We had a ruling in a tournament, and I’m curious if it was correct. It did not affect the outcome of the game, so this is really just academic. Nonetheless, here is the scenario:
Dr. Who. I think it was ball 3, player 2. He had 390M. One shot left to MB. Center drained. Pushed the machine in frustration, walked away. The machine then started MB. The other players alerted him that something was happening. He ran back to the game, picked up his MB, and went on to 600M or so. We figure he tripped a switch with his shove at the end. Should he have continued to play out the MB? Should there be an adjustment, or a ruling of any kind? I find the section on “Beneficial malfunctions” to be a bit confusing.
Ultimately, it was decided to let it stand with no adjustment or ruling. Was that the correct decision?
I will say that was the correct ruling. I had a similar situation occur at Pinburgh 4-5 years ago. We were playing Frankenstein and Jerry Bernard made a really hard shove in an attempt to save a SDTM ball. The ball blew through the trough and into the shooter lane. Mark Steinman ruled it was a beneficial malfunction and that every player was allowed one. Jerry was allowed to plunge and play on.
That rule has now changed and the ball would be placed in the drain, if the ball kicks into plunger again the player can play on, otherwise the bonus would collect and ball is over.
Frankenstein, I’m almost positive, uses a 2-stage under pf trough (it would’ve been their standard design for the era). I don’t know how a ball could’ve just shown up there unless his shove actually defeated the 1st stage feed to the VUK.
TBH, to me this is the bigger issue. It’s impossible for crowds not to say anything, I get that, but really everyone should’ve kept their mouth shut.
Tilting/shoving to gain advantage is how I look at it. I forget if the hard shove is ok or not (but the tilt isn’t??).
Applying physical force to a machine in order to derive a benefit from the activation of a switch, stuck ball, or other other scoring feature shall only be permitted if the benefit can not be repeated continuously as determined by a tournament director. Nudging a machine so a locked ball moves and registers a switch causing a ball save, or nudging in order to manipulate a feature to begin a multiball would be permissible. Examples include shaking Bram Stoker’s Dracula such that the mist ball falls from its magnet starting multiball, shaking Avatar when a ball is in the Link assembly causing it to register, or shaking The Walking Dead causing the Well Walker to register a hit.
Shaking a machine repeatedly in order to derive a continual benefit from a loose switch or stuck ball is not permitted. For example, shaking Champion Pub such that the boxer gives free hits over and over allowing the player to score continually. Any player who intentionally takes advantage of a significant beneficial malfunction may be given a warning and/or have his or her affected entry interrupted and disqualified by tournament officials.
Unknown ball saves/Multiball starts can be investigated if the TD has evidence or directly observed the malfunction, but otherwise (or if the root cause can’t be found or tied to anything foul in the rules) the Family Guy Spider-Man mantra applies: “everybody gets one.”
Any player who deliberately tilts or slam tilts a machine in order to derive some benefit to his or her own play, or the play of others, under these rules, will receive a score of zero. Repeated offenses may result in ejection from the tournament.
Yes, it can be beneficial depending on the game situation… if you aren’t going to collect a mode bonus, tilting during bonus count gives the letter. I forget if the bonus still counts… I believe it does.
but I’m with keefer on this one… this is another area where the IFPA rules are trying to be everything and instead just make it convoluted. You either allow a behavior or not and live with the pros and cons. Not ban some flavors, but allow other flavors.
I think tilting for GREED letter is a perfect example of risk/reward and situational awareness that makes pinball so great. The player is sacrificing something to get a reward that’s better than what’s being sacrificed. Each player then has to be the judge – depending on game state – whether the reward outweighs the sacrifice.
I know this has been discussed to death, but while I agree with that sentiment on GREED letters, I disagree with intentional tilting in a situation like clearing the lock for an opponent on Radical.
Yup. I see both sides of the argument. But my statement above also applies to Radical: The player is sacrificing something (EOB bonus) to get a reward (depriving opponent of chance to steal something that they likely didn’t earn) that’s better than what’s being sacrificed.
