Face Masks or not?

[tasker89]

Goat -

I wasn't suggesting that the kids today should tear off their masks and play with just a pair of goggles. I was merely answering the question posed in the poll. If I had the option...I would play sans mask. But, I DON'T have the option...because I choose to play at safe, organized and insured fields and I respect the owner's right to compel me to wear a mask. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

My choice aside, I also understand that a player should alter his/her equipment and/or practices as a game evolves. You don't see many football players wearing leather helmets anymore do you? (though an argument could be made that injuries would be reduced in pro football if players weren't wearing suits of armor...enabling them to use their bodies as weapons.)

I would also argue that the greater safety threat exists in electronic markers with forcefeed hooper systems, no mechanical safety and runaway triggers. To which you would say what? Are you complaining about the impressionable young players laying down $1500 of mommy and daddy's money to buy the latest FrenzyWasTurboVictoryHaloTimmyNerveShocker gat?

Rabid -

Thanks for the compliment! I played smart and aggressive in my day...but the modern inflatable game is just not for me. I yearn for the heyday of woodsball. The game required far more subtlety than its modern incarnation. But...I wax nostalgic...

I never thought the day would come when I would be an "old schooler"....

[rabidchihauhau]

tasker,

I remember the day I figured out that you can use field objects to stop a run: I turned to my guys and said 'I can make that tree' - to which they said 'how?', 'no way' and 'are you crazy!?!' Naturally I said 'yes', then I said 'watch this'

It sounded something like 'THUMP- WHAH!' (which was all the air being forcefully expelled from my lungs) - but I made the tree and we won the game.

The rest of that particular season was the scene of numerous thump stops and unexpected field positions as a result of it.

I agree - I wear a mask whenever I play commercially because those are the rules. If backyard ballers want to take MORE chances 'emulating the pros' - no one can stop them anyhow.

[Torbo]

yeah, wear a proflex

[Beemer]

Beemer,
Three years ago I designed a head retention system for goggles that would keep goggles on heads regardless of impact AND which would eliminate the risk of 'facemasking' injuries; the design was aftermarket, so ANY system could have it installed. Do you see it out there today? NO. Why?

Was hoping you would tell me.

"Go dig through the pudding, the proof is in there." The pudding has a bad smell.

Rabid.......What insurance co. did you use for Paint Fest? Why were you so against CA way back? What do you think todays safety issues are?

"Its only MANDATORY at fields that utilize insurance programs that adhere to the ASTM guidelines.
Little known fact - the guidelines are promulgated for commercial fields only - they do not discuss events and particularly competition."

You said ASTM.......Who were those put up to humor

I would also argue that the greater safety threat exists in electronic markers with forcefeed hooper systems, no mechanical safety and runaway triggers. To which you would say what? Are you complaining about the impressionable young players laying down $1500 of mommy and daddy's money to buy the latest FrenzyWasTurboVictoryHaloTimmyNerveShocker gat?

Ya I did the gog only thing. Also played with and against the SMG full auto. Why was that banned again? Look what we have today. See last quote above

Beemer
I.A.D.S.P.B.P

[GoatBoy]

This is the one thing that bothered me. I never saw any data to prove or deny that "fact". Not syaing it's not true, just that I've never seen proof of it.

I also heard that paint grenades can lead to blinding a player too. If a paint grenade catches a player's visor as it falls, the goggles can be pulled away from the eyes, and a player can be blinded. Again, I only 'heard" this, I've never seen it, or met someone who directly HAD seen it.

Well, I don't know if this counts as data or proof, but let me add this for your archive...

A few weeks ago I was practicing some 1vs1 against a kid. I managed to gog him a few times.

Now, he was wearing a cheaper style of goggles; the specific brand for which I cannot remember, either a cheap Scott or JT. I hit him square on the nose of the goggles... And on these goggles, that's where there is a seam between the lens unit and the facemask. Different goggles have different types of seams. Sometimes, they close up or overlap so that there's no direct path straight through. Or, in this case, they just had the two pieces of plastic butting up against each other; no overlap or tight lock.

Well I managed to gog him right on the nose, and the shell managed to break through the seam, find its way through the foam, and into his eye. That pretty much took him out for the day. It was probably a combination of paint impact jostling the goggles, him snapping his head back, and shell bits forcing their way through the seam, all working in unison.

[magmonkey]

I too have played in just a goggle set

I have been shot dirrectly in the ear wearing a set of jt whippers with old cal mag red on red paint (picking through my ear paint,shell................ lots of blood)


I think full masks should be manditory for one reason, common sense, or lack there of.
you know somebody will think its cool to have just a goggle set get a bad face shot and sue the field owner.


Alan DC

[lamby]

I only want to have my eyes and all facial orfices covered. I do not want a ball to hit me anywhere there will be permanent damage. The shell fragments on a mask break will still shred your lips. I would not want to know what a direct lip shot at 5 feet away would feel like (shudder)

so I voted smaller is ok. shoot me in the cheek, I can take it!!! and I would like the bounce factor

[Albinonewt]

Here's the real reason that masks HAVE to be mandatory.


When a 15 year old kid gets shot in the face his parents are going to notice and so are his freinds parents. Now, he may be ok and the bruise/cut will heal but once paintball starts producing extremely visible wounds on a semi-regular basis the sport will suffer.

Every time that I go into work on Monday with bruises on my face from paintball my employees that have kids that want to play will use my wounds as an excuse to say no.

It won't matter that there's an easy way to prevent the wounds (wearing full masks). The only thing that will matter is that it is now very possible to come home on a regular basis with cuts and bruises on your face.

Paintball has been allowed to grow over the past decade because the companies and the players continue to enforce more and more safety. The safer the sport is the more it will grow. Once we start removing safety we start throwing up barriers to growth.

[Beemer]

not

"Paintball has been allowed to grow over the past decade because the companies and the players continue to enforce more and more safety."

I really dont see this.

[rabidchihauhau]

Beemer,

why was I against CA?

Because I saw allowing the introduction of that tech to be the gateway to runaway technology in the game - and guess what? Like so many other future prognostications regarding paintball, I was right.

Its really too bad that no one listens to the things I predicted (5+ years in advance of the reality); here's just a sampling: Conversation at the very first IAO: 'this game won't really get that much bigger until fields can offer 1 or 2 cent per ball paint' (responses ranged from 'that will NEVER happen' to 'you're crazy')

Me to a bunch of industry leaders: 'you guys really need to get together and form a manufacturer's organization, otherwise some 'big' company is going to come along and eat your lunch' (that was about ten years ago)

Me to the owner of a then existent distributor 'you don't want to partner with those guys, they'll run you out of business'; the aforementioned company poo pooed my prediction - they have since changed the name they made famous and are practically out of business.

Me on tournament ball: 'you need to let people see the action and the format has to be similar to other spectator sports' - nothing happened in that regard until I shoved PaintFest down their throats, and then I heard 'wow, this is the greatest thing I've ever seen - we better steal it from him fast before he gets anywhere with it'

Me on venues: 'you're events cost so much because you're spending way too much on the venue' (then I went and rented the best facility that had been seen to date - indoor vendors, indoor bathrooms, private staging areas for every team, grass fields, asphalt parking lots, etc, all for $1500 bucks for a 5 day weekend: now everyone is trying to do fair grounds - but they're STILL charging way too much...)

Me to all and sundry: 'paintball will never be taken seriously until you put in an independant, non-promoter controlled organization' - well, they're STILL not listening to that one.

Or 'the television industry will never take us seriously so long as we're buying infomercials to get the game on tv' - they're still doing that (so far as I'm aware, PaintFest is the ONLY pb event that has NOT paid to get itself aired. I stuck to my guns, believing that it had inherent value and eventually found a production company that was willing to put their dollars up also because THEY also thought it had value. Guess I must be the only guy in the industry who thinks that it's worth something, huh?) BTW - we aired nationwide on Thanksgiving day, 2000, and had excellent market share for the broadcast.

Rant (temporarily) concluded.


For the insurance, I used a company called 'sports insurance'; I had individual liability converage for the venue, for the players, for the spectators AND a whole separate program for the game officials.

These same guys insure pro football stadiums, pro and semi-pro teams and athletes, etc. I thought it was nice to know that if a spectator got hit by an errant ball, there was coverage for them - and equally so if the bleachers collapsed or there was a stampede at the gate...

What do I think today's safety issues are?

let's see - how about electro cheats? That's close to the top of the list. But here's my current pet peeve:

lot's and lots of people jumping into the industry who have no clue and don't desire to have a clue; backyard paintball; industry freaks who support standards when its within their business plan to do so and then drop them when it no longer supports their businesses.

Other than the field operator's manual and the PTI, there are no organizations that are out there to tell and show new folks all of the dangers and pitfalls - and, to be honest, while I think both of those programs are excellent jobs, operated by people who do know what they're talking about, they aren't indendent enough to satisfy my anti-monopoly leanings; I'm not criticizing them in any manner whatsoever and I heartily support and endorse them - I just wish that they were the creatures of a larger, independant industry org instead of being owned by folks who have other - potentially (and I stress potentially) conflicting interests in the industry.

Many other mature industry's recognize that they are in a contradictory situation: some industry related concerns are best handled by the 'industry', while others remain competitive issues. In order to get past that, they go and hire an independant trade organization company, operated by people who make their bucks by fairly representing the WHOLE industry./ What do we get? This org, that org, the other org, all ultimately set up, owned or operated by one or more specific company within the industry. They can't let go long enough to recognize that having their own way ALL the time is actually bad for their own businesses - and they're just too ignorant to realize that once their own involvement is 'outed', the organization they've built is doomed to failure.\

Want me to continue? I've got 21+ years of venom waiting to be spewed - it ought to be pretty entertaining...

[tasker89]

Beemer -

I'm with you. When it suits them, companies in this game continually sidestep safety rules. (Except goggle manufacturers...who would be first targets for any kind of maunfacturing liability lawsuit) I reiterate my previous question: How safe is a marker that has no mechanical safety, has a force feed hopper, and a featherweight runaway trigger? Now...instead of one ball accidentally making its way down the barrel, your gun can fire an entire stream off into the safe area. There isn't a barrel condom/blocking device on the market which will stop a 16 bps stream.

The list of transgressions is long....

[coolcatpete]

as long as my mouth is cover i dont mind but one time a friendwearinf flex 7 got hit inside the mouththe flex bent up while he was talking and the ball hit him right in the roof of the mouth.

Yeah that was me and it sucked. The balls just hit the flexies and went up into the roof of my mouth and I still have a scar. I scaed me so it forced me to swalow 5 paintball, man that is gross.
Pete

[tyrion2323]

The whole facemask thing has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with 'image'; we don't want paintball to appear to be a violent sport, so we'll prevent visible welts from occurring.

You're incorrect. The overwhelming percentage of people voting for "full-face protection" indicates that, perhaps, safety is a concern. Look at the responses. Split lips, deafened ears, missing teeth... If you don't think that safety is a concern of these people, then you're obviously not reading the same thread that I'm reading.

Oh, and for the insinuation that those of us voting for "full-face protection" are wimpy because we have no basis upon which to judge our decision, you're wrong there as well. The protection of one's body is universal and innate. I can accurately gauge what would hurt and damage my face without going to the field and getting shot while only wearing goggles. I don't need experience to know that it's something that would injure me. I also know that getting hit with rocks would hurt me, but I don't have experience with that either...

[GoatBoy]

You're incorrect. The overwhelming percentage of people voting for "full-face protection" indicates that, perhaps, safety is a concern. Look at the responses. Split lips, deafened ears, missing teeth... If you don't think that safety is a concern of these people, then you're obviously not reading the same thread that I'm reading.

Oh, and for the insinuation that those of us voting for "full-face protection" are wimpy because we have no basis upon which to judge our decision, you're wrong there as well. The protection of one's body is universal and innate. I can accurately gauge what would hurt and damage my face without going to the field and getting shot while only wearing goggles. I don't need experience to know that it's something that would injure me. I also know that getting hit with rocks would hurt me, but I don't have experience with that either...

I would take the poll results with a grain of salt.

Take into account the audience that voted in the poll. Between all the people who didn't read the questions fully, didn't understand the questions, or couldn't connect two dots with a straight line, I'd say the results are skewed.

I don't know where you're getting the insinuation that full protection is for wimps from... I'm not getting that impression from rabidchihuahua. I just think he's having difficulty explaining himself clearly.

You have to understand the duality of the question, which is apparent in Tyger's wording in the first post.

What everone is very keen on is their own personal decision to wear a face mask, and that is what most people are talking about and probably voting on.

But the poll question is SHOULD IT BE MANDATORY.

If certain behavior is simply COMMON SENSE, as everyone here seems to agree upon, then there is NO NEED for it to be MANDATORY. You all clearly want to protect yourselves. This is not an issue of PERSONAL protection. If that's not the issue, then what is?

*GoatBoy moves in for the kill*

It's an issue of protecting our precious paint ball image.




Any of you ever study the history of Sparta? I believe they had a saying like, "Come back with your shield, or on it." It was OK for a soldier to lose his helmet, because that was meant for his PERSONAL protection. But it was unacceptable to lose his shield, as it was for the protection of all (I think the allusion is to forming a shield wall; I'll have to doublecheck this.)

[Albinonewt]

I really dont see this.

Then you're either bling or you weren't playing when paintball really wasn't that safe.

If paintball safety had not evolved to barrel plugs, barrel condoms, safeties, full masks, lower chrono speeds and the like does anyone really believe that the sport would have seen the recent surge of interest? Especially among younger players? Do we honestly believe that every younger player that is currently involved in paintball would have been allowed to do so if mom heard stories every once in a while of people getting teeth chipped, biting their tongues off when shot in the mouth, or the more common just coming home witrh tons of bruises and cuts on their face? Do we honestly think that with stories like that out there we would see as high a level of recreational (i'm talking renters, not hardcore rec players) players as we do today?

Never mind the fact that the people playing chould choose to wear full face masks if they wanted, the perception would already be out there. Perception is extemely important, especially to a sport trying to find it's niche.

And does anyone honestly believe that paintball could have evolved this far this fast if the safety equipment and precautions hadn't evolved with it? Neither from a perception nor an actual perspective would it have. Good luck getting insurance or financing for a new paintball company when the general perception is that the sport is too dangereous.

We owe the existance of the sport as much to the evolution of the safety as we do the evolution of the actual paintball products themselves.