Tournament ruling- the intentional tilt.


Ah, yes, that makes sense, thanks! So, turn extra balls off, or put up with the long game times, or don’t use the game. Any one of these options would be preferable to requiring extra balls to be plunged, IMO.


You can skillfully plunge the ball without it landing in the scoop. I wouldn’t sooner do that and collect bonus than tilt. I agree with Bob. If I was director I wouldn’t allow intentional tilt rule to be ignored but perhaps allow ball 2 eb to played as ball 3. Seems fair.


It’s YOUR ball that you earned to do with as you please (except flip after plunging). It’s no different than starting a game and tilting out the first ball before plunging for the hell of it.


What’s downside to leaving rule as is, but adding the exception that deliberate tilting is okay only when ball is in shooter lane?


It sounds like the consensus is to kill this rule. Paging @pinwizj, why does this rule exist :slight_smile:


You’re asking the wrong guy . . . that was part of the rules that PAPA brought to the table in the IFPAPA United Nations of Rules Conference.

Based on when the rule was written, I would page K-mart :wink:


A rule like this has been part of the IFPA rules since 2008, though the only proposed penalty is ejection:

“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, may be ejected from the tournament.”


Agreed that forcing a player to put a ball into play that may start a feature that they’d rather prevent is pretty silly. I would be glad to see this rule go away and allow an intentional tilt to avoid an unwanted result. However, this can get complicated in a game like Radical where you may be motivated to tilt out a locked ball to avoid giving advantage to your opponent.

As an aside, isn’t part of the issue on Addams that you can wait to tilt once the bonus is displayed so you get the bonus AND the greed letter? In that situation the player really isn’t sacrificing anything to gain benefit from the tilt which feels pretty cheap.


Taken from the book of best practices . . . circa 2004 . . . back to K-Mart :wink:


Huh. I always took that to mean out-of-turn or purposeful, calculated ways to screw others’ games up. Given the context, I would especially say it’s a stretch to apply it to a GREED situation.

I completely agree with the concept that asking a TD to determine intent is a bad situation. I could argue on TAF that I wasn’t trying to get a free GREED letter, it was a simple rage tilt.

I will also take the opportunity to point out my consistency on the topic of saying death saves are disallowed is silly and in a lot of situations potentially unenforceable. Worried about it? No warnings.

Personally, I would much rather see warning-throughs dealt with harsher than they are. That may or may not make someone think twice about a GREED tilt.

As a semi-related aside, I can absolutely confirm that the free GREED letter is absolutely a bug specific to TAF related to forcing valid playfield on a tilt, which is what I suspected for years.




That’s not a rule at all, actually: “… may be ejected from the tournament”

May be ejected?” If anything, to be a rule, it would have to say “shall be ejected.” Otherwise, presumably, it’s OK to not eject the player for some reason. (“Hey TD, I’m your best friend and I’ll shout you a few drinks after the tourney…”)

Moreover, how do I (as a TD) assess whether the tilt was performed “in order to derive some benefit?” Maybe the player accidentally tilted the machine in a situation where the tilt was to his benefit, not even knowing there is a benefit?

I’m not kidding; I just participated in a tournament where two thirds of the machines were new to me. So, I just shot at whatever was flashing, and I tilted a few times. What if one of those tilts was actually advantageous? Should I be disqualified?)

I think any “rule” that mentions something like “deliberately” or “intentionally” is fundamentally flawed. Because, in effect, such a rule requires the TD to read the player’s mind. If a machine has programming that allows an advantage to be gained by tilting, either don’t use the machine in a tournament, or accept that a well-informed player will be able to tilt to his/her advantage (and that any other player can do it, too).

Anything else just invites discontent and arguments, and requires prescience on part of the TD. Losers all round that way…


The detail you describe is probably why the rule was changed to its current form, which has an actual consequence instead of a “may be”.

I could see this being enforced only on obvious deliberate tilts, like the one described in this thread or the one linked to. The one that comes to mind for me is Radical, where a tilt at the end of your ball releases the locked ball, making it more difficult for opponents.


Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t have any issue with people tilting (intentional or not) their ball on Radical to prevent their opponent(s) from a lock steal – it’s a cost/benefit to the tilting player: willingness to sacrifice your bonus in order to prevent your opponent from an enormous opportunity that the opponent did NOT earn. (Edit: I have no issue if the intentional tilt doesn’t violate a documented rule.)

The “harm” to their opponent? Actually having to earn their own lock.


I was pointing out that entry in the PAPA/IFPA rules because you stated, “what is dumb is that he IFPA/PAPA rules does not clearly cover the EB situation”

It is covered. :slight_smile:

That said, I understand that not everyone has that kind of control over games in local tournaments. If a TD needs to have a house rule to cover a specific situation, then that is what they need.


They may have already earned their lock on the prior ball and I’m trying to clear it out because I wasn’t able to take advantage of the lock passed on to me. That’s kinda dirty, and I’d rather not play that way.


This is what we do when we can’t adjust all the pins to turn off EB’s, and we don’t have the time to allow EB’s. The contract law side of me rears its ugly head when referencing the IFPAPA rules, and I include a simple: "For any differences between these tournament rules and the IFPAPA rules, the tournament rules take precedence."


In our situation at a location with a large amount of games with a lot of patrons wishing to play AND a format in which the players pick which machines they will play, it is simply not practical or desirable to change all the machines to tournament settings and disable the extra balls. So, not only does the “plunge extra balls” rule shorten what is already an exhaustively long tournament, but also affords the ability to neutralize an easily negatable and very unbalancing potential random award on several machines (light extra ball, etc).


Good point. In that situation, I wouldn’t do that either. And then sadly, it’s cumbersome to write – and impossible to effectively enforce – a rule that allows an intentional tilt when it’s ejecting YOUR locked ball vs disallowing an intentional tilt when it’s the opponent’s locked ball.

Seems the best solution to me is: get rid of the intentional tilt rule. Everything you do when it’s your ball and you’re playing on the machine (or about to play) is trying “to derive some benefit to his or her own play.” (ie: scoring the most points, choosing to go first on TZ if the Powerball is up next, waiting 60-90 seconds for a tilt bob to settle, choosing not to lock balls or delaying locking balls in a lock-stealing game, setting up your mode and multiball start sequence, etc).


One of the biggest reasons we always play as Radical as single player only.

We remove the reason to intentionally tilt.

Same with any EM that kicks out balls for a tilt . . . we’re always single player on those as well.