Penalties in paintball and intent

[Lohman446]

I watch football and basketball and penalties are fairly common. Never is intent questioned for holding, charging, doube dribble, or travelling, you did it, why is not important - penalty.

How often do you see someone instinctively turn and fire after being hit, to spin. They fire after eliminated, I had a person do this this weekend, put four shots on me, after I had hit him. Did he intentionally mean to break the rules - I don't beleive so. The refs were on top of things, called me clean and him out, and took no penalty. This case, I don't care, but there should have been at least a 1-1 penalty for playing on.

The point I have, have we gotten in paintball were we question intent of action, rather than action. I'm not trying to turn this into a what constitutes cheating threat. My point is, would the game become cleaner if rather than questioning intent we simply penalized players who broke the rules, regardless of intent, even if its an accident? I think so.

[TheShark]

Agreed... unless you're talking about "intent to injure" in which case the penalty should be much more severe. Intent really isn't relevent in major sports and shouldn't be in paintball either.

[TheTramp]

I agree with you. If you backman shot you on the brake you'd still be out even if he didn't "mean to." That guy shot you after he'd been eliminated so there should be a penalty.

I like the idea of removing points vs. 1 for 1 type penalties. Of course you'd have to remove enough points to make it worth trying to play fair.

[Lohman446]

In the reverse side, because I can tell you my intent and not someone elses. That same day we were late in a game, 30 seconds left, we had the flag and needed the hang. I made a run down the tape against there last two players, paused behind a bunker that did not provide cover and shot it out with the last two players who had no cover from me. I felt a hit on the back left side of my leg about three seconds before I shot the second player (who my other player also shot). The ref was out of position to verify the hit, and I had no cover. The rules say I had to verify before I shot, I shot anyways. My intent was not to cheat to win... I decided not to risk being eliminated to get the flag hang. When I looked down after the otehr two players were leaving the field I did not see a hit, it was not until I reached back to feel that I found the hit, out of sight on my leg. I called myself out and walked off field. Had a ref seen that hit before I did what was the right answer? He should have assessed the penalty - again, my intent, or lack there of, to cheat, is meaningless in assessing the penalty.

[SlartyBartFast]

My point is, would the game become cleaner if rather than questioning intent we simply penalized players who broke the rules, regardless of intent, even if its an accident? I think so.

Damn straight.

The incident you described is playing on. Should have been called as such. Intent is meaningless. The rules should be enforced as written.

While sometimes it MAY be acceptable to be lenient with the rules and "interpret" them, on the whole it's a bad idea. Look at hockey. THey've been lenient on a number of rules and now find themselves in a predicament.

[trains are bad]

I don't think intent is really important. first of all it is impossible to determine it because people lie. Second of all rules should be written so it is irrelevant.

Oops, I didn't mean to overshoot him. Too, bad, that's irrelevant, you shouldn't have shot him 35 times regardless if it was because you meant to or if it was becaues you suck on the trigger or if you could'nt see him. You broke the rules, take it.

Oops I didn't mean to be shooting 330fps, my marker crept because of the heat. Too bad, that's irrelevant, you shouldn't have been shooting 330fps regardless of whether you meant to or you marker is a poor design or needs a better reg. You broke the rules, take it.

Oops, I didn't feel the hit. Tough, the hit was in an objectively defined area determined to be reasonably feelable. Wear thinner clothes if you have to, pay more attention or have you teammates check you better. Staying within the rules is part of playing.

Oops, I didn't mean to go out of bounds. Well of course you didn't. It's also irrelevant. You went out of bounds, play better next time.

When a player breaks the rules it makes no difference whether or not they meant to. If they were honestly trying to stay within the rules, who cares, they failed at it.

Do what needs to be done to not break the rules.

When someone breaks the rules I don't really care if they did it because they meant to or because they are stupid or unskilled or any other reason.

We don't need rules like 'ramping is illegal, unless they say they are sorry and it was an accident'. Refs have a hard enough time enforcing objective rules.

[Lohman446]

When a player breaks the rules it makes no difference whether or not they meant to. If they were honestly trying to stay within the rules, who cares, they failed at it.

Do what needs to be done to not break the rules.

This is exactly the point in my opinion. A runner runs inside the base line, on the edge. He is close, different refs are going to call it differently. It interferes with the throw from home plate. He should have run a little more inline with the bag, of course then he would have been out, and would have failed to get to first base before the throw. He ran the grey edge of the rule. Was it intentional or not? If you don't like the call practice not being in a questionable area.

[hitech]

My point is, would the game become cleaner if rather than questioning intent we simply penalized players who broke the rules, regardless of intent, even if its an accident? I think so.

As I'm sure you are aware, I have always said it should be. When you are hit you are out. And the player should be responsible for knowing when they are hit. Nothing affects the game more than playing on...

[wimag]

I I felt a hit on the back left side of my leg about three seconds before I shot the second player (who my other player also shot). The ref was out of position to verify the hit, and I had no cover

Three seconds is a long time. it is called playing on. If you had no cover as you indicate and felt a hit on you, chances are you were hit. nice uncovered wide open target. :nono:

[Lohman446]

Three seconds is a long time. it is called playing on. If you had no cover as you indicate and felt a hit on you, chances are you were hit. nice uncovered wide open target. :nono:

No doubt. I had two options the point, or should have had two options. Risk the playing on penatly and continue firing (which is what I did) or signal my elimination, because there was no way of looking without being hit considering the two guns on me and the minimal cover. I risked the playing on penalty if the ball had broken and continued. Once the shooting stopped I called a ref over and checked, and actually called myself out before the ref even got there. In fairness I did not even see the hit after the shooting had stopped and I glanced down as much as I could, I had to reach back to feel it. But your right, the penalty should have been there for playing on - my intent, my ability to check myself, and everything else should have been inconsequential. We are so concerned about calling someone for a penalty looking like calling them a cheater that we consider intent far too much. It was never my intent to cheat (though I did consciously decide not to check you can judge that yourself), but I did violate the rules in assuming it did not break. The refs considered my intent, the factors around me, and did not penalize me - they should not have made those considerations.

[trains are bad]

If the the ball didn't break, he would have been fine. If it did break and a ref saw it he should have been gotten for playing on. Don't want to risk getting called for Playing On, check the hit, if it's broken call yourself out. There, no chance of getting called for playing on. You play the game and take your chances.

NOTHING should change whether or not he knew he was actually marked. It's irrelevant. If a team A marks him such that he truly doesn't feel it, and gets called for playing on, then good for team A that he wasn't paying attention.

If you don't want to chance getting called for playing on don't play the gray. Of course this presupposes the refs are actually doing there jobs.

[TheShark]

Three seconds is a long time. it is called playing on. If you had no cover as you indicate and felt a hit on you, chances are you were hit. nice uncovered wide open target. :nono:

If I'm going to judge his ethics of playing on in that situation, it completely depends on the level he's playing at. Either way, I definately would not call myself out at that point.

In a pickup game, *If the circumstance allowed*, I would run to the nearest cover THEN check myself. Resume play if it didn't break, call out if it did.

Unfortunately when you are playing at a high level, the speed of the game does not allow you to do this. Chances are, if you stop firing and try to run to a bunker you'll be lit up before you get there. Or, you make it to the bunker and as you're checking yourself, there's a guy running to bunker you. Your only real option is to keep firing. The ref has a responsibility to call you out.

Ultimately, if you're playing at the competative level, similar to other sports, you have to simply have faith in the ref to call you out. I'm a hockey player, so I'll use that as a comparison: If I'm playing in a pickup game, and I take the puck over the blue line offsides, we'll call it on ourselves and hand over the puck to the other team. But in a game, if I don't hear a whistle, I continue no matter how offsides I am. This is not because I'm a cheater, its because the refs are expected to control the game and the players are expected to never give up until the whistle blows.

This is the problem with competitive paintball. We don't have the technology / skill / volume of refs to accurately ref a game. Paintball will never be a legit sport until refs are able to control the game. You can't leave rule enforcement up to players in a competitive atmosphere, if you do, you get the current environment of wiping and playing on.

I know this strayed a bit from the topic of "intent", but the basis for my argument is the same premise as the OP's: Intent is irrelevent. You need enough refs to enforce the game, to take the decision to cheat out of the hands of players. The only "playing on" penalties that should be called are cases where a ref taps a player out and the player continues shooting. "Playing on" as we know it wouldn't exist anymore, because there would be enough refs to see every ball break on every player. Whether you do this via technology (cameras + remote marker shutdown by head ref?), or having 10-14 refs on the field, one for every player, I don't know. What I do know is that until refs can control the game, paintball will never reach its full potential.

[Lohman446]

What we have now may work if the refs would just call the penalties- this situation was unique in getting away with it, and my action would not have changed regardless of where the ref was in position. Had the ref been standing there and seen the break, and I had continued to fire, he should have pulled me and another player at that time. The penalty would have been justified. By not stopping to check myself, which I could not have done competetivly, I chose to take that risk. If the ref had seen the hit he should have never questioned intent, he should have pulled me and another player.

Refs question too often intent... it results in a lack of penalties that should be there.

Edit: in football linemen are taught to hold there hands a certain way to make it obvious they are not holding - they go above and beyond to make it apperant they are not cheating. Sometimes they get sloppy and get called wehn no foul took place, sometimes they get lucky. But you never see a ref ask a player "did you mean to"

[TheTramp]

Oops, I didn't feel the hit. Tough, the hit was in an objectively defined area determined to be reasonably feelable. Wear thinner clothes if you have to, pay more attention or have you teammates check you better. Staying within the rules is part of playing.


I think you make a very good point here. I know we're not really talking about specifics in this thread but I have to comment on this.

If you are hit anywhere other than the pack, or in certain circumstances the gun/hopper/bottle, then you should feel it. If you can't feel it then you are wearing too much padding, too floppy clothing, etc. Honestly you frequently feel or hear a pack hit also but that’s at least questionable. It's up to you to make sure are paying attention to hits so this would be another example of a black and white rule that should be penalized IMHO.

[Lohman446]

I think you make a very good point here. I know we're not really talking about specifics in this thread but I have to comment on this.

If you are hit anywhere other than the pack, or in certain circumstances the gun/hopper/bottle, then you should feel it. If you can't feel it then you are wearing too much padding, too floppy clothing, etc. Honestly you frequently feel or hear a pack hit also but that’s at least questionable. It's up to you to make sure are paying attention to hits so this would be another example of a black and white rule that should be penalized IMHO.

And you know what, sometimes you are going to get penalized when you had no intent to break the rules, because you still did. Its going to happen, it happens in other sports. We have just made it to much if you get penalized you are a cheater, because we have considered intent we also label.

[Lee]

i don't worry about intent. i'm not a mind reader so how do i know what a persons intent is?you do it, you get the penalty per rule.

example: last tampa NPPL, i called a one for one on a guy with an obvious hit. it was on his left shoulder and he was still shooting. after the game, he came to me complaining. when i explained the playing on rule, and that he had an obvious hit, he said "but i looked!"

do i believe he looked? yes....do the rules say if you look it's not a one for one?...no.

don't want a penalty, then don't mess up.

i also believe that 99% of the time, a player knows they are hit no matter where that hit is. they may not know if it broke, but they know they were struck. 90% of the time, they know it's a valid mark.

NPPL rules read like this: you must check yourself for a hit if it is in an easily verifiable place. if not, then you must ask a team mate to check you. if that is not possible, then you may ask for a paintcheck from a referee. referees are under no obligation to perform paint chacks.

the way the rule reads is that those things must be done in that order and players rarely do it that way. that imho is the reason so many one for ones are called.


furthermore, to me, playing on is "any paintball like motion". shooting, moving with purpose other than leaving the field, loading, calling positions, etc. you act like your playing and you have a hit, then your leaving the game with a friend.

[Evil Bob]

Most refs will make the call if they see it. The problem I've seen with most paintball tournies is insufficient numbers of refs on the field.

4 refs on a field of 14 or 20 players is not sufficient. The problem with paintball is that is it very unlike all other sports in regards to where the action is at. Football... single ball on the field, action focuses on it, same with soccer, basketball, tennis, rugby, etc. With football and basketball, you can get away with fewer refs on the field of play because of the single ball, can't do that with paintball. This is the primary issue with making paintball tv friendly, you can have 10 cameras on the field and miss an important game busting move and never see it. Same thing applies to reffing, alot of the time the refs simply dont see what happened and are unable to make a good call. The only way to catch it all, is to put more officals on the field, as the players as a whole are unwilling to keep the game clean because they believe everyone else is cheating.

-Evil Bob

[KRAKMT]

I agree to a point. The rules are black and white- the one for one should have been called on Lohman. The intent part comes into play when players are trying to hide it. Maybe there is too much old school in me still but if your intent is to cheat then it is worse in my view. And cheating is like pornography "you know it when you see it". Sometimes you make the call without regard. Happens alot- called on the shoulder doesn't matter blah blah blah. The I didn't feel it stuff bothers me less than the sneeky stuff. What if the ref saw Lohman reach down to check and did a hard rub or more common to turn the leg into the bunker. Was his intent to wipe or was he just playing on? We have video of a guy in the back standup rubbing his head on the bunker arms at his side in a tourny.

On a side note the whole point of having recreational paintball used to be that you could play straight up and didn't need refs. People who abused that got a reputation(terrydwiper) is still known for that 15 years later. Now days how many refs do we need to play. its to the point that for a team practice you need 4 teams- 2 to play and 2 to ref.

[MisterBones25]

i had an incident like this thisweekend as well. my freind came to bunker me and i clearly felt the hit, but shot him anyway. why im not about to take the time to check to see if the ball broke or not. in this case it did and i walked off the feild gracefully, but if he was shooting crappy paint and it bounced, my hit on him would count. plain and simple, play on, but be honest about how hit who first, in a tourny this is where refs come in, and yes i do agree there need to be more refs present in tournys, cus the players will more than likely not be honest.

[Lohman446]

i had an incident like this thisweekend as well. my freind came to bunker me and i clearly felt the hit, but shot him anyway. why im not about to take the time to check to see if the ball broke or not. in this case it did and i walked off the feild gracefully, but if he was shooting crappy paint and it bounced, my hit on him would count. plain and simple, play on, but be honest about how hit who first, in a tourny this is where refs come in, and yes i do agree there need to be more refs present in tournys, cus the players will more than likely not be honest.

Not only should you ahve walked off, you should have been penalized for playing on though. A risk you took when you turned and fired before looking.

[SlartyBartFast]

i had an incident like this thisweekend as well. my freind came to bunker me and i clearly felt the hit, but shot him anyway. why im not about to take the time to check to see if the ball broke or not. in this case it did and i walked off the feild gracefully, but if he was shooting crappy paint and it bounced, my hit on him would count. plain and simple, play on, but be honest about how hit who first, in a tourny this is where refs come in, and yes i do agree there need to be more refs present in tournys, cus the players will more than likely not be honest.

Ok, I know some are going to go on abou the rules that define a hit and all. But what was the intent of paintball and the rules? What skills is paintball trying to compare?

The moment you are bunkered, out in the open, or otherwise hit, even if it didn’t break, you are a failure as far as the skills test is concerned.

The paint marks you so others can say “See, I hit you and out performed you. I win.”. You can always say “I was hit. I was outperformed. I lost.” whether the paint breaks or not.

Some cases might not be cut and dry. But when bunkered, if you have the time to turn and fire it’s because the opponent has been sporting enough to figure you’ve been hit enough. You should be sporting enough to admit defeat. Break or not. Otherwise, that’s one situation where I think any movement other than surrender when being bunkered is open season for as many bonus-balls as can be shot.

To say that checking yourself will put you at a disadvantage if it didn’t break. What a bunch of whiners. You were hit. You failed the skills test. Follow the rules and check yourself, if your only argument is taht you should stay in because of chance, why shouldn’t the other team get some more chance at tagging you? At a minimum you have no further right to the advantage of your current location.

We don’t need more refs. The balance between refs, the number of calls, and the penalty imposed is all that needs solidified. The thought has to be: eliminated without a mark is a small disadvantage in one game, playing-on means losing the tournament. Make the pay-off not worth the risk.

[Lohman446]

Ok, I know some are going to go on abou the rules that define a hit and all. But what was the intent of paintball and the rules? What skills is paintball trying to compare?

The moment you are bunkered, out in the open, or otherwise hit, even if it didn’t break, you are a failure as far as the skills test is concerned.

The paint marks you so others can say “See, I hit you and out performed you. I win.”. You can always say “I was hit. I was outperformed. I lost.” whether the paint breaks or not.

Some cases might not be cut and dry. But when bunkered, if you have the time to turn and fire it’s because the opponent has been sporting enough to figure you’ve been hit enough. You should be sporting enough to admit defeat. Break or not. Otherwise, that’s one situation where I think any movement other than surrender when being bunkered is open season for as many bonus-balls as can be shot.

To say that checking yourself will put you at a disadvantage if it didn’t break. What a bunch of whiners. You were hit. You failed the skills test. Follow the rules and check yourself, if your only argument is taht you should stay in because of chance, why shouldn’t the other team get some more chance at tagging you? At a minimum you have no further right to the advantage of your current location.

We don’t need more refs. The balance between refs, the number of calls, and the penalty imposed is all that needs solidified. The thought has to be: eliminated without a mark is a small disadvantage in one game, playing-on means losing the tournament. Make the pay-off not worth the risk.

What about on days where you have been having bouncing paint due to elemental factors or those beyond a players control. In the situation I described earlier I can tell you that I hit both players earlier in the game and repeatedly without scoring a break - I had been untouched up to the point of ignoring that hit. By your theory my team had already demonstrated a better skill set.

[SlartyBartFast]

Not only should you ahve walked off, you should have been penalized for playing on though. A risk you took when you turned and fired before looking.

Exactly. It was playing-on whether the ball broke or not.


Failure to call a teammate for verification or failure of a teammate to immediately respond constitutes playing-on by the hit player.

The only thing that isn't absolutely clear is the playing-on nature of not checking.


Players who are hit in an obvious location are expected to immediately signal their elimina-tion by announcing, "HIT" or "OUT" at the time of such elimination and hold one hand above their head.

NOTHING about waiting or dealing with other game issues before checking.

[Lohman446]

Exactly. It was playing-on whether the ball broke or not.



The only thing that isn't absolutely clear is the playing-on nature of not checking.



NOTHING about waiting or dealing with other game issues before checking.


I agree. There are situations where one does not follow the rules exactly, and deserve to be penalized regardless of why. When I continued to fire everyone there understood why, and I think many people here understand why - it was not possible to check and stay competetive. But I am saying that I should have been penalized. Regardless of reason, or lack of intent to cheat, I broke the rules - and should have suffered the same consequence as if I had known for certain the hit was there.

[SlartyBartFast]

What about on days where you have been having bouncing paint due to elemental factors or those beyond a players control. In the situation I described earlier I can tell you that I hit both players earlier in the game and repeatedly without scoring a break - I had been untouched up to the point of ignoring that hit. By your theory my team had already demonstrated a better skill set.

Too bad.

Hit, check, continue play.

If hit while checking, check again.

If they're better at it than you at least it's another skill being tested.

Unless you're claiming they didn't check themselves according to rules you have no grounds for complaint.

Even if they were breaking the rules. Rules are what you have to do REGARDLESS of how the opposition behaves. The oppostion's following of the rules and your following of the rules are two separate, unlinked, independant issues up for separate and unbiased examination and judgement.

[Lohman446]

Too bad.

Hit, check, continue play.

If hit while checking, check again.

If they're better at it than you at least it's another skill being tested.

Unless you're claiming they didn't check themselves according to rules you have no grounds for complaint.

Even if they were breaking the rules. Rules are what you have to do REGARDLESS of how the opposition behaves. The oppostion's following of the rules and your following of the rules are two separate, unlinked, independant issues up for separate and unbiased examination and judgement.


Ahh - your adding new things to the skillset then other than just being hit. Recall in your bunkering example


The moment you are bunkered, out in the open, or otherwise hit, even if it didn’t break, you are a failure as far as the skills test is concerned.

The paint marks you so others can say “See, I hit you and out performed you. I win.”. You can always say “I was hit. I was outperformed. I lost.” whether the paint breaks or not

Not that I don't understand to a degree where you are coming from. I made no effort to hide my violation of the rules, I made no effort to "cheat". I broke the rules and was prepared for the consequences of it. When the game was done I called myself out. By rights I should have looked down and assessed myself the penalty :confused: - theres a pretty reasonable argument that could be made along that line. I did not try to wipe the hit, or hide where it came from, I simply called for a ref because I did not see that hit at first, but when I felt it, I called myself out before he got there.

I think theres a disagreement in what constitutes cheating. Attempting to hide a violation of the rules in my book is cheating, wiping for instance. Not that any of the examples I gave above were "right".

For instance, same day, one of my own players had a ball skirt his pocket. He never felt it, turned and continued firing. A ref came over, noticed the hit, and pulled him. ZERO knowledge by the player of the hit. You know what, should have still resulted in a 1-1 penalty.

[SlartyBartFast]

Ahh - your adding new things to the skillset then other than just being hit. Recall in your bunkering example

Nothing new. Just saying that once beaten, move on and follow the rules. I see we're arguing and agreeing. :p


By rights I should have looked down and assessed myself the penalty :confused:

No. Only judges and refs asses penalties.

IMO, players that call themselves out after the game is finished or all shooting stops should be 1for1. Any found with marks by the refs should be 2for1 or worse.

The rules need to instill in players fear of being caught in violation. Better to take the lesser result than risk the higher penalty.

As for refs, the problem is they are all, for the most part, players and play with the same misconceptions as everyone else. Some don't and do enforce rules as they are written. They're the ones that get the whining. Look at hockey this year with the enforcement of what were previously ignored penalties.

But paintball is different from other sports. The rules are written such that refs are the people of LAST resort for normal game related calls and should only be involved in issuing penalties. Unlike other sports where the entire responsibility of ALL calls is with the officiating staff.

Cheating is not a failure to follow the rules and enforcing the rules isn't about catching cheaters. Have to split the concepts apart for a decent coverage of rules enforcement.

[TheTramp]

When the game was done I called myself out.

So all that happened is that they got the points for you being eliminated?

[Lee]

IMO, players that call themselves out after the game is finished or all shooting stops should be 1for1. Any found with marks by the refs should be 2for1 or worse.


that is sort of the rule. if a player reports as "live" and is marked. he is considered as playing on. if a player is the last person, hangs the flag and is found to be marked, the grab and hang automatically go to the opposing team.

if a player hangs the flag, is marked and there are live players left on either team, the flag is re-hung. that is why "time" is called when a player hangs the flag. so he can be checked, the flag re-hung and the game re-commenced.

thats also why you'll see players get checked by thier team mates before a hang.

i have yet to see a game where a flag is hung and there are live players left on the opposing team. i have seen flags re-hung due to a marked player though, but it's very rare.

[Lohman446]

So all that happened is that they got the points for you being eliminated?

Yeh, they got the points for me being eliminated, I still had one other live player on my team, who after my move hung the flag and got us the points for it. The point is, without that move, our ability to hang the flag was doubtful, it effected the outcome of the game.

[SlartyBartFast]

that is sort of the rule. if a player reports as "live" and is marked. he is considered as playing on. if a player is the last person, hangs the flag and is found to be marked, the grab and hang automatically go to the opposing team.

I KNOW that's how the rules as writte are enforced.

Reread what I posted. As far as I'm concerend, you're playing-on when your teammates are checking you before the hang or if you call yourself eliminated just before checking in.

If the ref has to catch you, the penalty should be WORSE.

[Lohman446]

I KNOW that's how the rules as writte are enforced.

Reread what I posted. As far as I'm concerend, you're playing-on when your teammates are checking you before the hang or if you call yourself eliminated just before checking in.

If the ref has to catch you, the penalty should be WORSE.

You are right. The situation puts th poster in clear violation of the rules that are written. The rules are pretty black and white. You are violating the rules and should be penalized - regardless of if you intended to or not.

We unfortunatly have to see giving penalties only to "cheaters". Did what I do constitute cheating? Perhaps it did in that I felt it and by the written rules, should have checked. What about the unfelt hits (which are rarer than people tell refs)? Doesn't matter. Penalizing someone does not label them a cheater, it labels them having violated the rules, through action or inaction, intentionally or not. We need to quit trying to read into intent.

[SlartyBartFast]

You are,


:confused:

You've lost me man. What we have here is a failure to comunicate. ;)

[TheShark]

If the ref has to catch you, the penalty should be WORSE.

In no other sport is a player required to enforce the rules upon himself. It is up to the refs to keep the players honest. I understand that right now we simply don't have the capability to properly ref a game of competitive paintball, especially larger matches like 7 on 7. IMO we need to work towards a better way to ref games, rather than trying to force self-regulation. Its an excersise in futility.

Look at the NHL, in previous years interference was the name of the game, skill players were being crushed, hooked, tripped, etc without even having the puck. Big bruiser defensemen could have their way with you if you even thought about driving to the net. The refs finally started making calls this year, and amazingly, the players stopped the dirty play, because they know there will be consequences.

If you asked ANY professional hockey, football, baseball, soccer player to call penalties on themselves, they'd laugh at you. Imagine a soccer taking someone out with a wicked slide tackle, standing up, and pulling out a yellow card on himself. It just doesn't and shouldn't need to happen, because the ref is there to call it.

[Lohman446]

:confused:

You've lost me man. What we have here is a failure to comunicate. ;)

Edited post for clarity

[SlartyBartFast]

In no other sport is a player required to enforce the rules upon himself.

Paintball isn't any other sport.

To change it to be any other sport is to give in to those that don't want to abide by the traditional rules.

If tournaments want to play on the basis of only what refs catch counts, let them. But, they should be held accountable to change their rules to reflect that reality.

To make it like any other sport is also impossible. Unless you have one ref per player. No other sport lacks a central point of action like paintball.

You don''t have to throw out the rulebook to enforce the rules as they stand and make players know there are concequences. With a tiny amount of ref education and little to no effort, you could easily double or tripple the number of playing-on penalties. That would certianly straighten out a lot of the abuse.

As for other sports being unsportsman like and pushing/breaking the rules, or leaving ALL officiating to refs, where is it written we have to lower ourselves to their level?

[MisterBones25]

Not only should you ahve walked off, you should have been penalized for playing on though. A risk you took when you turned and fired before looking.

i didnt actualy turn after he hit me. i knew he was coming and we shot each other at about the same time. i felt the hit then took another shot and broke on on him. i checked myself and told him he was clean as i walked off. now if the ref would have penalized me i would have taken it like a man and walked off as well. my situation was alittle diffrent than the compleat turning around after i am positive im hit. but i can see where you are comming from and do agree that someone who turns and shoots after being hit 3 or 4 times should be penalized.

[TheShark]

Paintball isn't any other sport.

To change it to be any other sport is to give in to those that don't want to abide by the traditional rules.

If tournaments want to play on the basis of only what refs catch counts, let them. But, they should be held accountable to change their rules to reflect that reality.

To make it like any other sport is also impossible. Unless you have one ref per player. No other sport lacks a central point of action like paintball.

You don''t have to throw out the rulebook to enforce the rules as they stand and make players know there are concequences. With a tiny amount of ref education and little to no effort, you could easily double or tripple the number of playing-on penalties. That would certianly straighten out a lot of the abuse.

As for other sports being unsportsman like and pushing/breaking the rules, or leaving ALL officiating to refs, where is it written we have to lower ourselves to their level?

I agree with you, my argument is flawed. 14 refs in a 7 on 7 match? You'd have a ref clogging every lane. It would be a total cluster****. This is an inherant flaw in paintball, and I believe one of the limiting factors that is preventing it from going to the next level of professional sports.

That said, there are examples of mainstream sports that have gotten around this problem. Take football for example: 4 refs, 22 players on the field. Penalties are called away from the ball all the time- Holding, offsides, etc. Hockey- Interference by its very nature is called away from the puck. Obviously the distance and fast paced nature of paintball presents dificult and different challenges for refs from the above examples, but I refuse to believe it is impossible to improve reffing to the point where players aren't held responsible for regulating themselves.

As I mentioned before, maybe the solution is not with additional refs, but with technology. In the mean time, of course I have no problem with the current rulesets and forced player self-regulation... its better than nothing. But the industry should constantly be working on ways to take the regulation out of the hands of players and giving refs the ability to do their job. Only then can paintball go to the next level.

[Lohman446]

i didnt actualy turn after he hit me. i knew he was coming and we shot each other at about the same time. i felt the hit then took another shot and broke on on him. i checked myself and told him he was clean as i walked off. now if the ref would have penalized me i would have taken it like a man and walked off as well. my situation was alittle diffrent than the compleat turning around after i am positive im hit. but i can see where you are comming from and do agree that someone who turns and shoots after being hit 3 or 4 times should be penalized.


Your trying to grey the line. Did you fire after a ball had broken on you? If you did, if the ref standing there sees it, you should be pulled one for one penatly. Its like coming into homeplate. Its not if the ball comes close before the foot is one the plate (or whatever part) it is does it. There is no grey rule. If you fired theres a penalty. Doesn't make you a cheater. We talk about discipline in football, it has a place in paintball to.

[hitech]

In no other sport is a player required to enforce the rules upon himself.

Yes there is, golf. And it's big and on TV.

[trains are bad]

leaving ALL officiating to refs, where is it written we have to lower ourselves to their level?

It's not lowering ourselves to their level, it's raising ourselves to their level. Allowing people that are playing the game and therefore have an obvious and uncontestable bias in who wins, do the reffing, is the most irresponsible thing a sport can do. Paintball is a joke.

[TheShark]

Yes there is, golf. And it's big and on TV.

Point taken, but does that really validate the same kind of self-regulation in paintball? With golf its more out of tradition than practicality. If a player hits a ball out of bounds and decides to simply not record the 2-stroke penalty, at the end of the day, that penalty is going to be assessed whether he likes it or not. A professional golfer can't cheat in golf, therefore his supposed self-regulation is meaningless.

Paintball on the other hand, obviously does not do well under this model.

[Lee]

I KNOW that's how the rules as writte are enforced.

Reread what I posted. As far as I'm concerend, you're playing-on when your teammates are checking you before the hang or if you call yourself eliminated just before checking in.

If the ref has to catch you, the penalty should be WORSE.


how much worse?

playing on is one for one. it's a clear penalty for an infraction. the penalty is asessed whether it's intentional or not.

and who says that when one player checks another before hanging the flag, that the player with the flag, if found to be hit, isn't penalized? that is a one for one since by rule that player is playing on.

heres what would happen if there were two players left, and one checks the other and finds a hit: a one for one is called, the game ends on a penalty. by rule, if a game ends on a penalty, the grab and hang are awarded to the opposing team.

[SlartyBartFast]

Point taken, but does that really validate the same kind of self-regulation in paintball?

Ok. I stand by everything I've already said, but I'll also put in a new perspective.

There is NOTHING different about rules in paintball or any other sport.

YOU the player are responsile for following the rules. The officials enforce only the penalties. Same concept in every single sport played in every single country, professional, amateur, or street pick-up.

[TheTramp]

Yeh, they got the points for me being eliminated, I still had one other live player on my team, who after my move hung the flag and got us the points for it. The point is, without that move, our ability to hang the flag was doubtful, it effected the outcome of the game.

Would you have called yourself out if you were the last player?

[Lohman446]

Would you have called yourself out if you were the last player?

Yes I would have. Don't take that as a morally high ground, I would like to think I would have regardless of the circumstances, but there was a ref about five feet from me at the point I became aware the ball did break and the hit was apperent to me and was going to be apparent to him momentarily. There was no option but to call myself out. In answer to your question in the hypothetical I would have called myself regardless (I am not going to wipe a hit) if the ref's would have seen the hit on checking me or not. In this particular case there is no doubt they were going to see it. Perhaps calling myself was a preemptive move to avoid the penalty - its hard to say, I can't tell you exactly.

[shartley]

Interesting thread.

My opinion:
Intent should not be an issue. Ref’s should simply enforce the rules as they are written and as the infraction happened. Not everyone who breaks a rule does so on purpose, but that should not be a factor when enforcement comes into play.

There are some situations however, that make things interesting…. Such as “playing on”. When it comes to this situation, I feel that each player must make the determination for themselves what to do, and then be willing to accept the consequences for their decisions.

For example (as others have made the same) if you are going from one bunker to another and feel hits on you, but it is unclear any paint broke. I think it is perfectly acceptable to continue to the bunker you were trying to make it to. THEN check to see if you are actually “out”.

To stop immediately and check would put you at an unfair disadvantage. And in today’s game, I feel it would also make you too easy of a target for overshooting. Not to mention that if none of the balls did actually break, by stopping to check, you are guaranteed to be shot out.

Of course this is only one example, and it does not apply to all situations concerning “playing on”. But in the one I mentioned, it would be an acceptable risk to keep playing until you indeed determine if you were marked out. And then if you were, and you are accessed for playing on, it is a risk worth taking IMHO.

The same thing happens in many other sports concerning rules. And in my opinion just breaking a rule does not make you immoral, or a cheater, unless that was your intent (and even then not always, look at fouling in basketball… intentionally fouling a player can be a strategy of the game). But your intent should not dictate the enforcement of the rules, only how other players think of you. However, as in other sports I feel that if you continually break rules (intentional or not) the penalty for doing so should be more than that of the occasional infraction.

I also think Paintball would benefit from an “advantage” style of Reffing as Soccer uses. For those not familiar with it, it allows many infractions to be ignored (or not called) if the other team still has the advantage when whatever infraction is done (immediately, not later in the game). But I really don’t think paintball could do this as a rule since I don’t think the caliber of Ref’s across the board is high enough. I however, play this way on my own private field and it works well.

If what I have posted has already been said by other members, it is unintentional. I didn’t read all the posts, but only skimmed them for “flavor”.

[TheShark]

There is NOTHING different about rules in paintball or any other sport.

YOU the player are responsile for following the rules. The officials enforce only the penalties. Same concept in every single sport played in every single country, professional, amateur, or street pick-up.

Exactly - But one major difference - players in other sports aren't chastised for breaking a rule and getting away with it. It is considered part of the game and up to the official to enforce a penalty.

Why then are paintball players chastised ? Because we don't have adaquate reffing. The chastising, at least for now, is completely acceptable, and necessary, because it (besides the inadaquate refs) is the only thing holding players back from cheating as much and as often as possible.

The ideal scenario is to get reffing to the point where players have no choice but to abide by the rules or face a much higher risk (comparable to other pro sports) of getting caught and penalized. Until we get to that point, the chastising should continue.

[SlartyBartFast]

For example (as others have made the same) if you are going from one bunker to another and feel hits on you, but it is unclear any paint broke. I think it is perfectly acceptable to continue to the bunker you were trying to make it to. THEN check to see if you are actually “out”.

Which is no longer a vague or unclear situation if using the latest PSP rules.

Your obligation is to continue to the bunker and then immediately check.
:cheers:

[SlartyBartFast]

Exactly - But one major difference - players in other sports aren't chastised for breaking a rule and getting away with it.


Wow. Do you watch ANY sports? Hockey enforcers who are always pushing the rules are chastised as "dirty". Soccer players get in trouble with peers and fans for making contact too often or seeming like their acting after hit too often.

Same with all sports that have contact and holding rules. Heck, even WWE wrestling which has few if any rules and zero enforcement has wrestlers become "good" or "bad" depending on their (admitedly orchestrated) moves and actions inside and outside the ring.

[Lohman446]

Wow. Do you watch ANY sports? Hockey enforcers who are always pushing the rules are chastised as "dirty". Soccer players get in trouble with peers and fans for making contact too often or seeming like their acting after hit too often.

Same with all sports that have contact and holding rules. Heck, even WWE wrestling which has few if any rules and zero enforcement has wrestlers become "good" or "bad" depending on their (admitedly orchestrated) moves and actions inside and outside the ring.


You win.. right there. When you can use the WWE to illustrate a point regarding paintball rule enforcement you win, game over :D

[hitech]

Point taken, but does that really validate the same kind of self-regulation in paintball? With golf its more out of tradition than practicality. If a player hits a ball out of bounds and decides to simply not record the 2-stroke penalty, at the end of the day, that penalty is going to be assessed whether he likes it or not. A professional golfer can't cheat in golf, therefore his supposed self-regulation is meaningless.

Paintball on the other hand, obviously does not do well under this model.

The only reason a professional golfer can't cheat is because of all the media coverage. However, if no one is watching it would be EASY for a pro golfer cheat. If they found their ball in a bad spot a simple kick... if no one is looking. If paintball had the same amount of media coverage it would be hard to cheat also.

[TheShark]

Wow. Do you watch ANY sports? Hockey enforcers who are always pushing the rules are chastised as "dirty".

Yeah, I do. Maybe if you're talking about a Todd Bertuzi or Marty McSorely incident. Anyone in their right mind is going to chastise that kind of behavior, on or off the ice. By in large though, I disagree. Enforcers are a well established and *expected* part of hockey (well, at least they were - with the new nature of the NHL they are quickly becoming dinosaurs). Go back and listen to NHL commentators before the strike. When you see the hooking/slashing/tripping/interference, you hear their distaste for the current environment of rule enforcement, not for the players' directly. (Again, there are extreme examples that any decent human being can identify as over the line, but we're talking about normal play here, not someone using a CO2 tank as a weapon)

In hockey and football particularly, it is the player's responsibility to push the boundaries - it is the ref's responsibility to hold the line.

I'm not even going to touch your wrestling example. :spit_take

[Lohman446]

The only reason a professional golfer can't cheat is because of all the media coverage. However, if no one is watching it would be EASY for a pro golfer cheat. If they found their ball in a bad spot a simple kick... if no one is looking. If paintball had the same amount of media coverage it would be hard to cheat also.


And they would be extremely chastised.

But think of football where they often talk "he got away with one" or he "had to prevent a major play". Breaking the rules as written and accepting the penalty marks the "heads up" player and is almost looked upon as a good thing.

[TheShark]

The only reason a professional golfer can't cheat is because of all the media coverage. However, if no one is watching it would be EASY for a pro golfer cheat. If they found their ball in a bad spot a simple kick... if no one is looking. If paintball had the same amount of media coverage it would be hard to cheat also.

Exactly! Hopefully technology will eventually make it impossible for pros to behave the way they currently can, which would go a long way toward legitimizing the sport IMO.

[hitech]

The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with requiring players to call themselves out. There is nothing wrong with assessing penalities, regardless of intent. Actually, that is how it should be. It should have always been that way...

[Lohman446]

The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with requiring players to call themselves out. There is nothing wrong with assessing penalities, regardless of intent. Actually, that is how it should be. It should have always been that way...

Exactly - we have just gone away to actually ask, as refs, if the players meant to and not assess a penalty if it was unintentional.

[SlartyBartFast]

Exactly - we have just gone away to actually ask, as refs, if the players meant to and not assess a penalty if it was unintentional.

Woo Hoo!!!! Same conclusion as every other rules based thread:

What paintball needs is well written rules and well trained officials.

[Kwaidd]

this is coming from a old fashioned perspective here possibly and may seem crazy to some folks, but...

what happened to knowing the rules and playing by them? Where did the idea come from that we as players, shouldn't have to worry about playing by the rules...it's the ref's job to enforce the rules, and if they don't catch it then no foul was made. To try and say that we shouldn't have to call ourselves out if a ref doesn't call it for us is silly. That to me is a real irresponsible way to look at a game or at life.

Someone hit on this earlier, the skill factor. if your hit you failed at the skill factor and essentially "lose" and imo should call yerself out. i see so many people talk about "well, it didnt break"...should it even matter if the ball breaks or not? this isnt a water balloon throwing contest, its taking people out with a "firearm" with safe ammunition. If someone hits you, they beat you. it doesnt matter if it bounces/breaks, they marked you and yer out and should call yerself as such.

anyways....thats just my opinion, take it as you may

cheerz

[FallNAngel]

I agree with some of the things you're saying...


what happened to knowing the rules and playing by them? Where did the idea come from that we as players, shouldn't have to worry about playing by the rules...it's the ref's job to enforce the rules, and if they don't catch it then no foul was made.

I completely agree with this. It irritates me to no end when people say "it's no cheating if you aren't caught", such as wiping is ok if you're not caught. I just don't understand the point of playing the game if you're not going to play by the rules.


i see so many people talk about "well, it didnt break"...should it even matter if the ball breaks or not?

Um... yes. It clearly states in the rules that not only does the ball have to break, it has to leave a specific diameter size mark to be considered an elimination. So, yes, it breaking or bouncing can make the difference between being on the winner stand and catching an early ride home.

[Lohman446]

this is coming from a old fashioned perspective here possibly and may seem crazy to some folks, but...

what happened to knowing the rules and playing by them? Where did the idea come from that we as players, shouldn't have to worry about playing by the rules...it's the ref's job to enforce the rules, and if they don't catch it then no foul was made. To try and say that we shouldn't have to call ourselves out if a ref doesn't call it for us is silly. That to me is a real irresponsible way to look at a game or at life.

Someone hit on this earlier, the skill factor. if your hit you failed at the skill factor and essentially "lose" and imo should call yerself out. i see so many people talk about "well, it didnt break"...should it even matter if the ball breaks or not? this isnt a water balloon throwing contest, its taking people out with a "firearm" with safe ammunition. If someone hits you, they beat you. it doesnt matter if it bounces/breaks, they marked you and yer out and should call yerself as such.

anyways....thats just my opinion, take it as you may

cheerz


Yeh.. and then my team would strangle me. I have an obligation to them to when I play.

[trains are bad]

Where did the idea come from that we as players, shouldn't have to worry about playing by the rules...it's the ref's job to enforce the rules, and if they don't catch it then no foul was made.

probably common sense.

Do you consider paintball a game or a sport? If you consider it a game and play for fun then go right ahead.

Many many more people want paintball to be a competitive sport, where the point is to win, to beat the other teams. The only practical, realistic, and indeed, fair system for sports is to have the rules enforced by neutral refs.

I shoudn't even have to say this, but sanctioning your own team is not a smart way to beat the other team, and players should in no way be responsible for enforcing the rules of the game, as they are necessarily biased.

[Kwaidd]

im not saying that the players should make rules and/or enforce them. im not saying there shouldnt be refs. what i am saying is that if yer out yer out...and its sad that some people need a ref to say it b4 they heed it. we know when we are out.

also, i know the "rules" say it needs to be a certain diameter amount of paint to be called out...but thats to show that yes it's a hit and not splatter. however, the point of the game isnt to attach a certain amount of paint to an opposing team members jersey, its to hit the person with the flying object...the paint is just intended to visibly mark the person as being out. unfortunately, paint doesnt always break, but that doesnt mean the person that shot you shouldnt get you out. thats all im saying.

yes refs are great and are needed to keep the game moving at a fast pace with less confusion. but that doesnt mean we as he players shouldnt be able to stand up and play it as straight up as we can and know how.

/salute

-kw

[Lohman446]

im not saying that the players should make rules and/or enforce them. im not saying there shouldnt be refs. what i am saying is that if yer out yer out...and its sad that some people need a ref to say it b4 they heed it. we know when we are out.

also, i know the "rules" say it needs to be a certain diameter amount of paint to be called out...but thats to show that yes it's a hit and not splatter. however, the point of the game isnt to attach a certain amount of paint to an opposing team members jersey, its to hit the person with the flying object...the paint is just intended to visibly mark the person as being out. unfortunately, paint doesnt always break, but that doesnt mean the person that shot you shouldnt get you out. thats all im saying.

yes refs are great and are needed to keep the game moving at a fast pace with less confusion. but that doesnt mean we as he players shouldnt be able to stand up and play it as straight up as we can and know how.

/salute

-kw

THe purpose of the game is to hang the flag, generally through the elimination of the other players. Elimination is gained by leaving a certain size mark on them. To play by other rules is fine, as logn as everyone else is playing by them.

[FallNAngel]

we know when we are out.

Actually, no we always don't. Ever get hit on the pack? What if you're unsure whether a mark qualifies for elimination size or not?


however, the point of the game isnt to attach a certain amount of paint to an opposing team members jersey, its to hit the person with the flying object...the paint is just intended to visibly mark the person as being out.

Yes, the paint is intended to mark the person out... hence, if there's no paint, they're not marked out. It *CLEARLY* states in the rules that eliminations are determined by a specific size mark of paint (I believe the size of a dime... or a quarter.. can't remember which). It does *NOT* say "If you're hit with a paintball, whether it breaks or not, you're out. The paint is there only for festive decoration"


unfortunately, paint doesnt always break, but that doesnt mean the person that shot you shouldnt get you out. thats all im saying.

Actually, yes it does. If that's all you're saying, perhaps you should switch games to airsoft. In paintball, the paint *MUST* break. Period. Expecting anyone to not play how the rules are written is just asking for more confusion.

[trains are bad]

Right. On top of expecting players to call penalties on themselves, and giving players breaks depending on whether they meant to break the rules or not (thought crime), you also have people that reference some kind of special unspoken paintball code.

There is no such code. There is no honor. Nobody wants to be dependent on the honor of the opposing team. There is the rules. Read them, assuming they exist. And play by them.

That is all.

If you don't have rules, you don't have a sport. And if you have no way to enforce rule violations, you don't have rules.

Which is why paintball as a competitive sport is a joke.

[onedude36]

Right. All those in favor of taking money out of the prizes and or higher entry fee to hire more/better refs.

*raises hand*

[SlartyBartFast]

It *CLEARLY* states in the rules that eliminations are determined by a specific size mark of paint (I believe the size of a dime... or a quarter.. can't remember which).

Common misconception. It *CLEARLY* says nothing of the kind. Unless your field uses their own rules and not one of the coomon rule books from a major series, read a copy of the rules again.

The size of the paint mark is supposed to be used only when there is a dispute as to whether a paintball broke or whether the paint on a player is splatter or a hit. In other words, only when the ref is performing the paintcheck and the ref beleives there’s a good chance the plater being checked was subject to direct or indirect splatter.


On top of expecting players to call penalties on themselves

Nobody asks players to call PENALTIES on themselves. Penalties are what are given by the refs when a player doesn’t follow the rules.

In every sport, players are required and expected to follow the basic rules and to police themselves. If paintball players aren’t going to call themselves out, what exactly are they responsible for?


and giving players breaks depending on whether they meant to break the rules or not (thought crime)

Which is I think the near unanimous conclusion in all these threads. Rules must be written, interpreted, and enforced in Black and white terms.


There is no such code. There is no honor. Nobody wants to be dependent on the honor of the opposing team. There is the rules. Read them, assuming they exist. And play by them.

As for an unwritten “code”. Every sport has one. It’s called basic sportsmanship. The expectation that all players will honourable follow the rules, respect their fellow players, and compete fairly. The basic expectation that opponents won’t be atempting to break every rule in the book when the ref isn’t looking.

Without that basic assumption all sport, competitive or for fun, is pointless. Unless it's the WWE. :p

The “win-at-all-costs” mentality has unfortunately been sold to us and been embraced by the “me first” society we are living in. It is further exacerbated by the various “in-your-face” lifestyles that have been marketed to followers and participants in various sports. Paintball isn’t unique.

But the reality is that “win-at-all-costs” is incompatible with every game and sport played. Unless it’s a blood sport where the winner is the last person stnading, all sport is governed by rules. Sport and games are not a test of who is best “no matter what”. They are tests of specific or related skills with limitations to both even out other differences and to effectively measure the “winning conditions”.

While trash-talking and other “in-your-face” behaviour has come to be acceptable and justified as part of the “mental” part of many games, the truth is that it undermines one of the basic ideals of sportsmanship. It destroys respect for opponents and officials. The test of two opponents is degenerated into the level of arguing siblings and fueding two-year olds. Trying to push the other’s buttons to make them get them punished.

In many cases the current understanding of sport goes further than a disrespect for opponents and game officials and promotes a disrespect for society as those that win on the field confuse being best at a game equates to being the best at life.

[SlartyBartFast]

Right. All those in favor of taking money out of the prizes and or higher entry fee to hire more/better refs.

*raises hand*

You're not the first one to come to that conclusion.