Time out the snack bar hurryup, then start multiball and drain one ball before getting a jackpot. Wait for the restart animation and drain your second ball. The snackbar countdown starts at 10B on your next plunge. I’m not sure if this works on multiplayer games or not.
I’ve seen it done on location, and that GC is still sitting there.
You can think whatever you want. If you’re playing in a tournament I’m running, nobody is playing with multiple balls on the playfield in single ball play rules outside of those examples where “that’s a designed rule and intentionally part of gameplay”.
Loss of a multiball is NOT a major malfunction. Yes it sucks . . . as does a ton of other malfunctions that impact players in a negative way. At no point in time do we evaluate a beneficial malfunction “net of any losses from minor malfunctions that happened in conjunction with the incident at hand”.
YMMV depending on your TD 
Brian Eddy was over to Raw Thrills for lunch today . . . I asked him if this was the intended behavior of the game . . .he said “No”
FWIW (which I realize isn’t much), yes looks fair game to me.
I think in a multiplayer game on CFTBL if you set up the 10B hurry up the player after you gets it. If that’s the case, I don’t think anyone would do it on purpose in competition.
One of Zach’s best friends cashed in a 9bil snack bar at Pinburgh last year and the game was voided
“Due to the complex and imperfect nature of pinball machines, rare and / or unusual scoring situations may arise that are the unintended consequences of programming oversights, errors, mechanical issues, or wiring issues. If a tournament director deems a player is taking advantage of an unexpected scoring situation or an obscure “programming bug”, the tournament director reserves the right to warn the player in question to not abuse the situation further, end the game in progress at the current score, award a score of zero, or ask the player to restart the game. The determination of whether a player is taking advantage of a software or scoring issue and the subsequent penalty, if any, is left up to the discretion of the tournament director and will be based on the particulars of the specific situation.”
Revision 20.7, when did that get added? Did you add that today just to shut me up?
That was added 3/31/17 . . . my records show Steinman wrote it up and we both added it that same day.
Was that rule inspired by KME wrecking HOTK at the Circuit Final?
Which of the consequences listed do you think would have been appropriate in hindsight?
Circuit Final was April 5th, which was a week after the rule was added.
Clearly KME should have been ejected from the building, DQ’d from the Circuit Final and then asked to not return for PAPA the rest of the weekend
It was April 5, 2016.
LOL . . . then we must have reallllllly thought about it for a while before adding verbiage to the IFPAPA rules.
I still disagree that this is an instance where this was a “loss” of multiball – this isn’t some malfunction (flippers dying, etc) that causes the loss of all but one of the balls on the table.
But if you and the IFPAPA powers that be are going to stick with this interpretation, I suggest you clarify this in the rules.
Getting my popcorn ready for this ruling on The Shadow at IFPA 15. 
I’ll just point to this thread when making that ruling
Known as the “Cayle pretended he knew an exploit for Iron Man before PAPA, so we specifically wrote a rule that would give us the ability to shut him down rule”.
XD
Lol. So which supposed exploit did you pretend to know about?
Wait, so (just now) you thought this rule was in place when KME did the HOTK exploit, but knew that there was no ruling on that… so does that mean you don’t think a ruling should have been made in this case? If not, why? If so, how should that have been handled?
LOL that’s right . . . you’re such a piece of sh*t 
Not at all . . . new games run into the “we don’t know what we don’t know yet” about the code. So the assumption is that the game is behaving as it should.
It’s only after vetting a game and understanding how it works that you can understand when something “isn’t working as it should”.
Hopefully TD’s are aware of these potential issues and know ahead of time to either:
A) Don’t use the game so you don’t have to deal with the ruling of what happens if “the thing” happens
B) Use the game with the understanding that our ruling will be “X” if “the thing” happens
The paragraph that Steinman wrote up lays it out perfectly IMO:
“the tournament director reserves the right to warn the player in question to not abuse the situation further, end the game in progress at the current score, award a score of zero, or ask the player to restart the game. The determination of whether a player is taking advantage of a software or scoring issue and the subsequent penalty, if any, is left up to the discretion of the tournament director and will be based on the particulars of the specific situation.”
