Yet they are completely different. A tilt through tilts the next player. A warning through that launches the ball results in the next player choosing to let the ball drain knowing they will get a comp ball or they can choose to take control and continue to play.
On a tilt through the next player has no choice.
Not if the next player isn’t at the game ready to start playing immediately.
I would not DQ in this instance. I would give the tilt-warning through player a warning and the player whose ball launched a comp ball.
I think the key factor here is that a tilt through is a DQ, in this example it was not a tilt through, but a ‘warning through’.
This is the entirety of the language in the PAPA rules. I don’t see anything about whether the warning through has additional effects on the next player or not. It can be applied directly to the situation at hand.
There is a later paragraph about taking control of a ball already in play, but whether it may or may not be used in addition to this rule, it has nothing to do with the danger through.
There was some discussion of this in another thread a year or two ago. Some TDs from Pinburgh said the “taking/gaining control” language only applied if someone plunged another player’s ball. If the game auto-launched for some reason the criteria for a compensation ball was whether the player touched the game or not. If you touch the game after it auto-launches then no compensation ball.
But concerning dangers causing auto-launches it opens up the possibility of an unscrupulous player intentionally dangering through to cause an auto-launch and only getting a warning. If the TD determines the player’s intent was to cause an auto-launch, then I guess a DQ could be given.
Also practically speaking, I think it would materially affect the style of play on modern games if a warning-through also resulted in a DQ. On older games with no warnings, everyone knows a good shove can get you a tilt-through. Moderns usually allow more action, because most of the time if you tilt you’re only affecting yourself, the machine will calm down before the next player. But of course in rare situations you can get a warning to bleed over.
Penalizing both the same way I feel would cause play on moderns to be far too cautious, with less people being able to display their bumping, nudging, or insane outlane-shake or slap-save skills over fear that they might tilt and might induce a warning.
this happened at NYCPC but without the ball launch, danger through is play on, tilt through is DQ.
I had this happen at a pre UK Open tournament with Stern POTC but the player who tilted started playing the next players ball because of the launch to help that player not loose his ball and I had to DQ him for that and explain the comp ball rule.
how would you be certain you just warning/dangered through rather than risking the tilt through? Can’t see too many players risking that, if the ball auto launches let it drain and the player gets a comp ball.
This is largely why I presume JJP games should be set to tilt warnings per ball. What should be a warning-through becomes a tilt-through if the “now-tilted-through” player just so happened to blow their warnings on an earlier ball.
That’s the best reason I’ve heard yet why “tilt warnings per ball” should be the standard. Aside from the situation you described, if this happened on ball 1 then the affected player has had their game altered for the entire game, not just one ball.
There is verbiage for the player impacted to help remedy the situation:
Any player who tilts their own ball, which then results in a tilt warning given to the following player will not have any consequences for the first offense. The player with the warning will be allowed to continue play as normal, or choose to have the ball played on a fresh game.
How many games have the plunge on danger feature, but also such a basic tilt routine which doesn’t wait long enough for the tilt bob to settle before changing the player? I would guess this problem is rare enough combination of way strict tilt and not optimally centered tilt bob to have it’s own rule in the rule book.
If a game starts behaving like this during a tournament and the game can’t be removed or problem resolved by adjusting the tilt, then make it one player only for the rest of the tournament.
Do the JJP games also need there own rules when set to warnings per game?
It also means a player who has used their two warnings can help DQ a player ahead of them… their danger through now becomes a tilt through!
Does this need clarification for JJP situations? Using my contrived example, if the game is set to warnings per game and player 1 ball 1 tilts and causes player 2 to accrue two tilt warnings, that player didn’t have one ball affected, they had three balls affected. Do they get to punt the game and play an entire fresh game, with the added kicker of knowing what player 1’s full game score is?
I don’t believe any kind of clarification is needed. That player can simply choose to have the ball played on a fresh game, which in that situation would be ball’s 1, 2 and 3 (if this happened on ball 1).
The added kicker is simply the nature of the ruling happening at that time. Malfunctions/Player Error ruling verbiage don’t change because any one player may be forced to play out their game in full due to that ruling.
Wait, back up the truck. Is that how all of the “play the ball on a new game” rules are supposed to work? I don’t want to hijack the thread, but wanted to clarify. So for example, something happens on ball 2 and they are awarded a consolation ball. We are supposed grab the score from ball 1 and play balls 2 and 3 on a new game?
I’ve always just had them play ball 3 and then play one ball on a new game.
TD discretion on this one. I prefer to try and keep game continuity as best I can if possible.
If a player hasn’t started their game, there’s still an opportunity for that player to play their complete game on ‘one game of play’, rather than splitting that into two.
YMMV 
Always worth mentioning… On modern games it’s nice to add balls to the game in play so the affected player doesn’t lose game state / progress. I’ve seen a lot of instances where TDs are either unaware of this option or forget about it.
Many pinball karma points to Stern for adding that into their games.
Pinball karma points also earned for being able to enter the test menu without nuking the game in progress.
