I’ll get with MHS on some updated verbiage, but the only rule that works is that any points scored stands. There’s no way of enforcing that line of it being a “material amount” or not by any sort of objective measure.
It is the responsibility of all players to stop the person playing. While that one player is incentivized to not say anything, that situation mirrors the player playing out of turn in the first place. If P3 sees P4 walking up to play the wrong ball, our rules already incentive P3 to not say anything, so this verbiage is just an extension of that rule with the same motivation at play.
If P1 and P2 are pissed … Pay more attention to the game at hand next time.
What if the P3 score from the prior ball was known and/or documented (the score prior to P4 playing P3’s next ball out of turn)?
Does P3’s new score from P4’s misgiuded efforts still stand? Or is P3 given the compensatory ball with their score reverted back to the prior known score?
IMO with rulings you want the ruling itself to have as little impact on the result of the match as possible, so similar to the catastrophic malfunction verbiage, I’m okay with P3 starting that fresh game with his original score, but ONLY if it’s documented. No attempt will be made to estimate scores.
I’ll hash this out with the PAPA guys and we’ll have something written up soon.
Thinking on this a bit more: Another thing to consider is that you don’t want to have rules that encourage documenting mid-game (ball 1, ball 2) scores, because that will add to the duration of each match. For finals matches, perhaps it’s worthwhile because it also addresses power failures on pins. I don’t know — but seems nightmarish to consider the thought of every group in Pinburgh pausing between players to document each player’s score after every ball. (shudder)
With multi-player games it’s not that difficult to record scores of the previous player when the next player is playing.
I know I’ve definitely been in a situation where I’m killing a game, suddenly get some rage of paranoia that the game is going to reset, and for fear of losing scores I do start writing down everyone’s score after every ball
It will be worthwhile in these situations when certain players are motivated for those games scores to stand, so I don’t mind letting that be the motivating factor with people tracking scores.
You’ll often see Zach and myself if we’re officiating finals matches for IFPA . . . the back of the scoresheet is a hot mess of score tracking, not only ball to ball, but also ‘in progress’ balls. Depending on the significant digits of the machine at play, I’ll tick a mark for every 10K points, or 100K points, or million points, etc . . . just in case the machine goes poopy.
For reference, in the Pinburgh rules section VI - 5, Player Errors, the following is written:
Any points scored when a ball is being played out of turn count. It is the responsibility of all players to ensure the correct player is on the machine at all times.
Section I, Paragraph 9 - Player Errors verbiage has been updated:
“A player who plays out of turn in a multiplayer game will receive a score of zero. The affected player may choose to take over the ball in play, if possible, or he or she may choose to have the incident treated as a major malfunction. In the event the player takes over, he or she shall be deemed “in control” after declaring his or her intent, taking his or her position at the table, and making contact with the ball via the flippers. The affected player may not change his or her mind once he or she is “in control”. Any player who plays out of turn deliberately in order to employ this rule will be disqualified. Any points scored when a ball is being played out of turn count. It is the responsibility of all players to ensure the correct player is on the machine at all times.”
Awesome guys. That was the sentence I was looking for! If you can add that to the combined IFPA/PAPA ruleset, that would be great! It would have made it so much easier to convince the players that it was the right call, by the rule book :).
I agree with all the reasoning that all players are responsible for noticing it, just like the rules that all players are responsible for making sure right number of games are started.
One follow-up to this, that should also be captured in the rules. In the case the playing out-of-order occurs on Ball 1, is it the same rule? P4 plays P3’s ball 1. Even though Ball 1, I believe the ruling is still playing out-of-order, thus DQd. Does P3 then just take P4’s ball, which now becomes the third player if we disregard the P3 score and plunge that ball? Or does P3 still get the points earned? I think in this case, the more fair rule is that P3 assumes the position of the unstarted P4 game, rather than inheriting points earned and getting an extra ball at the end.
To me this doesn’t feel like it warrants a special case, and then could confuse someone into playing the wrong turn later in the game. Additionally, only P1 through P3 could receive this sort of ruling. I think it’s better to let Player 3 be Player 3, but I can see someone using a different rule here locally.
FYI - All players and tournament directors can view and download the IFPA/PAPA Quick Reference guide here: http://pinholicsanonymous.com under Resources (found on the home page or in the menu).
I’ll update the quick ref guide with this note about scores standing that were played out of turn. I’ll also be sending the original file to Mark and company for their use at Replay again. I still also need to add the Creative Commons license to the quick ref guide since it can be downloaded as a stand alone document (the website above has it listed under the Official Rules section already).
Might be a little late to ask, but when are you officially “playing?”
Some scenarios - 1)flips flippers but realizes not my turn and walks away. 2)flips flippers, gets a danger, walks away. 3)plunge ball, but ball remains in shooter lane, walks away. 4)Plunge ball, remains in shooter lane, gets a danger, walks away. 5)Plunge ball, but passes through playfield without hitting a switch and returns to shooter lane, walks away.
I asked the question because I know that TD’s don’t want to evaluate every single instance of something and they probably draw a hardline where it goes from not playing someone’s ball to playing it. My guess is that “ball entering the playfield” would be that line, so #5 might very well be “playing someone else’s ball.” But that line could just as easily be “plunging the ball.” Or “flipping the flippers.” Or “changing the state of the game,” as you suggested. Or maybe ball entering the playfield, unless the state of the game is altered. (like on TZ when I short plunge the red lane for 2,000,000 and the ball comes back to the plunger) (Or I step up and flip the flippers on X’s and O’s look up and realize it isn’t my turn, move aside, but now the timed skill shot is over). So now I changed the state of the game just by wasting time flipping the flippers. Flipping the flippers can change the state of the game non-permanently too, “super skill shot” on Corvette. It might not be so simple where that line is, is all I am saying, and it doesn’t seem pedantic to me, which is why I asked the question in the first place.
Addressing #2 and #4 - The one time I played someone else’s ball recently, I brain farted because I looked at the game, saw it empty and told myself it was my turn, stepped up and played. It was empty because the previous player had tilted. I know the rule is that if I tilt and give the next player “dangers” I will be warned, not DQ’d, and #2 and #4 could be treated the same, so I don’t think it is so simple. This is why I am asking.
Two different circumstances. This rule is for when you tilt during your own ball and the next player gets a “danger” as a result. The punishable action occurred during your own ball. If the game says the next player is up and you are still wiggling away for some reason and cause them to get a danger, that’s a DQ.
Ideally you want to have a rule that can be enforced by an official who wasn’t a witness to the event in question. An official shouldn’t be making any ruling based on something they haven’t seen with their own eyes. This is why judging by “state of the game” is the easiest and fairest way.
On many games, a TD can’t walk up to a game and determine whether or not the ball has entered the playfield yet without hitting any valid switches and returned to the shooter lane, or if flippers have been flipped.
Even if they could, why punish anyone when nobody’s opportunity for “normal play” has been hindered? I’m pretty sure the super-skill on Corvette can be turned back off, but if it wasn’t possible, activating the super-skill shot would indeed be considered playing out-of-turn, because the offended player has lost his opportunity for a normal skill shot.
I’d be tempted to say that all of these count as play.
2 - you’ve affected the game by causing a danger.
3 - yov’ve moved the ball. On many games you can score points and not have valid playfield, ball comes back. hard to be %100 sure no points were scored. Also, on some games this can affect the game (choosing your skillshot on LOTR or BDK) So I would enforce the same for all games.
4 - you’ve affected the game by causing a danger.
Now 1 is tricky. But there are cases where this could affect the game:
ball launch set to flipper.
The wrong player who is at the game is causing a delay for the correct player that is game affecting (eating up time out time on Xs and Os).
Changing to a alternate skillshot in a way another player doesnt know how to back out of, or that it has happened (corvette)
I’d lean towards making a blanket rule under playing out of turn including language that at minimum says: “Any player who causes the ball of another player to move” or something like that.
Though this probably should be in combination with a rule about game state changing to cover the oddball flip scenarios.
I’m semi uncomfortable with “If the state of the game has been altered” as many officials and player’s don’t know of the intricacies of game state on many pins, but its probably the best type of language.
p.s. started writing this yesterday at work, came back posted it today - perhaps other have said the same thing in the meantime
