felt is was much better than crapping on the format if we ever hit a time crunch.


Thanks for your responses.


@pinwizj if all opponents come to the TD and say: we all agree Runaway Player can have the win and we’d like to play out the other positions, would that incur the TGP penalty?


Good call. I’m only doing this for qualifying.


Sounds like collusion to me … J/k

This is really up to the TD to allow it or not for their specific event, but I wouldn’t have a problem with it as that Runaway player is guaranteed first place (rather than the current rule that gives the other opponents a chance to ‘tie’).


But that ruins the fun of someone crushing a game to the point that it breaks down and gets voided.


If the game is a modern and has the feature of being able to, mid-game, alter # of balls from 3 to a total of 4 or 5, can the other player(s) unanimously request the TD have the Runaway Player defer their remaining ball(s) to effectively make the Runaway Player now the P4 spot, so that the Runaway Player only has to play balls 2 or 3 if needed?


I’ve done exactly this at our monthly in the past.


Interesting. If a qualifying position has already been set then wouldn’t the other players still be playing for 2-4, just on a different game?


I mean guaranteeing top position to the person crushing it removes their chance of playing the game until it breaks, which I think is a pretty funny outcome for playing too well/too long.


Only had to use the rule 3 times during qualifying. All the same player and everyone felt like the calls were justified and helped the flow. Awesome rule to keep in your back pocket imo.


More than once, I’ve been in a matchplay situation where I have avoided certain game features when leading because I didn’t want a malfunction. (Last one I can think of was Flinstones where the ball was continuously getting stuck in the tumbler, and only barely made it out after five or six ball searches and no one had the keys.)


In that pinburgh group on every machine at least 2 of us had grand champ type scores and the other 2 per game had very good scores. It flip flopped between names. On black jack, the 5 ball em, wpt and heavy metal meltdown. It wasnt just wpt that caused the long delay. The black jack was against the back wall as the original ss game in our group had an issue so we had to use an alternate game.


How about a weaker exceptionally good play rule, like this:

Any player that reaches a prespecified limit, say 1B, can only play out that ball, and no more, and must document the score somehow, before he plunges the next ball. He wins over anyone not reaching 1B in that same ball. For players reaching the limit in the same ball, their scores after that ball is compared.