How would the game change if: Bounces counted

[Lohman446]

In an effort to encourage discussion I have decided that sometimes questions are the best way to do it. So I put this out to you, how different would the game be if, since the beginning, the rules stated that bounces counted. I hear the immediate idea "how would you know if anyone is out" my thoughts are that there is a logical argument that has some support that says with todays "wiping" which appears to be rampant, at least in peoples minds, that this may not be much different. Thoughts?


______________________________
http://home.comcast.net/~allfor114all/AOIAO.jpg

[warbeak2099]

I don't think it would make a difference since refs wouldn't be able to tell and most players wouldn't call themselves. I don't ever call myself out in a tourny even if I have paint on me. I always leave it to the ref to check. Which begs me to ask the question, is this ideology of "I'm not out unless the ref calls me out" ok? I'm not going against the rules am I? I mean, I leave it to the ref to make the call.

[Lohman446]

I don't think it would make a difference since refs wouldn't be able to tell and most players wouldn't call themselves. I don't ever call myself out in a tourny even if I have paint on me. I always leave it to the ref to check. Which begs me to ask the question, is this ideology of "I'm not out unless the ref calls me out" ok? I'm not going against the rules am I? I mean, I leave it to the ref to make the call.


The rules clearly state that it is the players responsibility to immediatly verify any hits and the only non obvious hits are to the back of the pack. Any ref who actually enforced the rules as they are written would pull 1-1 if you came by him with paint on that was not from a hit he observed. The rules are clear on this, any "muddying" of them is an attempt to justify cheating. Unless you didn't know this, at which point now you do.

[JimmyBeam]

dont rely too much on refs. ive seen alot give a homefield advantage call to the regulars at the field over and over. happens to us at our home field too. do i condone it? no.....does it happen? yea

[shartley]

If bounces counted, we would have Airsoft just with larger projectiles.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

There'd be no reason not to play Airsoft instead. It's cheaper, and and you can carry more "ammo".

[SCpoloRicker]

The rules clearly state that it is the players responsibility to immediatly verify any hits and the only non obvious hits are to the back of the pack. Any ref who actually enforced the rules as they are written would pull 1-1 if you came by him with paint on that was not from a hit he observed. The rules are clear on this, any "muddying" of them is an attempt to justify cheating. Unless you didn't know this, at which point now you do.

Odd, it seems most "tourney" players I have met, or observed in PB videos don't follow your interpretation of the rules. I had thought "play till you're pulled" was the new standard. :(

/like your definition, won't play with those who don't follow it :)

[wimag]

So I put this out to you, how different would the game be if, since the beginning, the rules stated that bounces counted. ?______________________________
http://home.comcast.net/~allfor114all/AOIAO.jpg

it would suck. that took alot of thought

[Lohman446]

Odd, it seems most "tourney" players I have met, or observed in PB videos don't follow your interpretation of the rules. I had thought "play till you're pulled" was the new standard. :(

/like your definition, won't play with those who don't follow it :)

Standard maybe... but rule as defined in writing by the PSP and NPPL - definetly not.

[Meph]

"I'm not out unless the ref calls me out" ok? I'm not going against the rules am I?

Actually you would be. Please read on...


Fron 2005 NPPL Official Rule Book
17. Marked with Paint
17.01 Marked with Paint. A player will be eliminated if such player is marked with paint. ...
17.02 Obvious Hits. Players who are hit in an obvious location are expected to
immediately signal their elimination by announcing “HIT” or “OUT” at the time of such elimination.

18. Illegal Activities
18.01 Playing-On. A player that continues to play after being marked with paint is
Playing-On.



So as you can see it is indeed VERY wrong to not only play on with hits. But also to not call yourself out instead of the "it's the ref's job to call me out" bull.

[Lohman446]

it would suck. that took alot of thought


Why? Don't beleive for a moment that your unsupported opinion means anything to most of us. Why? I'm curious.

[Fallout-]

People would shoot more consistant reballs and then we could use riffiling and spinning(other than flatline wich already woorks)barrles!
Also paint would cost 2 or three times as much because it is now a durabole good.

[vonort]

Most scenarios make it that any hit during night play is an elimination. There are no paintchecks. Of course this puts a lot on the honor of the players. Unfortanately during night play you get a lot of playing through and acting like it didn't hit you. So even scenarios have the dis honorable players amongst us. :cry:

With the current attitude of not calling ones self out even when there is an obvious break on said self. The idea of calling yourself out on a bounce would never go. Personally I don't have a problem with it. And there have been numerous times I have walked off the feild to find that the hits did not break. Oh well.. the guy had me dead to rights anyways. :shooting:

[Vendetta]

Bounces count in night play in scenerios.

[hitech]

If that had been the rule originally we might have a very different sport. There is evidence that it can work. Rumor has it that airsoft players do call themselves out. Night play in at least some scenario games requires you to call yourself out on bounces. It's too bad that a rule intended to make things fair failed to accomplish its goal, and may have even hurt it in the long run.

I don't agree that paintball would be the same as airsoft. There are currently more differences than counting bounces as eliminations.

:cheers:

_____________________________________________
<img src="http://www.synreal.net/sig/hitech.gif">

Hey Hitech your starting to sound like me! - AGD <img src=http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/4161d9d6_207d/bc/Hosting/smiley_mini102.gif?CCCglmBB7Iu5tWX9>
Hitech is the man.... :eek: - Blennidae
The only Hitech Lubricant (http://www.kercon.com)

[slade]

...there would be one more way to cheat?

if from the start bounces counted, it would be a complete honor system. it would work for rec play (woods or speed), but once competitive play came around (I.E. tournaments) it would be too hard for refs to make calls. unless you change the entire basis of humanity, refs would be unable to see when a player is hit (if its a bounce) and the player would play on. eventually, as with ramping except to a higher extent, the rules would be changed to make bounces not count.

[Maggot6]

If everyone respected eachother, and weren't idiots and greedy tourny players, which I would love but is impossible, I would love that idea. The only "downside" to your idea is that when your running, get shot in the pack and don't notice, and it bounces, then how would ANYone know?

And if your idea was true, reballs would have been out So long ago,,

[yakitori]

if you were to count bounces, we might as well be wearing a harness, and a headstrap w/ LED sensors on it, and the guns could shoot lasers. When you are hit, the light will blink rapidly. That way it will be very easy to tell if you got hit, bounce or not.

:D.

[drg]

People would shoot more consistant reballs and then we could use riffiling and spinning(other than flatline wich already woorks)barrles!
Also paint would cost 2 or three times as much because it is now a durabole good.

Building on this idea ... there would definitely have to be a new way of regulating the manufacture of paintballs, as without the necessity of breaking, there would be nothing to stop someone from making a colored ball of solid gelatin (or plastic), which would fly further and straighter than any paint-filled ball. I think we would also see a transition away from the .68 caliber ball, which was adopted, AFAIK, because it broke more reliably than .62 or any other smaller size.

That said, I am pretty sure there are already some guidelines for paintball manufacture to keep a manufacturer from making, for example, fill mixed with metal dust to get mass way up. As far as I know that kind of thing is only used for riot control.

[FromTheBack]

If bounces counted...I would be getting a lot more kills off break :D .

[Puckz]

The refs aren't on the field to pull everyone when they are hit. They are there for the times when you can't check yourself or there is too much action happening to check yourself. They are also there to make judgement in a who-shot-who first situation. General rule is that if you can check yourself without having to make your self open to get shot again you should.

[Lohman446]

If bounces counted...I would be getting a lot more kills off break :D .


Kinda of what I was looking for, and what would happen then, how would this influence the game?

[TheTramp]

The sales of ridiculously padded headbands and bounce creating Dye clothes would flatline and then where would we be? I bet that even the sales of pink guns would suffer. It would be the end of paintball! ;)

[hitech]

there would be nothing to stop someone from making a colored ball of solid gelatin (or plastic), which would fly further and straighter than any paint-filled ball.

It wouldn't make any difference. Tom tested such "paint"balls (nylon spheres). They did NOT fly any straighter or farther.

The problem is not the liquid fill, but the shape (round) and weight (or lack thereof).

[Meph]

For night play....

Have a room devoted to only having a ton of UV black lights, and glow-in-the-dark paintballs. Not the shell but the paint itself is what gets charged. People can pre-determine the paint they want to buy before game begins. Regular and night paint. So they can come here when night begins and get their paint. Charges lasting 8+ hours should be longenough.


With night you can tell when somebody wipes due to paint mysteriously disappearing. And bounces no longer have to count at night since you can see the hits.

Could work for indoor play too if you dim the lights and put on some UV lights intead. Every round a tracer round, boy that game would just kill your eyes!


Of course this is just a random brainstorm. Not really sure if possible/practical.

[Miscue]

Imagine if you were not out until you got hit on a target on your back.

[68magOwner]

whoa.....hitech has a sig


anyway, counting bounces would be stupid, nuff said

[gc82000]

I would be out every game I try to play front. And a lot of ppl will get out right off the break.

[rabidchihauhau]

not exactly on topic but...

lots of discussion here about 'playing on', the players responsibility to check for obvious hits, calling themselves, etc.

The quote from the NPPL rulebook is accurate - but it doesn't address the real issue which is that my interpretation of "obvious" may not be your interpretation of obvious.

As a player who had a hit on his lens (during a tournament) that was "obvious" and visible to referees and opponents alike, but not visible at all from inside the mask, I can honestly attest to having been in a situation where my obvious was LITERALLY not everyone else's obvious - and that without bending or 'graying' the rules.

The hit itself was mostly on the visor and the border area above the lens; some paint was actually on the lens itself, but all of it was on the area of the lens which was obscured by the black adhesive line used to connect the two panels in an anti-fog lens.

I managed to avoid a beating by having the referee put the goggles on (this all took place continuously, so there was no opportunity for me to 'doctor' things) and the ref had to turn to the absolutely (and understandably) IRATE opposing players and state that he couldn't believe it, but that no paint was visible from inside the goggles.

Now we move on.

When you are running and trying to bunker someone, it is not possible to check impacts, keep moving and stay in the game; some players ignore hits entirely, others wait to check until they have completed their move, while still others will try and give a quickl 'glance' and, if they don't see anything, keep on playing.

This falls into an area I call 'giving oneself the benefit of the doubt' (you have to because the ref sure isn't and neither will your opponents): you did your due diligence by 'lookiing', you saw nothing, therefore its ok to keep playing.

That's one reason why the culture of playing on has perpetuated itself; add to that the fact of tournament play that if you do stop to check (really stop and really check) you'll be toast before you've even had a chance to really look.

Finally, the 'balance' of the penalty versus the benefit of the infraction: in most game circumstances, losing an additional player is a small price to pay for an advantageous field position or an additional elimination.

All of these factors combine to create a situation in which there is little or no actual penalty for continuing to play - and until the rules change, I don't see any method that will alter that.

[SlartyBartFast]

The quote from the NPPL rulebook is accurate - but it doesn't address the real issue which is that my interpretation of "obvious" may not be your interpretation of obvious.

Firstly: Your interpretation and my interpretation are worthless. Only the Ref's interpretation is important.

If the rule is unclear, and the ref makes a decision, the rule about arguing with refs or disobeying them certainly isn't unclear.

Secondly: The NPPL and PSP rulesbooks clearly define what is obvious and Unobvious for the sake of rules interpretation.

Thirdly: Whether the miss of an "obvious hit" (as defined by the rulebook) is physically obvious and perceptable to you, the player, or not or whether you are otherwise concsiously aware of it or not is meaningless.

The rules define obvious, the rules define your required behaviour, the rules give a penalty for not following it. When the rule is unclear, or the situation is unclear, the rules state which official has the final word.

Are the rules difficult to follow? Are they "Unfair" because you were unaware of your infraction? Tough. The rules draw a line and sometimes you fall on the wrong side of the line.

But, in paintball no officials have the backbone to enforce and apply the rules.

[SlartyBartFast]

This falls into an area I call 'giving oneself the benefit of the doubt' (you have to because the ref sure isn't and neither will your opponents): you did your due diligence by 'lookiing', you saw nothing, therefore its ok to keep playing.

But, YOU are also taking the chance that you are in infraction of the rules. But, with the current climate in officiating you know that you'll never get punished....

If you get hit on the break, decide to play, then the ref calls a 1for1, you should live with it. But when was the last time you saw that?

[Lohman446]

The rules define obvious, the rules define your required behaviour, the rules give a penalty for not following it. When the rule is unclear, or the situation is unclear, the rules state which official has the final word.

Are the rules difficult to follow? Are they "Unfair" because you were unaware of your infraction? Tough. The rules draw a line and sometimes you fall on the wrong side of the line.

But, in paintball no officials have the backbone to enforce and apply the rules.

Quoted for truth, and let me add a line.

And because of this players justify further and further "blurring" of the lines from the rules to enforcement and this helps them justify more and more blatant cheating. I mean.. we have gotten to the point that superman slides that wipe hits are justified to be in the grey area. Look at the rules, as you have pointed out, they are very much in the black.

___________________________________________
http://home.comcast.net/~allfor114all/AOIAO.jpg

[SlartyBartFast]

... players justify further and further "blurring" ...

Players shouldn't be in a position to "justify" anything.

How difficult is it for a Ref to get a clue and respond: "I'M THE REF! I don't care. Complain to the Ultimate judge. Additional penalty for argumentation/poor sportsmanship/failing to follow a refs instructions."

Ref turn away and return to duties.

Whiney Player:: "But.... :cry: "

"I'M THE REF! I don't care. Additional penalty for argumentation/poor sportsmanship/failing to follow a refs instructions."

Ref turn away and return to duties.

Repeat until team is eliminated dur to one players stupidity or the moron gets it and leaves the field.

If off field, ignore and penalise to the maximum extent possible.

[Lohman446]

Players shouldn't be in a position to "justify" anything.

How difficult is it for a Ref to get a clue and respond: "I'M THE REF! I don't care. Complain to the Ultimate judge. Additional penalty for argumentation/poor sportsmanship/failing to follow a refs instructions."

Ref turn away and return to duties.

Whiney Player:: "But.... :cry: "

"I'M THE REF! I don't care. Additional penalty for argumentation/poor sportsmanship/failing to follow a refs instructions."

Ref turn away and return to duties.

Repeat until team is eliminated dur to one players stupidity or the moron gets it and leaves the field.

If off field, ignore and penalise to the maximum extent possible.

I'm not neceassrily saying justifying it to the refs. The line "I cheat because everyone else does" or any other line that makes it "ok" to cheat. BS.. cheating is cheating, I don't care why you do it. I agree with you that the refs should pull players for being a pain on field and arguing, I have seen it down. Sure there was fallout but the owner of the field the tournament was held at stood behind them and the players learned.. I agree with you on this one, I know its so surprsing you can't beleive it either :D

____________________________________________
http://home.comcast.net/~allfor114all/AOIAO.jpg

[SlartyBartFast]

cheating is cheating, I don't care why you do it.

Cheating is a loaded and accusatory word. I think that's a big part of the problem when discussing the rules and their enforcement.

[Lohman446]

Cheating is a loaded and accusatory word. I think that's a big part of the problem when discussing the rules and their enforcement.


Only because we choose to give the word that power. You notice how "I've cheated" sounds so much worse than "I have ran through before checking to see if hits bounced to assure elimination" or "the other team was using ramping so I flipped on hybrid" or well... you get the idea. Doesn't make any of them right...

___________________________________________
http://home.comcast.net/~allfor114all/AOIAO.jpg

[wimag]

Why? Don't beleive for a moment that your unsupported opinion means anything to most of us. Why? I'm curious.

us ?? hey you asked the question it was directed to you. You asked for thoughts and i gave you one.
what type of support would you like from my original statement. i dont think there is any written documentation on my thought process on why i think it would suck. If you dont like my reply then quit posting questions.

i really dont care if my opinion means anything to you, dont believe for a moment that it does.

[Automaggot68]

In an effort to encourage discussion I have decided that sometimes questions are the best way to do it. So I put this out to you, how different would the game be if, since the beginning, the rules stated that bounces counted. I hear the immediate idea "how would you know if anyone is out" my thoughts are that there is a logical argument that has some support that says with todays "wiping" which appears to be rampant, at least in peoples minds, that this may not be much different. Thoughts?


______________________________
http://home.comcast.net/~allfor114all/AOIAO.jpg


If people dont call themselves out now when they ARE hit, what do you think they'd do if that got a bounce?

Same thing.

Keep playing.

Even better, everytime I go out with the team and play, and we counter wipers and the what not, I always tell myself that just this oen time i'm going to wipe too. I always forget to wipe and I just walk off the field.

[spyder luver]

i think that there r already problems with people not calling themselves out so i think that if the whole bounce stuff was a rule paintball would end it just wouldnt be fun anymore .........thank u to all of u who dont wipe and who dont cheat

[slade]

i think that there r already problems with people not calling themselves out so i think that if the whole bounce stuff was a rule paintball would end it just wouldnt be fun anymore .........thank u to all of u who dont wipe and who dont cheat
...and thank u to everyone who actually spells out whole words.

[rabidchihauhau]

Slarty was so strident in his response to me that I felt the need to escalate a little.

First, when it comes to human beings, there is NO such thing as black and white - its all gray. I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, of the players out there are human beings.

I've copied and pasted some of the relevant sections of the NPPL 2005 rule book below.

I see a lot of gray area:

Section 10.05 on Paint Checks includes the words 'easily verifiable'. What does 'easy' mean? Does it mean 'when I've stopped running and can look'? Does it mean 'as long as I can see it without takiing my eyes off the target'? Does it mean 'so long as I don't have to take myself out of the game'?

That one leave a lot of room for discussion and no matter how you slice it, is not a 'black and white statement'.

Rule 17 says "Conversely, a player will not be eliminated if a player is hit and marked by a paintball shot by an
eliminated member of the opposing team or if a paintball strikes the player or anything he is
wearing or carrying but does not break or if a paintball strikes another object first and breaks
upon that object before marking a player or anything he/she is wearing or carrying."

Here we begin to add even more 'gray'; "I didn't stop to check because the player who shot me had already been eliminated" "I didn't stop to check because the ball bounced off of a bunker and broke before it hit me" - which in the olden days of paintball used to be called 'spray'

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

And I did...as soon as I saw the 'easily verifiable hit' I turned my motion away: of course, that was a split second AFTER I marked that guy that shot me, but...heck, I was running and shooting and it took a bit before I was able to catch a glimpse of that part of my jersey. It was immediate enough for me..."

17.02 on obvious hits says "Players who are hit in an obvious location are expected to
immediately signal their elimination by announcing “HIT” or “OUT” at the time of such elimination."

Now lets remember that 'obvious' location is also an 'easily verifiable' location: now lets look at the word 'immediate'. Most people would generally agree that immediate in this context means 'feel the hit, check the hit, signal an elimination'. How many shots can your average player fire while going through that routine? If the entire procedure takes a half a second, most players will be able to fire 5 to 8 balls WHILE THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH THE LETTER AND INTENT OF THE RULE.

Which brings me to those words 'letter of the rule', 'intent of the rule'. I'll grudgingly admit some of the above is a nitpickers view of things (that's what you do when trying to write black and white rules - nitpick ALL of the language) but its pretty obvious, at least to me, that there are some instances where attempting to honor the intent of the rule still leaves plenty of wiggle room or gray area.

Its not always ball-less referees failiing to make calls and its not always cheating pros getting away with murder, sometimes its reality intruding on the rules and sometimes the line is so thin that its easy to step over - even while being an 'honest' player.

But by no means are the NPPL rules 'black and white' (nor any other competition rules for paintball): anyone who thinks so hasn't read them thoroughly and is probably reading 'intent' into 'letter' only language.


10.05 Paint Checks. Paint checks are performed by Referees for the purpose of
determining if a paintball has broken on and marked a player. Paint checks are performed by a
Referee when the Referee has observed a player taking shots, or when shots are directed into an
area occupied by a player that the Referee cannot directly observe, when the physical location
that a paintball may have broken on is not visible to the Referee, or when the Referee is directed
to do so by another Referee.
(1) Player Requested Paint Checks. Referees may, but are not obligated to,
perform a paint check after a player has requested one.
(2) Neutrality. A Referee calling a player neutral will indicate the same to all
players on the field by standing over the player, shouting, “Neutral”, and
holding his/her arm above his/her head and waving a towel overhead and
shouting neutral. Referees will make every effort to perform a paint check
without calling a player neutral. However, a Referee, at his/her discretion,
may declare a player neutral. A player declared neutral cannot be eliminated
from the game or moved on, either by opposing team members or his/her
own teammates, while in the state of neutrality. A Referee may move a
neutral player’s equipment and or request that such player expose additional
areas for examination. Players not declared neutral may be eliminated while
being checked.
(3) Flag Carriers. No flag carrier will ever be stopped and declared neutral for
the purposes of performing a paint check.
(4) Easily Verifiable. Players, who are hit in obvious locations, which are easily
verifiable, by such players may not call for a paint check. Calling for a paint
check under such circumstances constitutes continuing to play on. (See rule
19.03 (1)

17. Marked with Paint
17.01 Marked with Paint. A player will be eliminated if such player is marked with paint.
A player is marked with paint if a paintball shot out of a paintball marker by any live player,
including members of the opposing team or a player’s own team strikes that player or anything
he or she is wearing or carrying and the paintball breaks upon the object struck and leaves a
paint mark. If a Referee does not see a paintball shot by a live member of the opposing team or the player’s own team strike that player or anything he or she is wearing or carrying, but that player or that player’s equipment is marked with paint, then such player will be eliminated.
Generally, if the paint marking is reasonably solid and the size of a quarter, it will be considered a
valid hit.
Conversely, a player will not be eliminated if a player is hit and marked by a paintball shot by an
eliminated member of the opposing team or if a paintball strikes the player or anything he is
wearing or carrying but does not break or if a paintball strikes another object first and breaks
upon that object before marking a player or anything he/she is wearing or carrying.
Referees will wipe splatter or non-valid hits off a player at the time they are inspected. Players
playing with paint that is considered non-valid will do so at their own risk, until it is wiped clean by
a Referee.
Players who are in motion while hit in obvious locations, which are easily verifiable, will
immediately turn their motion away from the opposition, and stop. If two opposing players are hit
and marked, as provided in this Rule simultaneously, or if the Referee cannot determine which
player was hit and marked first, both players will be eliminated.

17.02 Obvious Hits. Players who are hit in an obvious location are expected to
immediately signal their elimination by announcing “HIT” or “OUT” at the time of such elimination.
Such players must then remove their armbands, and go straight to elimination box. Obvious hits
are those which impact and break on observable places on the body or equipment.

[SlartyBartFast]

First, when it comes to human beings, there is NO such thing as black and white - its all gray. I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, of the players out there are human beings.
...
but its pretty obvious, at least to me, that there are some instances where attempting to honor the intent of the rule still leaves plenty of wiggle room or gray area.
...
Its not always ball-less referees failiing to make calls and its not always cheating pros getting away with murder, sometimes its reality intruding on the rules and sometimes the line is so thin that its easy to step over - even while being an 'honest' player.

All true. But it still remains taht the power and authority of the officials IS balck and white. Their interpretation is what counts.

That's why I dislike the use of the word "cheating". Only the actions that are obviously and blatently against the letter and intent of the rules are cheating. Shooting faster than field fps, or doing like Salms.

In ALL sports there is "wiggle" room. Even criminal and civil law has "wiggle" room. That's why there are judges and lawyers. Paintball isn't the only sport to turn a blind eye to scofflaws and grey area either. Look at the NBA and NHL with the doping issues.

The difference is that in paintball ther seems to be little interest in controlling or defining how much "wiggle" is acceptable. Instead of bringin the game down to the level of those that push and break the limits of the rules, the call should be to raise the bar and to hold those that won't because of self interest accountable.

rabidchihauhau, while from past rules discussions we may not agree on our visions of what makes the "perfect" paintball game, you and I are pretty much on the same page in all this I believe.

It's high time that paintball players organise in a way to define exactly what skills paintball is supposed to test and to redefine the game rules around those goals. Unfortunately, paintball grew too big too fast and is top heavy with people who see themselves not as promoters of a great sport, but as "the next big thing". As such they and those that follow them are stary eyed and blinded by money, prizes, and power.

I won't reiterate all my various stances on rules here. A search will turn up many such discussions. Including questions of how many would attend tournaments for the sake of honour and pride alone (when I questioned if the new HUGE prizes at Skyball were really a draw and a good thing) or why even local tournaments and series seemed more interested in prize packages than promoting fair competition.

There are many intertwined issues in the paintball industry that most turn a blind eye to. rabidchihauhau you have far more experience with them than most others on AO, so I won't argue with your views there.

But people have to realise that poor rules used at the rec level, then poor enforcement and promotion at the local tournament series, spreads it's way throughout paintball culture.

That culture that is epitoimised in the attitude of competition players of all levels of playing until the ref calls and saying the system isn't broke. I'll push the rules because others are...

Yet every competition and rec player has a large economic power to change the way the "system" works. A family member used to play the lcoal tournament series and quit. The reason? Only the teams sponsored by the fields could really afford to compete. So, when you think about it, all the rec palyers playing boosted paint and field fees and all the losing participants in eac competition are actually cutting rather substantial cash checks to the winners of each tournament.

How would peoples attitudes towards rules and enforcement change if instead of paying large fees to a tournamnet promoter, instead individually handed their share of the cash prize over to the winners at the end of the tournament?

Where would baseball, hockey, soccer, and football be if every midget, bantam, and municipal league was cash prize based instead of based on everyone paying an entry fee and competing for the glory of their name on a trophy?

Yet, players still flock to tournaments that get coverage and promotion not for fairplay and organisation, but for how big the prizes are, how exotic the location, or how big the vendor area is. Unfortunately, the actual GAMES seem to be the second or third priority. Behind selling paint, selling merchandise and catering to the corporate sponsors.

Something to consider in the light of a question asking "How would the game change...". There seems to be widely differing views about what the game IS, let alone what it might change to.

[Lohman446]

Where would baseball, hockey, soccer, and football be if every midget, bantam, and municipal league was cash prize based instead of based on everyone paying an entry fee and competing for the glory of their name on a trophy?

That question deserves its own thread

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1922110#post1922110

___________________________________________
http://home.comcast.net/~allfor114all/AOIAO.jpg

[ApexAZ]

If bounces counted it would just make the cheating worse. That's the whole point of them having paint in them. It's bad enough with wiping. Why would anyone call themselves out from a bounce and how could the refs catch it?

[Automaggot68]

Ever thought about how the game would be in gun hits didnt count?

[slade]

Ever thought about how the game would be in gun hits didnt count?
goodbye small gun craze :rolleyes:

[Automaggot68]

goodbye small gun craze :rolleyes:

Hellooooo gigantic hopper.

[Beemer]

Since I started playing bounces NEVER counted as a general rule. We did play some winter ball where we changed it up for them to count because of the heavy clothing.

How would it change the game if they counted? I dont think it would over all. The honor has faded to much already.

Now in tourny play, IF you had one judge per player that was only watching that player, then it might change things. How many judges are there now in a ten or seven man tourny game? NPPL or PSP or the others.

How would the game change if Headshots didnt count? That used to be a rule way back and it took awhile for it to change because of safety concerns. Hmmm maybe the question should be...What if Headshots didnt count? Ties in with your question, thats why I didnt start another thread.

___________

http://home.comcast.net/~beemerone/AoIL.gif

[ultralight]

Ever thought about how the game would be in gun hits didnt count?


blind firing like crazy.

i've seen it happen, one local field actually changed it's rules because of this.
they now have a rule that head hits don't count and gun hits do. this encourages players to look at where they are shooting.