An interesting thought of.... ummmm, well just read

[bryceeden]

Originally posted by bunkermaster10
Seriously just think about it. It would be so easy to do. You can shot whatever marker you want but you have to use that hopper. So you can still have boucne settings but you won't be able to go over that max bps speed of the hopper.

I agree, this is the best bps control idea I have ever heard.

[Beemer]

[Miltonyz]

If I can provide sources that say categorically that paintball-related injuries have increased per player (percentage-wise)

Or as a "direct result of increased rates of fire" or a quote to that effect, you will accept that as categorical proof?

The first quote would have little impact on my current thinking.

The second would have to make me rethink my stance. The degree to which it moves me would depend on the size of the numbers of course. If 5 people got injured in part because of rof I wouldn't think much. If that number starts getting high I would have to rethink my stance.

While you are there do you think you could look up injuries that are not related to getting hit by the pball, such as broken bones, twisted knees, and the like?

[Brophog]

Sure its doable, assuming we're picking an arbitrary number in the 15-17 range.

Take away illegal bounces and RT's and there isn't a mechanical that will get that high.

The electros are easy to reprogram. You just have to do it.

It is however much more difficult than it was when we were talking about doing this over 10 years ago. That's the point. If you don't control it now, it will be even more difficult 10 years in the future when we're still having the same arguments.

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by fallout11

And Lohman446:
Miltonyz is dead wrong.

What if I said I COULD prove categorically that injury rates per paintball player were rising?

Would you agree then?


I'll post it tomorrow. Work is over for the day now.

I await that post with interest.

Let me say this though, you would have to show me that this is caused by excessive paint in the air and not by the more aggressive play of the players themselves - personally I think that more injuries can be attributed to the lack of a surrender rule (though having one is probably not possible given current attitudes) than the increase in rate of fire.

I think the increase in injuries is the movement towards a more competetive enviroment in both tournament and rec scenes (if it exists, I have not checked numbers). I beleive that I face a higher likelihood of injury than my backplayers because I play more aggressively than they do, be it from the field, or from a bunkering, or whatever. I know the risk of serious injury is there, we have managed that risk through certain precautions, goggle standards and chrono speeds. I make sure my own goggles are in good order as well as renters around me, others need to take that responsibility on themselves. If I was in a situation where proper chronograph procedures were not being followed to my standards, I would walk away from it. I beleive we have banned full auto as a safey concern, and am concerned with this shot buffering and bounce thing, but do not think limiting BPS is the way to do it. I personally think shot buffering and debounce to the degree used are already against the rules and should be banned - making new rules when we won't enforce the old ones will gain us nothing. I have accepted a degree of risk to playing, and am happy with that degree - I am much more likely to sustain injury driving to the field than I am playing the game.

[fallout11]

Sorry I was out of town for the weekend (and a miserable weekend to travel it was, too....)

But back to the issue.

As promised:

THEORY: Increasing rates of fire for paintball guns have made the game inherently more dangerous.

GIVEN:
A) During the period from 1998 through 2000, paintball marker rates of fire (and average BPS) increased dramatically (mainly tied to loader development).

B) Safety equipment (goggles, padding) in 2000 was at least as good as in 1998.

C) Other safety-related factors remained at least constant (field owners didn't add barbed wire to the field or new stumps, etc.)

PROOF:
From 1998 through 2000, the number of paintball players increased from 5.923 million to 7.121 million.
An increase of 20.2%.
Very respectible.

Source

However, during the same period (1998 to 2000), the number of reported/documented injuries to paintball players increased from 926 to 2780.
An increase of 200.2%!

Source


CONCLUSION:
So, in 2000, any given player was 2.5 times more likely to be injured playing paintball than in 1998.

Oddly enough, this coinsides pretty much precisely with the rate of fire increase that occured during the same period, as players moved from gravity drop loaders and 9 volt Revvy's, with a max rate of fire around 6 BPS, to Ricochets, 12 volt X-boarded revvies, halo A's, evolutions, and warp feeds, with BPS rates of 12 or more.

[fallout11]

With this said, let me say that I do not feel that paintball is inherently dangerous. It is still a safe sport. But I'd like it to stay that way. Bad PR is something this "niche market" cannot sustain a lot of.


And even though I've defended the pro BPS limit stance on this forum, I do tend to agree with Lohman that the prevailing attitudes of players that developed during the late 1990's, and the more aggressive play styles that came from this, probably do contribute heavily to the increase in injuries, and to a less "enjoyable" game for many.

But to my way of thinking, they are part and parcel with one another, going hand in hand. The days of the older and or more mature player, coupled with the slower rates of fire made for a less aggressive game, which, in turn, made for less chance for injury on the field. I do not lay the blame for this solely on technology, as a marker is merely an inanimate object. Players must be held accountable for their own actions.
We are where we are today, in this sport, largely due to our own inaction in the past, and largesse.

If the prevailing trends and "just let it ride" attitude of most are allowed to proceed, I fear not for the safety of the players so much as for the lack of an entertaining, fun, and exciting game.
As Lohman points out, we all know the risks, and accept them to play. I for one just do not want to see those risks become unacceptable, or publicized to the wrong people, or for the game to become stale and boring.
Who wants to watch or even participate in a sport that involves hunkering behind a blow-up bag, spraying 1800 rounds a minute at some other guy hunkered down behind a blow up bag a few feet away for 7 minutes?

Anyway, I've vented my spleen now, and will let it go at that. Spitting in the wind, as they say...

[bryceeden]

I had hoped that this tread would just die. That is also the point in time when speedball and extream players startd to really hit the mainstream of the sport. I don't think that that rise was due to rate of fire, but more due to a change in playing style.

[Beemer]

Originally posted by bryceeden
I had hoped that this tread would just die.

I didnt. There is still MORE not known and I will bring this back or start a new Thread.

Thanks fallout11

[Brophog]

I think that is a very good point Bryceeden. The more aggressive, no quarter style did appear in that time period as well.

That aggressiveness is not going away, so we must make the game as safe and foolproof as possible. Since people are now much more apt to get shot at point blank range, we must be able to limit the number of rounds used in such a situation.

You make safety rules for the extreme cases, not the ordinary ones. From a safety aspect, you want to make the game as safe as possible in the worst case scenario.

I do not feel like a reasonable bps cap interferes with the style of the game played today. It will, however, help keep injuries low in the future.

Like I've said all along, this is as much to do with forward planning as it has to do with anything. You must consider what is out there and past trends and see that the ROF will keep going up. Cap it now to a reasonable level before its too late.

[fallout11]

Well said.

[Beemer]

what you dont know

ditto on the post Brophog.

I still think rof is an issue, but it really only takes one shot to do the damage. I dont have all the facts yet.

Think of the worst welt you ever saw or had. Now think about 1, 2, 3 or even 6 of those to the back of the head and neck.

What happens to cause the welt? Broken blood vessels, damage to the area to cause bruseing internal bleeding or hemorrageing. Now think about this affecting your brain or spine and the hemorrageing going where it aint supposed to.
Then you can say ya I got this way from a headshot if you can say anything at all.

This was said from a field owner I talked to."you cant child proof the world"
This made me think.


From all the other people I have taked to I get this.
"Its not about safety, No body cares." Why do I keep hearing this?

This makes me sad.

Peace out
Beemer

[SaS]

viva la independant company. viva la AGD

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DogHouseDan

Example: A player at a major event gets over shot bad, in a bunker move. He goes to the referring staff to complain and nothing happens. He goes to Hospital and takes pictures. Then he calls his favorite ambulance chaser and sets up a lawsuit. They call a press conference; show pictures (And you all know how nasty some hits can look). They state to the news media that they are suing the Marker manufacturer, Hopper maker and event promoter for negligence. All it takes is a video of one player shooting over 20 BPS on the news and a lawsuit.
QUOTE]

Sad truth, as stated many times before

It will take some serious pressure to change this stranglehold.

It's a money strangle hold.
Paintball componies support the events, we support them. If we change in a way to lower their income(lower paint expenditures) they could and probably would lower their support of our events.

"They won't give us money unless we give them more money" "they won't support us if we don't support them"

People won't stand for the lack of support for these events and will demand another change. So the rules, or whathave you, go back. Paint usage, or whathaveyou, goes up and the paintball companies raise their level of support again.

with that mentality, we as players are subject to whatever fate those companies see fit.

Solutions:
1. Non paintball affiliated sponsorship
2. non profit paintball programs. IF sponsored, can't be by paintball related compainies.
3. Public/media/legal pressure for change because the change will, hypothetically, lower their profits. Even if the change wouldn't effect them finacially, it would likely be seen as it would by the "profesionals" involved. ie. Executives, etc.

#3 will most certainly portray paintball in a negative light BUT is the most likely of them all to take place

[Lohman446]

This thread, this consideration resulted in a call to my insurance agent.

"I play paintball - do my standard policies cover me or do I need to expand a personal liability insurance to cover this?"

Him: "You are intentionally shooting another projectile at someone that may result in injury?"

Me: "Well no.. paintball is relatively safe... ummm hmm, yeh"

Him: "You are going to need a rider for this to be covered, there is no way you are currently covered for shooting a projectile intentionally at someone even if you do not intend to harm them."

Me: "Darn..."

Just for the record, I would play uninsured if it comes down to it, I think the risk of injury is extremely rare. However, if you were ever sued over it.. I think the intentionally shooting a projectile at someone, no matter how safe the sport may be, is going to hurt you.

[Beemer]

You

Been playing for 17yrs,From 12 gram to now seen it all and I've been saying "Hmmmm" thru it all. Welcome to the party.

This could be a start.



This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,
United States.

I would be at this meeting in a heart beat. It would be a start of a trail. Not to mention the weight of the AMA might help to make em stick to the standards and guide lines. Lots of angles. Still working on knowing more.
Might not seem like much, but see what happens as soon as you mention ASTM and standards.

Beemer