Penalty for playing beyond time limit.

[Darkson]

Assume you schedule 2.5hrs for a game, plus 0.5hrs break, and a game is still going. You don't want to be arsey like GW used to be on calling a game, but you don't want to make all the other coaches hang around waiting for one game to finish.

Would it be a huge turn-off to attending if there was a points penalty for every 5min* a game went over time?

(Not for a final, just Swiss games.)

* As an example.


Just something brought to mind by a nigh-on 3hour game at ARBBL this year (luckily game before lunch).

[SillySod]

Was it me?

(its a valid question: Excitable Rob was there so it might not have been me!)

It isn't a bad thing to discourage long games but I don't think that this is the way forwards. One of the big problems with longer games is that there isn't always an obvious perpetrator. Sometimes it is crystal clear but often it is a bit of a murky mire where both sides are to blame but one is more to blame than the other but no one is really sure who that is. Anyway, the upshot of a penalty system is that you will either punish innocent players who got a bad draw or else risk being accused of discrimination. Both those things seem more likely to create bad feeling than simply calling the game.

There is also the issue that the points reduction is only meaningful if it stops someone from winning a prize. The punishment will either be a non-event or it will spoil someones tournament... I'm not sure that either of those achieve your goals here. You could try a similar system where only repeat offenders are punished but that would have similar problems. Multiple strike systems would also be vulnerable to being gamed by less scrupulous coaches - if we were in the finals and I knew that you had played against SillyExcitablePolarGeggester in the last round then maybe I could play really slowly and hope that the timeout penalties would act as a tiebreaker.


So far I've only ever seen three sensible options:
1 - introduce a timer
2 - call the game
3 - allow the tournament to be disrupted

I'm sure we've all seen those options implemented badly but given a bit of attention to detail you should be able to use some variation of those options to cover all eventualities fairly adequately.

I think the key is to make sure that your system is:
- readily explainable
- necessary (the problem with GW was that there didn't seem to be an especially good reason to call the games so early)
- consistent

You also need to consider whether or not playing into the lunchbreak is acceptable. I'm generally in favour of playing through lunch but I can see why you might want to disallow that (maybe you think it is unfair for people to potentially miss out on lunch). People probably need to know in advance either way.

[Digger Goreman]

four minute time limit... like in the rules....

[Darkson]

No, wasn't you Pete -I'd just penalties you anyway.

The issue wasn't the playing through lunch (they had time), it was if this had been round 1, 3, 4 or 6 it would inconvenience others, as the break was less/end of day.

[lunchmoney]

four minute time limit... like in the rules....

Two minute time limit... like in the rules.... for Speedbowl(C)

[lunchmoney]

You can penalise them by denying them sweeties.


It's a hard call to make, as said already you risk punishing an innocent. But if you state clearly in the rules, and at the start of the weekend, what will happen to any game that hits the 2 hour 30 mark, then everyone is playing in the same boat. Of course that opens the option of the leading team coach just sitting there wasting time, whilst the clock runs down. Neither option is great.

For Exiles, I find I've finished long before a lagging game (if I am playing) and then I tend to hover around those games that are behind. That way you should hopefully be able to tell which coach is the cause, or if it's just one of those games that is really close and both coaches are thinking hard. Also the presence of the TO, and others, watching the game, might be punishment enough

[Don__Vito]

I would be absolutely furious if I where penalised for being involved in a game that went over time. Anyone who has played me and especially those who play me regularly will know I'm a very quick player, and typically have my games finished within the first hour to hour and a half. I have been involved in games that have taken anything up to three hours at tournaments, but never through my turns taking long.

If I where to be given some kind of penalty from my opponent taking (a lot) longer than normal, I'd feel very aggrieved. And probably kick off. And likely not want to come back to your event. And tell everyone else I knew about it.

But that's just me.

[Darkson]

Would you also kick off if the game was called?

(Serious question, as I had a couple of comments at the tourney about the length of the game.)

[spubbbba]

Game time is a tricky subject in tournaments as deadlines have to be followed or it will push future rounds back, often people have lifts arranged or trains booked so can’t stay if the tournament were to overrun. One of the most annoying things about when GW ran the GT was the long wait for them to do the scores. It can be very frustrating to play a slow player, or worse one who continually plans out moves and then backtracks over and over.

If you are ahead and games are automatically ended when time runs out then it can be an incentive to play at a slower pace and win by default. Some skills allow you to take actions in your opponents turn so you can even disrupt and slow them down by procrastinating over the use of SS, DT, shadowing etc.

I have heard about gamers in WHFB or 40K tournaments deliberately playing slow with shooty army to get the game called before it finished since they traditionally do better at the start of the game. But they have an additional issue that some armies have 100’s of models compared to others having dozens.

[Don__Vito]

As long as I'd had plenty of advance warning then no.

If there is a clear warning before a round that games are called at X point, and then there is a clear warning that it is 30 minutes to X, then I can adjust my tactics and clock management to fit in with that. Instead of stalling I may put it in earlier for example.

If however someone just came round the tables and said, "Games are taking too long and we need to wrap it up, can you both end your turn and we'll call it there," then I absolutely would kick off. Assuming it wasn't me who'd caused the delays in the first place.

[SillySod]

There is probably some sort of moral here. "Don't invite people with big dads to your tournament" or somesuch

In my experience the presence of lunch greatly increases the chance of a game overrunning. There is less incentive to wrap the game up since both players are aware that it isn't strictly necessary. Plus lunch games tend to happen in the morning so there is more chance of hangovers or late arrivals and that sort of thing.

Regardless...

Simon - do you have access to chess clocks? If you could pilfer one or two from somewhere then you could simply drop them on the offending table and give each player a little over half of the remaining time (so if you would call it in 30 minutes then give them 17 minutes each). Rule it such that if one player runs out of time then the game continues but they automatically turnover at the start of each turn. You could be pretty sure that the game would finish and no one would get burnt without due process.

[Darkson]

No chess clocks, though I could sit with two stop watches.

I guess I can be a bit clearer, and stricter, on times next year, and assuming I'm not playing, I'll watch matches that look like they're over-running.

[lunchmoney]

Simon - do you have access to chess clocks? If you could pilfer one or two from somewhere then you could simply drop them on the offending table and give each player a little over half of the remaining time (so if you would call it in 30 minutes then give them 17 minutes each). Rule it such that if one player runs out of time then the game continues but they automatically turnover at the start of each turn. You could be pretty sure that the game would finish and no one would get burnt without due process.

No chess clocks, though I could sit with two stop watches.

I have plenty of Speedbowl (C) timers. I can always bring them for you

[Joemanji]

I think the best way to manage slow play is to check games out early rather than late and give regular time updates. There is no point wandering up to a game with 20 mins left to find they are at half time. It is then too late to reach an amicable resolution. But if after one hour you spot a game is way behind you can chivvy the coaches along and keep a closer eye on it. Easier said than done sometimes, especially if you are playing as the spare man. But that is the way I've preferred to do it. Manage rather than penalise.

Also, having sat next to a Sillysod / Polarbear game where they stopped playing and just chatted for 20 mins - tell the fools to hurry up!

[DixonCider]

I think the best way to manage slow play is to check games out early rather than late and give regular time updates. There is no point wandering up to a game with 20 mins left to find they are at half time. It is then too late to reach an amicable resolution. But if after one hour you spot a game is way behind you can chivvy the coaches along and keep a closer eye on it. Easier said than done sometimes, especially if you are playing as the spare man. But that is the way I've preferred to do it. Manage rather than penalise.

Also, having sat next to a Sillysod / Polarbear game where they stopped playing and just chatted for 20 mins - tell the fools to hurry up!

agreed. Spike used chess clocks and most coaches I played were under every turn. My current league does not use timed matches, but we usually play a 90 minute to 2 hour matches