Time window analysis that limits the explosive mass fired within a specified time window (commonly eight milliseconds) has been used for many years in blast design by explosives engineers. Despite several warnings in the past that this technique has limited practical or scientific basis and, in many cases, does not effectively control vibration, almost every textbook and blasting manual refers to time window charge mass limits as a primary vibration control technique. It has become entrenched in some blast vibration management plans, despite being inappropriate for the particular situation. With the flexible initiation timing available with electronic detonation almost a practical reality, and the 8 ms constraints in-built into the signal tube initiation system thereby lifted, it is timely to review the significance of the 8 ms time window in controlling blast vibration. This paper re-visits the original research that led to the development of the 8 ms criteria and the non-supportive conclusion of the original researcher. Because airblast was not measured, the 8 ms time window was never intended to be applicable for airblast control. Examples of blast designs are given in this paper that comply with the 8 ms time window limit that result in substantially increased air and ground vibration, together with examples of blast design that does not satisfy time window considerations, which results in reduced air and ground vibration. Techniques that identify wavefront reinforcement, due to the combined effect of drilling pattern and delay sequence, can assist explosives engineers to avoid high blast vibration situations that result from the inappropriate application of time window techniques and other adverse delay combinations.