Interpret this Rule

[SlartyBartFast]

Continuing discussion from another thread to focus on one particular rule.


38.04 Assessment of the one-for-one penalty (the removal of the player committing the infraction and a teammate) will take place for the following infractions:
(3) continuing to play with a hit in an obvious location;


So, if you're hit anywhere but on your harness (the only unobvious hit)


29.01 Un-obvious hits are those which impact and break on player’s harnesses & tubes located on players back. Any part of the harness located in front players hips are considered obvious.

The referee should not eliminate you but should instead call a one-for-one. The reality is that refs call eliminations for obvious and unobvious hits and players do not call themselves out.

Once again, if the rule is play until the ref calls you out, why aren't the rules writtne that way?

I've only watched local tournaments, is it the same a big tournaments?

How can a player justify the current status-quo of enforcement?

How can a promoter, judge, or ref justify the current status-quo of enforcement?

(and don't try to say that the rule only applies to playing-on after the ref calls you eliminated, because by the book it's not the ref's responsibility to eliminate players for obvious hits.)

[trains are bad]

Paintball is a joke, the end.

there's your answer.

[Lohman446]

Look at the rest of the rules, that if you think you might be hit you have to stop forward progress and check immediatly, other things such as that.

[Muzikman]

For the most part in major tournament (pro level being a slight exception) players do call themselves out with obvioius hits (that they can't wipe without getting caught). Refs are pretty on the ball so an obvious hit or un-obvious hit the player is usually pulled before they get the chance to call themselves out.

BTW: one of the advantages of a superman dive is that if you take a hit to the front of your tourso on the break, the hit gets wiped clean when you dive:)

[-=Squid=-]

Unobvious hits are for the most part, nonexistant.

Wanna know why I play on with a pack hit? Because the rules state it's "unobvious," yet, the truth is that I can't think of a single time I got hit and didn't know it.

[SlartyBartFast]

BTW: one of the advantages of a superman dive is that if you take a hit to the front of your tourso on the break, the hit gets wiped clean when you dive:)

and if paintball was a serious sport with legitimate rules, any ref wanting to cause a splash would watch for an sign of impact and call for a penalty because the player didn't check themselves.

I suspect the only ture and obvious answer has already been stated by Trains.

[SlartyBartFast]

Refs are pretty on the ball so an obvious hit or un-obvious hit the player is usually pulled before they get the chance to call themselves out.

But in such a case the refs are not doing their job correctly. They are not supposed to act in the players favour and are not required to call eliminations for obvious hits.

They SHOULD see the hit, do a two count in their head, and then call the one-for-one.

Indeed the rule book gives a referee no other option.

[temps]

Unobvious hits are for the most part, nonexistant.

Wanna know why I play on with a pack hit? Because the rules state it's "unobvious," yet, the truth is that I can't think of a single time I got hit and didn't know it.

I've been hit in the pack and didnt notice.. It was in a 2 on 1 situation where my team mate was pinning him down, so I ran accross the feild to the next bunker to get the guy from both angles.. Anyway I took a hit that almost went behind my pod, after the player was eliminated he came up to me and said he hit me. So while walking off the feild I asked a ref to check my pod pack and he said I was clean.. right after in the stageing area I took my pack off and found out that I was hit. This was just a rec game between friends so not much was lost. But just to prove a point that it is possible to be hit and not notice.

[Lohman446]

I was playing a tournament one day and took a hit to the left side of the pod back, towards the back. It could have only been the left side because I was on the right tape, and it was audible - then again maybe it hit the bunker I was next to. The rules say since it was an unobvious hit - in the pack (though I realize the the rules make reference to audible hits) that I am not required to ascertain for myself. I was breaking for a snake and slid in, perhaps conveniently on my left side and. Now I do not know to this day if that ball broke or not, the ref checked me as I went into the snake - for one I was calling for the check, as was the other team.. As the rules are written, was it cheating? It wasn't 100% honest, it wasn't in the spirit of the rules, but I think I was walking very close (to one side or the other take your pick) of the written rules. We lost the game, and it ended up not mattering.... but even to this day I worry that I should have done something slightly different there.

[Muzikman]

Basically this...you are trying to make an issue out of one of the only rules that has not had much of an issue. If you want to question rules, there plenty others out there that make less sense and people stretch them to the limit and some times over.

[SlartyBartFast]

Basically this...you are trying to make an issue out of one of the only rules that has not had much of an issue. If you want to question rules, there plenty others out there that make less sense and people stretch them to the limit and some times over.

Actually, no.

If there is no question about how the rule should be enforced and what the role of the referee is, it should be the absolute FIRST to be discussed and re-written so that the rule book reflects reality.

If you can't write and enforce rules as basic as who is eliminated, when, and by whom, how can anyone take complex rules on ramping, bps, and others seriously?

[Muzikman]

My point is I have never seen a problem with this rule and I have been to my share of tournaments.

I think the wording is fine. I think the people interpet it the way the organizers mean it to be.

EDIT: I guess the what I am saying is that if you are truely playing on the ref will pull a one of one. 90% of the time, when you get hit the ref reacts faster than you can and pulls your arm band.

[tyrion2323]

Goodness, there are plenty of ways to get hit without knowing it - pack, shoes...even some pant and jersey hits. With the baggy clothing nowadays, you can get hit on a run without knowing it.

[SlartyBartFast]

My point is I have never seen a problem with this rule and I have been to my share of tournaments.

I think the wording is fine. I think the people interpet it the way the organizers mean it to be.

EDIT: I guess the what I am saying is that if you are truely playing on the ref will pull a one of one. 90% of the time, when you get hit the ref reacts faster than you can and pulls your arm band.

But that's totally the wrong way to look at rules and rule books. They should never require the interpretation and benevolence of the enforcers to be effective (no matter how widespread the benevolence or misinterpretation).

Your position is similar to saying that a law saying all blue eyed babies should be drowned is alright as long as the police don't enforce it.

If your edit is the accepted interpretation then the rule about one-for-ones when playing with an obvious hoit should be moved to the elimination rule and the game play rules should include calls by judges after obvious and unobvious hits.

[White_Noise]

watch some more tourneys(larger, series tourneys). when refs pull people, they usually do it at just about the same time as the person calls themself out. most players are good about calling out when its obvious.

the truth is that alot of players know that they can get a few more shots in without a call of playing on. they are exploiting the fact that refs dont see an impact sometimes, and therefore the ref may look at them when they shoot again, and think they got shot just then, hopefully by that time the player has eliminated an opposing player.

is the system perfect? no. does it have to be? no. most tournament players know that its basically an unwritten rule that they can play on a bit without getting a 1 for 1 penalty. youre argueing about interpretation. the industry, refs, and players mostly choose a loose interpretation, while you want a strict interpretation. if every law was strictly enforced, there would be people that would get tickets for very small things(jaywalking for instance. never heard of it being enforced.)

[SlartyBartFast]

the truth is that alot of players know that they can get a few more shots in without a call of playing on. they are exploiting the fact that refs dont see an impact sometimes, and therefore the ref may look at them when they shoot again, and think they got shot just then, hopefully by that time the player has eliminated an opposing player.

But that's what I think is in desperate need of fixing. There's ABSOLUTELY no need to have "interpretation" here. Especially on a rule like this.

The reason I find this rule very dangerous is that is clearly opens the door to favoritism withou making the refs responsible. A ref can let a player get away with a few shots, while quickly pullling another. Is he doing his job badly? Not by the rules...

A clarification of these simple rules wouldn't amke enforcement perfect, but it would make complaints and oversight of enforcement simple and put pressure towards standardised enforcement criteria.

[hitech]

Unobvious hits are for the most part, nonexistant.


:hail:

[hitech]

How can a player justify the current status-quo of enforcement?

How can a promoter, judge, or ref justify the current status-quo of enforcement?



What makes anyone think that tournaments follow the rules? They claim to follow the rules, and make excuses or claim you are whinning and need to suck it up when you complain. What they say and what they do does NOT have to match. And it doesn't.

[White_Noise]

But that's what I think is in desperate need of fixing. There's ABSOLUTELY no need to have "interpretation" here. Especially on a rule like this.

The reason I find this rule very dangerous is that is clearly opens the door to favoritism withou making the refs responsible. A ref can let a player get away with a few shots, while quickly pullling another. Is he doing his job badly? Not by the rules...

A clarification of these simple rules wouldn't amke enforcement perfect, but it would make complaints and oversight of enforcement simple and put pressure towards standardised enforcement criteria.


any rule, law, etc is subject to interpretation. our governement is based on the different interpretations of the constitution. for example: conservatives argue for a stricter interpretation of the constitution, whereas liberals are for a looser interpretation.

any sport has favoritism. refs can let players foul someone in basketball, step out of bounds in football, not call a hockey player for high sticking, etc and if he doesnt do the same for every player, it is favoritism.

[Lohman446]

Any rules that leave ANY room for interpertation are going to be poorly used by some people, poorly applied, and flat out abused by others. I was playing a tournament with a Shocker recently with SEVERE first shot drop off. I walked to the field and was told I had to AVERAGE my first three shots over the chrono at 285. The first one rolled out of the barrel - I was like... lets see 10 feet per second.. the next two can be pretty hot by the stated rules.

[Alpha]

I hate technicalities. Right up there with cliches.

Thats why I stick to recball, where me and my mag belong.

[SlartyBartFast]

any rule, law, etc is subject to interpretation. our governement is based on the different interpretations of the constitution.


:rofl: :rofl:

Paintball is a little less complicated than the constitution. :rolleyes:

Certainly, SOME rules will ALWAYS be open to interpretation. It's almost imposible to write an allencompassing rule book that will never need interpretations.

BUT: in this case, the rule book CLEARLY states something different than what is being enforced and it would be SIMPLE to rewrite the rules to be clear, concise, an absolute.

Someone should try bringing a tournament promoter to court for failing to enforce the rules and improperly attributing prize money and prizes. :p

[SlartyBartFast]

Any rules that leave ANY room for interpertation are going to be poorly used by some people, poorly applied, and flat out abused by others.

Hell, if only this was a case of differing interpretations. It a blatant case of not caring what the rule book says and enforcing whatever takes the referee's fancy.

[White_Noise]

:rofl: :rofl:

Paintball is a little less complicated than the constitution. :rolleyes:

Certainly, SOME rules will ALWAYS be open to interpretation. It's almost imposible to write an allencompassing rule book that will never need interpretations.

BUT: in this case, the rule book CLEARLY states something different than what is being enforced and it would be SIMPLE to rewrite the rules to be clear, concise, an absolute.

Someone should try bringing a tournament promoter to court for failing to enforce the rules and improperly attributing prize money and prizes. :p


paintball still has a set of rules(constitution) and a governing body that wrote those rules.

just a little about rules that arent enforced. jaywalking: ive seen crowds of people cross roads infront of traffic, forcing them to stop, when not in a crosswalk, and cops dont do anything. law states it is to be enforced, is it? no.

another unenforced law. in Kenosha, WI, it is illegal for any male to be in public in an "excited" state. is this law enforced? nope.


like i said before: every single law or rule in any lawbook, constitution, or sports rule book is subject to interpretation. it is those who have power that get to use their interpretations(majority in government body, refs and promoters in paintball) want the rule changed or its interpretation? dont complain about it on a forum. either write or talk to the local promoter, owner, refs. or write nppl.

[SlartyBartFast]

like i said before: every single law or rule in any lawbook, constitution, or sports rule book is subject to interpretation. it is those who have power that get to use their interpretations(majority in government body, refs and promoters in paintball) want the rule changed or its interpretation? dont complain about it on a forum. either write or talk to the local promoter, owner, refs. or write nppl.

What's your point? I shouldn't try to understand the rules before playing and then have a reasonable expectation that they'll be at least followed in spirit?

I'm not complaining here. I genuinely want to take the pulse of players so that I can decide what to write into the draft document I'm making.

[hitech]

I genuinely want to take the pulse of players so that I can decide what to write into the draft document I'm making.

I think that players should be responsible for calling themselves out REGARDLESS of where they are hit. They should be penalized if they continue to play with a hit. The penalty would be much larger for an "obvious" hit.

This is not a groundbreaking idea. This was the rule in the last Lively tournament I played in. And it was being enforced. That was 1991... :rolleyes:


:cheers:

[teufelhunden]

..and any contact in basketball on a shooter is a foul, right?

As a basketball ref, I can tell you that if this was the case, your average 32 minutes [of play] game would take hours upon hours.

There's the way the rule is written, the spirit of the rule, and the implementation of the rule. All three are different from eachother.

[SlartyBartFast]

I think that players should be responsible for calling themselves out REGARDLESS of where they are hit. They should be penalized if they continue to play with a hit. The penalty would be much larger for an "obvious" hit.

This is not a groundbreaking idea. This was the rule in the last Lively tournament I played in. And it was being enforced. That was 1991... :rolleyes:


:cheers:


I'm leaning towards clearing up the player responsibilities and leaving the refs in charge of calling 1-for-1s only.

(Actually, I've already made the unilateral decision to clarify the penalty names. Elimination, Double Elimination (1-4-1), Triple Elimination (2-4-1), and Quad Elimination (3-4-1))

I'm also working on how to make rules optional/configurable. Each tournament organiser can then make informed choices about the rules configuration and the difficulties and requirements in enforcing them.

Then, custom player, judge, referee, and organiser (as well as complete) rules books could be created as POD.

[SlartyBartFast]

There's the way the rule is written, the spirit of the rule, and the implementation of the rule. All three are different from eachother.

I understand that. But, fouls are at least called for the most part. When was the last time you saw these rules applied in Paintball?

And there is a line that you cross that changes 'interpretation' from "for the better of the game" to "couldn't care less".

[hitech]

..and any contact in basketball on a shooter is a foul, right?


Should we include "TV calls" in paintball also? I think the enforcement of many of the rules in pro basketball is laughable...

[teufelhunden]

Should we include "TV calls" in paintball also? I think the enforcement of many of the rules in pro basketball is laughable...


I'm not talking about professional basketball. I'm talking about high school and younger. Nearly all contact should be called a foul.. but for sake of the game keeping a pace above grass growing, paint drying, and baseball, it's not.


I feel that more strictly enforcing the playing on rule to the point you have described would be detrimental to the game. I'm sure nobody has ever actually studied it, but how much paint bounces vs. how much breaks? From my experience, a lot of paint bounces.. I mean, people already complain that all tourney ball has become is dump as much paint as possible without worrying about moving.. so now you want us to sit and examine our bodies for a hit every time we feel one?

The intention is good, but the results would not be.

[hitech]

I'm not talking about professional basketball. I'm talking about high school and younger. Nearly all contact should be called a foul..

I'm not even sure what the foul rules are. However, whatever they are they should be enforced. I remember in my stepson's games most contact was called a foul.


I feel that more strictly enforcing the playing on rule to the point you have described would be detrimental to the game....but how much paint bounces vs. how much breaks? So now you want us to sit and examine our bodies for a hit every time we feel one?


Yes. It's worked before, albeit there was less paint in the air. However, I doubt players where hit less often. It doesn't take that long to look. Besides, you were HIT. And everyone would be playing by the same rules. And if the rule against baggy clothing were enforced there would be far fewer bounces. ;)

[KRAKMT]

Once again, if the rule is play until the ref calls you out, why aren't the rules writtne that way?


This is not the rule in NPPL.
A player is obligated to make the call- not the ref. If the ref makes the call as has been said there is discression. As for blatent favortism- maybe but as a peon reffing a major nppl event last year I could not have cared less who won. Every ref is different just as every person is different and politics play a role. There are pressures to let the game be won or lost on the field not because of reffing. I never wanted a game to be decided by my call but it happens and happens fast. Memorable was a 1for1 call on a hit to a guys hopper. We know hopper hits are sometimes hard to tell- rule says it is obvious. I called the 1for1 because when it hit he flinched and kept firing. I took the heat but I believe it was a correct call. Any forward progress, firing or advancing is playing on. There is no playing until a ref calls you out- not in the NPPL.

[Enemy]

ok realize though that rules should be written to be tighter than what they would be enforced at!! take the very rule you quoted in its current state it isnt being enforced majorly but if the reff feels that the hit is obvious ie guy flinches he has the right to pull the player and a teammate with out arguement of oh no he didnt flinch! now if in that same instance the player genuinly didnt feel it and you pull a 1-4-1 then you took away from someone who would have left the second he realized he is hit! leave the rule the same its nice knowing that there is leway but in the same stroke if the ref is in a bad mood he can make you pay for it!!

also you need to focus more on other rules as well like jerseys should be tightly tucked into the pants and are not to cover the harness or pods! or the padding on the new dye jerseys if the current rules cant even be enforced when it comes to clothing do really expect bigger gains in other departments!!

[SlartyBartFast]

This is not the rule in NPPL.

You have the NPPL experience, so I'll take your word for it. I'm happy to hear that they are enforcing it as written.

I'm only seen local tournaments that purported to use NPPL or PSP rules and who obviously didn't follow them to the letter. I've also come to think that most local play is the same considering the vitriol the couple of other times I've brought up the same subject on-line.

[Raven001]

As I recall from my limited NPPL experience, compliance with the rules depended on the integrity of the player and the competence of the referee. Some players would push the boundries and some refs acted like they were legally blind.


another unenforced law. in Kenosha, WI, it is illegal for any male to be in public in an "excited" state. is this law enforced? nope.

remind me to bypass WI :)

[KRAKMT]

ok realize though that rules should be written to be tighter than what they would be enforced at!! take the very rule you quoted in its current state it isnt being enforced majorly but if the reff feels that the hit is obvious ie guy flinches he has the right to pull the player and a teammate with out arguement of oh no he didnt flinch! now if in that same instance the player genuinly didnt feel it and you pull a 1-4-1 then you took away from someone who would have left the second he realized he is hit!

The discression really isn't whether it is obvious, in reality everything is an obvious hit seldom do you get pack hits, the discression is whether the person was playing on after he was hit. It takes everyone a second to react when you are hit- that is understandable but at the point you react and then continue to play that is the 1for1. And as for the honest player that would have called himself if he had known- that is the gray you are concerned with. Keep in mind some pro teams are reputed to practice not flinching by randomly shooting each other during practice breaks- like the old two for fliching when we were kids they shoot and then give you two more if you flinch.

Local tourneys are always modified rules and with refs of differing experience. We work really had to maintain a great reffing reputation at the local level. We have ten NPPL refs trained by Dan Perez himself- I have reffed an NPPL major. Our first local tourney last year we had 13 refs on the field. We have a solid reputation of great reffing- hard to get away with stuff with that many eyers.

If you want enforcement of the rules you have to step up be the guy to make it better.

[SlartyBartFast]

ok realize though that rules should be written to be tighter than what they would be enforced at!! take the very rule you quoted in its current state it isnt being enforced majorly but if the reff feels that the hit is obvious ie guy flinches he has the right to pull the player and a teammate with out arguement of oh no he didnt flinch!

Then it's not a rule change that's required, but an enforcement clarification.

The only non-obvious hits are on harnesses.

Therefor, remove flinching/reacting and other subjective opinions from the equation.

Make the rules the refs have to follow VERY clear.

"After observing a player receiving an obvious hit and the player is marked, wait for a two count and if the player does not eliminate themselves or call for a paintcheck:
(i) if the hit was easily verifiable, the referee shall call player for playing-on.
(ii) if hit was not easily verifiable, the referee shall call player for failing to call paintcheck (playing-on)."

Both offenses, by the way, seem to be one-for-ones as penalties.

For non-obvious hits:

"After observing a player receiving a non-obvious hit and the player is marked, the referee shall immediately eliminate the player."

For when the referee can't see if the paint marked or not:

"After obsering a player receiving hits, but unable to confirm marks, wait for a two count. If the player does not call themselves eliminated, obviously check themselves, or request a paintceheck, the referee shall perform a paintcheck and:
(i) if marked by an obvious hit, call the player for playing-on.
(ii) if marked by a non-obvious hit, eliminate the player."

And of course a paintcheck call for an easily verifiable obvious hit is a playing-on call.

Then, instead of practicing not to flinch, players would have to practice checking themselves and making it visible or calling for paintchecks from teammates or refs quickly.

And the ref would have the advantage of a clear action/decision path.

[SlartyBartFast]

And when it comes to discussing specifics all comments dry up....


No opinions? :(

[Lohman446]

And when it comes to discussing specifics all comments dry up....


No opinions? :(

I'll get into it more tonight... but do you know how much paint can be removed in a two count... or how well a single hit can be, even if it looks like someone is looking for a hit?

[elpimpo]

Continuing discussion from another thread to focus on one particular rule.


So, if you're hit anywhere but on your harness (the only unobvious hit)



The referee should not eliminate you but should instead call a one-for-one. The reality is that refs call eliminations for obvious and unobvious hits and players do not call themselves out.

Once again, if the rule is play until the ref calls you out, why aren't the rules writtne that way?

I've only watched local tournaments, is it the same a big tournaments?

How can a player justify the current status-quo of enforcement?

How can a promoter, judge, or ref justify the current status-quo of enforcement?

(and don't try to say that the rule only applies to playing-on after the ref calls you eliminated, because by the book it's not the ref's responsibility to eliminate players for obvious hits.)


i guess id probly the best the best source to enlighten you here. i reffed denver las vegas and san diego and im headed to hb in march. its playing on if u have a hit thats obvious(anything but the back of the pack) it does not matter if a ref calls u out, if the hits there u r to call your self out. if you fire even one ball after you are marked out in an obvious spot it is a 1 for 1 penalty. now if you make a game altering move, say you shoot another player, then that is justified by a 2 for 1 penalty and the player you shot is to be cleaned off.

heres one that will throw you a little. if you are marked in an easily checkable spot like if u get goged and you stay in and ask for a paint check that is a 1 for 1 playing on penalty.

now if a ref pulls you and you shoot thats a 3 for 1 penalty, so yeah thats bad.

[SlartyBartFast]

I'll get into it more tonight... but do you know how much paint can be removed in a two count... or how well a single hit can be, even if it looks like someone is looking for a hit?

True. But then do you remove the responsibility of the player to check themselves?

Or leave it but have refs ALWAYS paintcheck immediately?

But, the player could still check and wipe before the paintcheck...

I think the ultimate goal should be pushing the players to calling themselves out more often than they shoul dand not leaving the burden on th erefs to call them out.

[SlartyBartFast]

its playing on if u have a hit thats obvious(anything but the back of the pack) it does not matter if a ref calls u out, if the hits there u r to call your self out.

Understood. But, would you prefer the status quo, where the refs call players eliminated or leave it to the players and have the refs only call 1 for 1s when the players fail to eliminate themselves?

Did you call straight eliminations? Because if you did you’re taking responsibility from the players. Otherwise, what’s to incite a player to call themselves out?

How are refs instructed to eliminate players?

If refs call straight eliminations, how “obvious” is obvious enough that the ref could justify calling a 1 for 1 because the palyer didn’t eliminate themselves?


if you fire even one ball after you are marked out in an obvious spot it is a 1 for 1 penalty. now if you make a game altering move, say you shoot another player, then that is justified by a 2 for 1 penalty and the player you shot is to be cleaned off.

Understood. WHile you provide one scenario od “game altering” playing-on has there ever been a compiled list? Many here on AO would view a marked flag carrier as not “game altering” where I would...

NPPL 34.02 leaves the issue wide open to interpretation.


heres one that will throw you a little. if you are marked in an easily checkable spot like if u get goged and you stay in and ask for a paint check that is a 1 for 1 playing on penalty.

Doesn’t surprise me at all. The rules are quite clear on the penalty of abusing paintchecks. But, how often have you seen a paintcheck called in a tournament speedball game?


now if a ref pulls you and you shoot thats a 3 for 1 penalty, so yeah thats bad.

NPPL 38.06 is quite clear.

[elpimpo]

i see a paintcheck called every game. yes i call out all hits that i see, even if its obvious cause refs are supposed to call hits... the reason players are to call them selves out is because refs cant watch 7 people at a time, we have to do scans frequently and call what we see but its impossible to see everythign

[SlartyBartFast]

even if its obvious cause refs are supposed to call hits...

But, why are refs supposed to call hits? Certainly by the rule book they don't have to (except in the case of paintchecks).


the reason players are to call them selves out is because refs cant watch 7 people at a time, we have to do scans frequently and call what we see but its impossible to see everythign

So what pushes a player to call themselves out instead of playing until a ref eliminates them?

If refs never called eliminations but only 1 for 1's you'd be certan that players would call themselves out.

Refs calling eliminations only opens the door to subjective calls and favoritism and players complaining that every hit happened instantly before the ref saw it.

[elpimpo]

you dont play tournaments do you?

the incentive for calling yourself out is that if u dont u get a 1 for 1. that means you have a lower chance of winning.

[Lohman446]

Ok.. the rule as I understand it is quite clear.

When hit in anything but an unobvious hit - only those hits to the pack of your pack - you are required to immediatly see if it broke yourself, if you cannot easily verify you must call paintcheck. While confirming you may not make any forward movement, and you may not fire - doing so is playing on and is cause for a penatly.

Its just the enforcemetn sucks.. I have some ref stories, some at major events, that are nearly unbeleivable on what I have got away with with full ref knowledge.

[hitech]

I don't like the idea of instructing the refs to wait for two seconds. It seems too much like setting the players up. Why two seconds? A player could find a hit within that timeframe, or may take longer. As long as he does not "play" it should not be playing on. The only reason I can see for waiting is to determine if the player will cheat. I'd rather not give them the opportunity if possible. I realize that technically this could give an "advantage" to a player with a ref standing near them. But it also makes it much harder to cheat with a ref standing next to you, so I don't see it as a bad thing... ;)

Obviously, I'm all for making players responsible for calling themselves out. I don't like the idea of setting them up.

:cheers:

[elpimpo]

umm dawg i dont know who told u bout that two seconds but it aint true... we call um when we see them. now i myself have waited on one call cause i couldnt believe my eyes. this dude dives into the right 50 taking one to the gogs... emiediatley he turns his head inside and kind of glances at me, but he wouldnt call himself out... im stupified, i was like wtf, then i was like oh shizzle hes going to try and wipe this crap, so i kind of looked over and then i was like this is messed up and i 141 him

[rabidchihauhau]

rules, rules, rules.

You guys are arguing over the specific rule sets when the entire framework has a couple of major problems.

If they are going to work, a set of rules must be:

demonstrable
enforceable
effective (within the context of the stated purpose of the game)

and take place within the game itself.

Demonstrable: you have to be able to clearly define the boundaries to which the rules apply.

I would submit that this has not been accomplished yet. You can say 'observable/non-observable' etc., but I know of many instances in which a hit that 'looked' obvious to one person was NOT obvious to the player in question. I saw one just two days ago: a skater came off the top of a bunker, barely clipped the edge of the goggles and splooged all over the guy's hair - which was big and poofy. Result - it was PLAINLY obvious that he did not know he had a hit on him, while it was equally plainly obvious to everyone else that he was hit.

So, with this one example, we see that we're in difficult territory, because any set of rules we devise are going to penalize players for things which are outside of their own control. If that's the way it has to be, so be it, but recognize that we have not adequately defined the situation for it to be clear cut.

Enforceable: its great to have a rule, but now you have to put it into official's hands and give them the tools needed so they can USE the rules.

THIS has not been accomplished either. When a player can run down the field with a penalty waiting, mark other players, hang a flag, etc., and all the ref can do is chase him and then try to pick up the pieces afterwards, you don't have enforcement.

To be more real world about it: there are many game situations in which taking a one-for-one (or 2-4, 3-4, whatever) will give you the win with penalties. Example. I get hit bunkering someone; I keep running and shooting at another defender, just long enough to get his gun to turn my way, so my teammate can grab the flag and shoot him as well - game altering continuing to play, but he's gone and the flag is hung.

No control. In reality, as many people stated, enforcement of the rules depends upon the cooperation of the players - and there's NOTHING in the rules that will force a team to grant williing cooperation if they don't want to cooperate.

Effectiveness: again, drawing on the previous example: we used to have 'penalty points after the game' systems, where the penalties were assessed against your earned points. Big deal. If I posted 100 after cheating to a win and the refs took away 6 points for a player who had actually been eliminated, I still have 94 and my opponent only has 6.

The same is true today, although its not as dramatic. I get a two for one, but we still won the game. Points still go on the board, we still advance.

In this instance, we have a penalty, but it is not effective enough to curtail the cheating; there is still a major advantage to be had (given the right circumstances) in making the cheating move.

So, on all three of the major requirements for a proper rule system, the existing paintball rules fail.

There is one solution, very radical, but its the only thing that will work, and that is to give the referees the right to stop the game in order to make MAJOR calls. This restores the effectiveness, gives enforceability and the circumstances under which it can be done is definable.

Until this or a similar system is evolved, no one playing paintball is doing so under a set of rules that can define it as a sport.

Its like playing Monopoly where the rules state 'anyone can steal money from the bank so long as another player doesn't catch them' - if a player is caught stealing from the bank by another player, they must pay the other player $50.00' (keeping the thousands they stole)

[hitech]

Its like playing Monopoly where the rules state 'anyone can steal money from the bank so long as another player doesn't catch them' - if a player is caught stealing from the bank by another player, they must pay the other player $50.00' (keeping the thousands they stole)


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

It's only funny because of how true it is...

[SlartyBartFast]

you dont play tournaments do you?

Nope. I’ve been quite clear and honest on that point.


the incentive for calling yourself out is that if u dont u get a 1 for 1. that means you have a lower chance of winning.

But when will you ever get a 1for1 if the refs only call eliminations? If I don’t think a ref saw a hit why not keep playing till a ref comes by and calls me eliminated?


umm dawg i dont know who told u bout that two seconds but it aint true... we call um when we see them.

HiTech is reffering to my modified instructions to refs on how to call hits.

But if you call them as you see them, why is it that some one hit in the shoulder, say, would be called eliminated while the player in your example who was gogged got called 1-for-1? In both cases shouldn’t the ref keep his mouth shut and judge the actions of the player? In fact the rule book is quite clear in the absence of instructions otherwise that that is what should be done.


I don't like the idea of instructing the refs to wait for two seconds. It seems too much like setting the players up.

Who’s setting anyone up? “Two count” may be excessive, but I still think it should be up to the player to acknowledge a hit and signal clean, call eliminated, or call paintcheck. The ref should be there to react to other players and keep the players they see honest.

If a ref was to look for reaction to a hit and a clear signal from the player that they checked and were not marked or the player calling a pinatcheck before the ref calling double eliminations only, players would practice on how to check hits and react quickly instead of training to NOT react as they currently do.


You guys are arguing over the specific rule sets when the entire framework has a couple of major problems.

Nope. I’m trying to solicit ideas and comprehend the current mentality and problems while developing my own framework and rule set. Kind of a pet project.


If they are going to work, a set of rules must be:

demonstrable
enforceable
effective (within the context of the stated purpose of the game)

and take place within the game itself.


Couldn’t agree more. That’s why I focused on one problematic area. The individual choice and subjective evaluation refs can make when calling hits.


You can say 'observable/non-observable' etc., but I know of many instances in which a hit that 'looked' obvious to one person was NOT obvious to the player in question.

That’s why the rules have to be written to remove subjective analysis from the equation to make them enforceable.


Result - it was PLAINLY obvious that he did not know he had a hit on him, while it was equally plainly obvious to everyone else that he was hit.

And, if the only non-obvious hit is defined as one on a harness tough luck for that player and his team. Double elimination for playing on. No difficult territory, enforce the rules as written.

As I stated before. Clear rules and enforcement of the requirementnplayers call themselves out would force such players to learn to check themselves. Player wasn’t observant enough to check himeself, teammates too stupid to call him out. Tough. It’s a double elimination.


When a player can run down the field with a penalty waiting, mark other players, hang a flag, etc., and all the ref can do is chase him and then try to pick up the pieces afterwards, you don't have enforcement.

Very good point. But, that’s also failure to enforce a very clear rule that nobody follows:


28.05Players who are in motion while hit in obvious locations, which are easily verifiable, will immediately turn their motion away from the opposition, and stop.

But, there’s no clear penalty for violating the rule and it is somewhat ridiculous to expect the player to stop in a hail of paint. If a ref sees paint bounce of a running player it is in their capacity to call a rules infraction and stop the runner.

To be enforceable however, the rule should be more along the lines of taking cover behind the nearest obstacle away from the players original direction of travel.

In fairness to refs, the rules MUST be clear as to how to spot “obvious hits” and how to stop the player if they don’t follow required reaction/behaviour.


there are many game situations in which taking a one-for-one (or 2-4, 3-4, whatever) will give you the win with penalties. Example. I get hit bunkering someone; I keep running and shooting at another defender, just long enough to get his gun to turn my way, so my teammate can grab the flag and shoot him as well - game altering continuing to play, but he's gone and the flag is hung.

I think that’s pretty much the case in all sports. No matter how tightly the rules are written or enforced there’s bound to be someway to exploit them. But it can be fought with rules changes. Look how the NXL had to change rules for late penalties to include point penalties.

But, there’s a certain skill in determining when it is worth taking the penalties. In the case of game ending penalties, refs are far too lenient with possible higher penalties. See the discussion about flag carriers being checked at the end of the game before a flag hang. No one can agree that the infraction is worth a triple elimination (2for1) when any hit to anything other than a harness is an obvious hit, playing on, and game changing.


In reality, as many people stated, enforcement of the rules depends upon the cooperation of the players - and there's NOTHING in the rules that will force a team to grant willing cooperation if they don't want to cooperate.

Cooperation of the players is gained through tough enforcement of the rules and application of penalties.


Effectiveness: again, drawing on the previous example: we used to have 'penalty points after the game' systems, where the penalties were assessed against your earned points. Big deal. If I posted 100 after cheating to a win and the refs took away 6 points for a player who had actually been eliminated, I still have 94 and my opponent only has 6.

Two solutions: better enforcement to catch the cheat quicker and tougher penalties to make the risk not worth the cheat.


In this instance, we have a penalty, but it is not effective enough to curtail the cheating; there is still a major advantage to be had (given the right circumstances) in making the cheating move.

I think I agree with what someone else said in another thread. There’s a difference between playing within the rules and exploiting them and outright cheating. True “cheating” requires expulsions, forfeitures, and suspensions (ramping boards, shooting from the sidelines, etc.). Skirting the rules and exploiting them are fouls and penalties.

The worst offenses require stiff enough penalties to convince players not to break the rule. It’s the same with moving violations for vehicles. A balance between the number of police on the road enforcing the laws and the penalties/fines assessed to those caught.


There is one solution, very radical, but its the only thing that will work, and that is to give the referees the right to stop the game in order to make MAJOR calls. This restores the effectiveness, gives enforceability and the circumstances under which it can be done is definable.

Good idea. I’d like to hear the situations under which you’d allow refs to stop the game. But for it to work the situations would have to be very well defined.

[rabidchihauhau]

First of all, you seem to be confusing my statements regarding the 'writing of rules' with specific examples from within an already flawed set of rules.

Secondly, your statements about 'tougher enforcement', 'more vigalence' etc., on the part of referees again exemplifies the fact that you are speaking of specific rules and not 'the system' within which those rules are found.

Third, when speaking about other sports (in response to the observable/unobservable) situation, again - other sports have systems in place which paintball is missing - all of which pertain directly to my 'three rules for rules writiing'; the primary difference between other sports and paintball is that in other sports, the 'cheat' is simply missed by the officials, whereas in paintball, it is seen by the officials who are essentially powerless to do anything about it.

Fourth, since paintball is a 'game' (as are the other sports) and since all games take place within a defined boundary, (an artificial reality defined by the objectives of the game and the rule set) it IS possible to eliminate gray areas and define all rules in black and white - without making players responsible for cooperating with the rule system in order to make it work.

Fifth: we did the game stop at PaintFest. We only needed three basic rules to cover it: 1. (as you asked) when can an official stop the game? 2. what are players required to do when the game is stopped. 3. how do we re-start the game after a stop.

The game was stopped under two conditions and two conditions only: A. if the referees had lost control of the game and B. if a referee called a 'major' penalty. (Major penalties were illegal forward passes, continuing to play on with an obvious hit, physical violence, etc.)

Players were required to either stay in their bunker if they were in a bunker, or, stop all forward motion and head to the nearest bunker in the direction of their goal line if they were not. All players were required to stop shooting. Various appropriate penalties applied for non-compliance.

To re-start, players crouched behind their bunker, facing in the direction of their goal line. When the referees indicated that everyone was in the 're-start' position, the game was whistled back into play.

Referees were allowed to: inspect ALL players during a game stop. move players if their location was the result of illegal forward progress and assess other, additional penalties for infractions discovered during a game stop.

It all worked very smoothly, it proved to be very easy to tell who was where when the whistle blew and, I will tell you, the ability to inspect all players totally curtailed the 'playing on' habits.

We had other major tools to work with - yellow/red flag penalty system (penalties increased if the team accumulated more than three majors), a penalty box, the ability to move a team or their flag back down the field AND

every single infraction had an associated penalty that forever removed the possibility that someone could cheat and gain an advantage, because the result of the infraction led to on-the-field penalties that put the offending team in a position that was less advantageous than their position prior to the infraction.

This is not rocket science - its all game design and game theory stuff, based on the fact that when people play games, if there is a hole in the rules, they WILL find it and they WILL exploit it. This leaves the game designer (a good one anyway) in the position of having to design a workable game around those things that can't be subject to the rules of rule writing. The folks who invented paintball NEVER designed a game, and we're stuck with that legacy.

[hitech]

You know, I'm all for making the player responsible for calling themselves out for ALL hits. I'm all for not allowing a player to continue playing once hit, PERIOD. I also have no problem with a single penalty for playing while marked. Actually, that is the way it should be. If players wore properly fitting clothing and equipment (i.e. not designed to promote bounces) they would feel 99.9% of the paintballs that hit them. It would also help encourage such clothing and equipment.

ANYONE who plays fair would GREATLY benefit from this rule. If you play fair you currently are FAR more likely to be negatively affected by those how play on after they are hit that you are to be penalized when you didn't know you were hit. Playing while marked should be a major penalty. The distinction between obvious and non-obvious shouldn't exist within the rules.

BTW, the player who took the shot to the top of his goggles in the above example most likely knew a paintball hit him. He was possible not sure if it broke, but he knew he took a hit. I have no problem requiring him to find out before continuing to play.

The problem is that if we can't get anyone to enforce existing rules, how can we get them to enforce tougher rules? It has been my experience that the greater the penalty the less it is awarded. :(

I all for rules discussions. It's one of the favorite paintball subjects. :D

:cheers:

[SlartyBartFast]

- all of which pertain directly to my 'three rules for rules writiing'.

Me thinks you're being confrontational for the sake of it. Which is it? Rules for rules writing or rules for "game design".

You're wasting bandwidth on that argument because you yourself seem to be jumping between the two 'definitions' and what your saying is exactly what I'm looking at.

It's just you seem to take the premise the baby needs thrown out with the bath water. I on the otherhand would like to see what can be kept and what the current salvageable "vision" of the game is.


- the primary difference between other sports and paintball is that in other sports, the 'cheat' is simply missed by the officials, whereas in paintball, it is seen by the officials who are essentially powerless to do anything about it.

But there you're wrong. Paintball Refs DO have the power to something about it. But, they lack the courage, training, and backing of the organisers. In some cases they even have too much power where the rules are vague and can be interpreted and enforced as they see fit.

[rabidchihauhau]

Slarty,

I'm not being confrontational - maybe my choice of words came across that way, but if we were sitting in a room together talking this bs, it wouldn't have come across that way.

I respect your opinions and insight and sometimes 'respectfully disagree'. Please take anything I might say in response within that context - unless I say otherwise. (lol)

I maintain the refs in paintball don't have the ability to enforce because the pace of the game frequently takes them out of the running: someone doing a bunker move can be hit on the run-in, shoot the target and perhaps even shoot another player before a referee can make the initial call; rather than being able to address the situation (he was hit before he hit the player in the bunker, he's out, you're in) the referee is forced, because of game pace, to send both players off the field.

(Not to mention the fact that players will deliberately try to take a referee out of the game - and can do so under the present rules. I need to move down a tape, will probably get hit, but to win the game I need to take a guy out; there's a ref right there, which means I'll probably get called before I can mark the opponent, so one of my teammates fries the ref (excusable, he was giving me cover), the ref dips and dodges out of the way and I make my move; no rules to curtail this that are effective.)

Furthermore, it does not even have to involve actual hits; merely taking up the attention of an opposing player for a split second can change the course of a game - the guy is shooting left mid when he ought to have been shoot left...

This is known to the nth degree by good players who look for opportunities when a referee is out of place or distracted; the problem exists for two reasons: - mishandled reffing AND a set of rules that confer advantages on cheating moves under the right circumstances. Ref's, no matter how well-trained, will make mistakes, so its up to the rules to cover them, which means you can't allow a cheating move (one that's caught, regardless of when its caught) gain a team or player an advantage.


Rules writing is a part of game design...

(Its my bandwith, I'll waste it if I want to...)

Hitech:

the player most decidely DID NOT know the ball hit his upper frame; it was a bouncer off the bunker, most likely already cracked, and it left barely a mark on the lens frame before exploding on the hair. Perhaps a better example would be a ball that fully breaks on a twig before spraying a quarter-sized or larger hit on the player himself; no force of impact is felt, but the player is clearly marked under the rules if a referee turns around and sees it.

I do agree that the baggy clothing, rubber logos 4 inches in diameter, mutliple layers, and etc. complicate the issue greatly; I remember when we made one well-known player drop his signature three-piece suit for a 'regular' uniform - but it seems that that was the last serious attempt to gain control of the clothing issue. Players NEED appropriate padding (one destroyed knee and one separated shoulder is all I need to know that), but it should be more controlled and reasonable.

[trains are bad]

rabidchihauhau for NPPL president!

[SlartyBartFast]

I maintain the refs in paintball don't have the ability to enforce because the pace of the game frequently takes them out of the running: someone doing a bunker move can be hit on the run-in, shoot the target and perhaps even shoot another player before a referee can make the initial call; rather than being able to address the situation (he was hit before he hit the player in the bunker, he's out, you're in) the referee is forced, because of game pace, to send both players off the field.

You say all of that as if paintball is somehow special. Many other sports require refs to be on-the-ball and follow a rapidly evolving game.

Don't think hockey, football, basketball refs can't get distracted and made to miss calls?

And while those sports do have rules under which play can be stopped, a number of rules are enforced only when game play stops.

But in the case of a bunker run, I’d say the referee has failed in their job. They should have had their eyes on the player making the run and penalised them if they fail to “stop” and check any verifiable hits.


the player most decidely DID NOT know the ball hit his upper frame; it was a bouncer off the bunker, most likely already cracked, and it left barely a mark on the lens frame before exploding on the hair. Perhaps a better example would be a ball that fully breaks on a twig before spraying a quarter-sized or larger hit on the player himself; no force of impact is felt, but the player is clearly marked under the rules if a referee turns around and sees it.

In both cases, I’d say: “Tough Snot.” Double elimination. Referees should never be in a position to guess what was going on in a players head or what the player was feeling.

In basketball, you can foul another player without meaning to (they moved into your path, not you running into them). Tough. Indeed taking fouls is a good strategy to eliminate opposing players. Plant yourself solidly in front of the opposition’s lead scorer four times and they’re out of the game. That was one of my few decent skills in HS Midget Basketball. :lol:

[SlartyBartFast]

rabidchihauhau for NPPL president!

He got shunted out once already. Not sure you could convince him to try again. :p

[hitech]

The player most decidedly DID NOT know the ball hit his upper frame; it was a bouncer off the bunker, most likely already cracked, and it left barely a mark on the lens frame before exploding on the hair.

I'm still okay with a penalty for playing on in that situation. It will happen very infrequently and sometimes players will be penalized when they did nothing wrong. However, that will happen far less frequently that the opposite does now. Also, he quite possibly knew that the paintball might have hit him. Regardless, I'm still all for a penalty for playing on. It would also encourage players to be aware of hits, and to have equipment (and haircuts ;) ) that allow them to detect them. It would encourage players in discovering when they are marked, rather than discouraging it. Making an "unobvious" hit less of a penalty encourages the player to ignore those hits which they believe they can successfully argue are "unobvious". And we all know the lengths a player will go to stretch the rules.


I remember when we made one well-known player drop his signature three-piece suit for a 'regular' uniform...

Really?!?! I didn't think anyone ever did that. I complained bitterly (as a ref, not a player) that he should not be allowed to wear his "harness" under his clothing as it was clearly against the rules. I was told that because of "who he was" he was given special treatment. I thought it was wrong, but there wasn't anything I was going to be able to do about it. Glad to see someone did, even if only once. ;) Wish I could have been there! :cheers:

[rabidchihauhau]

Slarty,

the difference is - they can stop the game; good referees in professional sports are very knowledgable about the game play and they often decide to do or not to do something because they can correctly (that's an important word) assess the impact on the game.

But that's really beside the point because referee calls in professional sports are often tempered by the needs of the television camera. The first superbowl had some kind of fracas on the opening kickoff that was basically blown off because of the network's demand that the game continue.

However, I do feel there is a major difference between having the ability to stop the game and not using it, versus not having the ability to control things to that level at all.

I was not arguing that the player hit in the head should not be called under present rules - he should have been and should have gotten a penalty because he didn't check or call for a check AND continued aggressive action; it was an example of the fact that the enforcement does not bear a relationship to reality, nor do the current obvious, non-obvious distinctions.

We used to have three classes - obvious - easy, obvious - difficult and non-obvious - which I personally believe more closely mirrors the 'kinds' of hits that people take. A distinction was made because some hits require a player to 'take themselves out of the game' to check, while others do not, and because the mentality at the time said that there were some hits that players could reasonably not be aware of. I'd say that's even more true these days.

Are the refs under-trained and under-skilled - for the most part, yes. Do they need to have balls and a lack of personal entanglements that could draw their neutrality into question?: Absolutely. Is it the only problem out there? No. I think the greater problem is the rules, which have gotten out of sync with today's play. (Not that they were ever that good to begin with - even if I did write most of them.)

Chuck has that job - and more power to him. I'm satisfied to have created what is bow considered by most to be the premiere league in the country; having a little money for the effort would help, but that's the breaks.

And btw - I was never 'booted' - I resigned as Secretary at the end of the 1996 season out of protest over what I saw happening with the league.

[SlartyBartFast]

We used to have three classes - obvious - easy, obvious - difficult and non-obvious - which I personally believe more closely mirrors the 'kinds' of hits that people take. A distinction was made because some hits require a player to 'take themselves out of the game' to check, while others do not, and because the mentality at the time said that there were some hits that players could reasonably not be aware of. I'd say that's even more true these days.

I don't see the difference. Currently there's obvious and checkable, obvious and uncheckable (paintcheck required by teammate or ref) and unobvious (only on harnesses).

While you seem to have a fourth category, I don't see how it matches or compares to the current three.

But I'd think multiple classes of hit are a BAD idea. Needs to be kept simple.



And btw - I was never 'booted' - I resigned as Secretary at the end of the 1996 season out of protest over what I saw happening with the league.

I've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, etc. Resigned and "Booted" are one and the same. The joys of politics. :cool:

[hitech]

So, Slarty and Rabid, do you think the rules should be changed to make playing on a penalty, period? Doesn't matter where, if your out and don't call youself out and continue to play you are penalized.

Great discussion, BTW... :cheers:

[rabidchihauhau]

Slarty,

Resigned and booted might be the same in some political speech, but not in this case:

I won the vote created to 'boot' me; I remained in my position. I then CHOSE to leave the organization, where I could have stayed - more than likely would even have been re-elected as Secretary, given the failed attempt by some to remove me. However, I chose to do the GTO series and develop the USPL format instead, things I had urged the NPPL to do and which they seemed unable or unwilling to do.

Resigned and booted are only the same thing when you're given a choice 'resign or we'll can you'. I was not given a choice - I was subjected to the only recall vote in NPPL history and REMAINED CONFIRMED in my position.

[rabidchihauhau]

Hitec,

I believe that the solution lies in:

better rules
better trained officials
better technological aides
tournament series which are not advertising platforms for certain products

and yes, someone who is hit needs to leave the field and if they don't a penalty should ensue; the question is not whether a penalty applies, its over the severity of the penalty which is given.

[hitech]

someone who is hit needs to leave the field and if they don't a penalty should ensue; the question is not whether a penalty applies, its over the severity of the penalty which is given.

We agree. I am saying that there should be a single penalty for playing on. No distinctions between different "types" of hits. If you are hit and continue to play you are penalized the same regardless of where you are hit. I was looking for your opinion on that part. :D

:cheers:

[Lohman446]

We agree. I am saying that there should be a single penalty for playing on. No distinctions between different "types" of hits. If you are hit and continue to play you are penalized the same regardless of where you are hit. I was looking for your opinion on that part. :D

:cheers:


The rule, in PSP is very well defined though to an obvious and unobvious hit, its just noone enforces to that definition.

We are too scared about the 1/1000 "what if" situation and fear of penalizing an innocent player, so we let the other 999/1000 get away with it because of it.

[hitech]

We are too scared about the 1/1000 "what if" situation and fear of penalizing an innocent player, so we let the other 999/1000 get away with it because of it.


:hail:

My point exactly.

:cheers:

[rabidchihauhau]

I just had a revelation reagarding paintball tournament rules I wanted to share with everyone:

looking at porn is FAR more interesting.

Just thought you all might want to know - but don't test my theory unless you're legally able to do so.

When I look at penalties I take into account at least the following factors:

what does the infraction do to the game?
how 'easily' can an opponent recover from the influence of the infraction?
is it easily enforceable?
how close to a 'balance' does the penalty achieve

The primary goal of any penalty (beyond punitive penalties) is to redress the game imbalance caused by the infraction, with perhaps an eye towards giving the opponent a slight 'leg up' as punishment.

Ideally, the penalty would cause a re-winding of the clock (time travel) and a referee would appear beside the soon-to-be-offending player who says 'better not, I'm watching you'.

Cause and effect/issue of predestination, time paradoxes and all the rest aside, a penalty that achieves the above would be the best way to go.

I mention that in order to provide a benchmark to shoot for when writing penalties, not expecting to achieve the ideal itself.

Then we find ourselves constrained by the remainder of the rules of the game: a referee does not have the luxury of reviewing the game so far, analyzing the tactical situation and conferring with other referees in order to determine just what the infraction did to the game. (Not all 'playing-ons' are equal in their effect on a game; they are all POTENTIALLY equal - which is another way to look at it.)

So we're left with a basic question and that is - what's the 'proper' (or 'fairest, depends on your goal) generic penalty for a whole family of related infractions.

I'd be fine with a scaled approach (leaving things somewhat subjective on the ref's part) and just simplify it by saying:

any game action taken by a player after they are hit (with the exception of those actions allowed to an eliminated player), regardless of the location of the hit, will result in a playing-on penalty.

That's very black and white, making no distinctions about location, requiring no analysis by the player and pretty easy to enforce.

Then I'd tack on:

the penalty assessed for playing on is either, 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree playing on (limited to expanded to as many degrees as is thought necessary)

and I'd hedge it a little by leaving the definitions of 1st - 3rd degrees a little open.

Now the question becomes - what is the effect on the game of a 1st degree offense? this would generally be defined as, no intent on the player's part, his continuing presence has no discernable affect on the game other than the fact that its an extra target.

Other than immediately removing the player, do we add anything else?

Then we look at the most heinous examples; deliberately remaining on the field with multiple, very obvious hits, ignoring referee calls, shooting multiple opponents, totally screwing the game and etc.

Is a 3-for-1 enough?

What else do we do?

I'm not just substituting degrees for location of the hit; I've placed all the location stuff in one basket and said - doesn't matter, its an infraction regardless.

I've also placed the 'ref call' parts of the penalty in the assessment category, rather than the evaluation category, which I think reduces a lot of gray; we no longer have to argue over specific locations, we're now down to - was he hit and did he keep playing afterwards?

On the other hand, I'd be very much in favor of adding a penalty that sent opponents BACK onto the field in the event that the other team engaged in playing on. Except in the very last few seconds of most games, that returning player will be able to get onto the field to a central back bunker, and will change the entire aspect of the game. Instead of 1-4-1s, we'd have 1-plus-1s, in addition to the other penalties.

But, when all is said and down, I still think the ultimate solution is to allow refs to stop the game for major penalties and then push players around on the field (under a well-defined methodology for doing so) to 'redress the imbalance'

[Lohman446]

Lets consider playing on penalties - the rules say I must single my elimination, and leave the field as they stand now.

A FRIEND I HAVE ;) tends to take a moment or two - about ten seconds I would guess, to consider being hit, look at the hit, admit to himself he's out, count to ten... cover his barrel, and then singal his elimination... no big deal right.

It is.. its intentionally done to give his team an advantage, and to "slow" the advantage the other team has gained by taking him out... to make them pause. It also gives him a moment to assess what just happened. He does not shoot in the time, nor move. He doesn't "play". But he is in violation of the rules... I have never seen a ref that has even cared that he takes his time moving from his bunker and making his way off the field.

When he doe walk off the field how he walks off, from where he holds his marker, to where his hand is, are all indications to his team on what he knows that they may not - a clear violation of the spriit of the rules yes but the rules are not written well enough to be an infraction.

Until the rules are written specifically enough to prevent teams from coming up with things to take advantage of them, and enforced to the writing, regardless if it were innocent or not, then we are going to have teams take advantage of them.

Your right.. I shouldn't have given examples on a public message board :D

As for the age old idea of tricks, and these in particular, they have been around forver, as noted below - it takes some effort to use them... or to remember to

[rabidchihauhau]

You're talking about 'tricks' that are ages old.

You can add signals from the sidelines (for traditional ball), arguing to tie up a ref, fake paintchecks, shooting the ref, compressing bunkers....

So far as 'body signals' go, the solution would seem to be requiring the player to exit the field in a standardized posture. Unfortunately, refs don't have the time to watch what eliminated players are doing, since someone walking off the field is almost always a signal for lots of other stuff to happen. Even with a standard posture, players would be able to communicate illegally, even thought on a more limited basis.

A positive hand signal for eliminations by a ref would also help reduce the impact of the delayed exit.

I think that most of the refs out there are not receiving the kind of training and information they need in order to be able to make the kind of calls required for dealing with the level of 'sophistication' you were describing.

And, if we ended up having something like a maximum time for exiting, and it were enforced, all players would train to go right up to the max and a ref would be 'stuck' on them for that time period - which would still allow players to manipulate the rules.

[hitech]

When I look at penalties I take into account at least the following factors:

What does the infraction do to the game?
How 'easily' can an opponent recover from the influence of the infraction?
Is it easily enforceable?
How close to a 'balance' does the penalty achieve?

The primary goal of any penalty (beyond punitive penalties) is to redress the game imbalance caused by the infraction, with perhaps an eye towards giving the opponent a slight 'leg up' as punishment.


I'm all for all of those. However, I'm look for the rules and penalties to do one more thing. I want them to encourage "fair" play and discourage "unfair" play. A tall order for sure, but something I think is worth keeping in mind. :D

Too bad you're not in charge of tournament rules and enforcement. Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today.

:cheers:

[Lohman446]

I think that most of the refs out there are not receiving the kind of training and information they need in order to be able to make the kind of calls required for dealing with the level of 'sophistication' you were describing.
.

I said this somewhere else. I think the refs and the rule makers/promoters are so scared of punishing an innocent player 1/1000 times that we let the other 999 get away with intentionally going against the spirit of the rules

[rabidchihauhau]

Lohman,

its not so much a fear of offending players as it is fear of offending the industry folks/sponsors AND of getting b-oed on the web etc. by someone complaining about bad reffing, bad calls, etc.

There's also a healthy dose of politics in there; if we 'screw' over the other guys, what will happen to our teams at their events?

And, finally, the fact remains that they do not have a professional, independant reffing crew which would serve to buffer a promoter from all of the above

.Hitec,

I USED to be in charge of the rules - wrote them for just about everyone out there, did the first NPPL rules because the rules committee 'didn't have time to' (I took over the writing and the committee reviewed, edited and vetted them); and I've been at the forefront many times in introducing new systems to improve referee control.

The current 'points for elims, points for players alive' was an adaptation of the GTO tournament series rules system. That was designed to create a 100 point, 'zero sum' game scoring system (in other words, all 100 points were awarded each game, and split in some fashion amongst the two teams). its advantages are many, but chief among them is the fact that 'after game' penalty point adjustments don't affect other teams (older systems could have varying game totals, this one was always 100 total, no matter what) - which allowed people to project scores accurately and reliably and - you can instantly tell what happened during the game by looking at the score. Previous systems did not allow you to do that.

We also introduced the 'no paintchecks may be called by players' rule - which met a LOT of resistance, but was eventually embraced by all teams exposed to it.

Here's why: IF, as we would like to suppose, the ref's job is to control the game and IF (as is the case) a player is NOT allowed to tell a referee what to do, why then do we allow players to direct a ref's attention to one or another place on the field?

We got rid of it entirely and it resulted in greater confidence in the refs by players, a VERY quiet game and much easier inter-team communication

[hitech]

We also introduced the 'no paintchecks may be called by players' rule...why then do we allow players to direct a ref's attention to one or another place on the field?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is the reaction most players got when attempting to direct me to check an opposing player. And that was in 1990. I'm always amazed at how far rules enforcement has slipped backward.

I enjoyed reffing. I'd like to be part of that again. However, I'm not the least bit interested in being envolved in the current "situation". You know the old saying, "You are either part of the solution or part of the problem...". I'm not interested in being part of the problem...

Too bad your not writting rules anymore. Then again, they wouldn't be enforced anyway...

:cheers:

[rabidchihauhau]

There was an attempt at a 'universal' rule book several years ago - but 'politics'.

The idea was: put all the common rules into the standard book, then follow that with an 'index' of the various alternatives that different series/leagues could not agree on.

One book and an announcement from an event, such as 'scoring will use appendix A5'.

This would have been an additionally effective method for referees, who could get the basics down pat for everything...

***

My usual response to paintcheck calls was to pretend not to hear; this usually caused the player making the request no amount of frustration and they usually ended up taking themselves out of the game because they were so upset.

I also remember several occassions (woods ball tournaments) when it was obvious they were trying to use checks to recon bushes and bunkers - and somehow, I just never managed to understand which bush they were trying to direct me to...

[hitech]

I also remember several occassions (woods ball tournaments) when it was obvious they were trying to use checks to recon bushes and bunkers - and somehow, I just never managed to understand which bush they were trying to direct me to...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I fondly remember calling bushs clean. :D

[rabidchihauhau]

my favorite 'working' technique was what I call "the walkaway";

MY presumption (as a referee) is that my word is law and every player on the field will immediately comply with my directives. I expect nothing less, and my demeanor on the field projects this.

When I have to 'urge' a player to leave, when a player is starting to argue about a call or when a player is being penalized and its obvious that they're going to protest on field, I would deliver their instructions (player, you are out, leave the field immediately) and then turn and walk away from the call.

Most players don't seem to be able to argue with the back of someone's head, and those that can, I'm watching any way, even though it might not look like it. Since I've walked away after delivering a call, any delay on their part is now considered to be 'failure to obey a referee's instructions'.

Sometimes I'd say something like "if I have to turn around, its an additional one-for-one".

Its a great technique for forcing compliance and would let me keep an eye on the rest of the field while still making a local call.

[SlartyBartFast]

my favorite 'working' technique was what I call "the walkaway";

That, calling bushes/bunkers clean, and other enforcement techniques and behavours should all be written down somewhere.

You'd think that the leagues keeping the rule books would try and document some of this stuff. Do they?

All the cheats and how to look out for them would also be a boon to refs.

[hitech]

my favorite 'working' technique was what I call "the walkaway"...

I like it! :headbang:

You're making me yearn for the old days when I knew the tournament promoter. I really enjoyed reffing. Maybe the current ones will get their act together and maybe there will be tournaments in NorCal. And maybe those in hell will get ice cream... ;)

Have you ever considered writting a set of rules and promote their use? Or is it just WAY to time consuming?



:cheers:

[rabidchihauhau]

slarty,

I tried and so have others. The first attempt was a listing of 'chrono-cheats'; and instead of being seen as a tool, it was viewed as a 'how to cheat' manual.

The fear is that players will learn this stuff too and use it. Information is power and my argument is, if the refs don't know about it, they can't catch it.

Hitec,

way too time consuming and besides, the major leagues are too well-established to even consider adopting something else; they have major political issues as evidenced by the id card programs to ever work together.