Face Masks or not?

[Tyger]

'Pain' is just a nerve signal that you can go a long way towards controlling. I remember many teams 'back in the day' who practiced 'not flinching' when hit, because it would give them away. I'm by no means the only player who can and has done this.

You mean they're no longer drilling to that? Hrm. Dang. Chalk up another "advantage" to being old school...

-Tyger

[GoatBoy]

I'll have to say, I'm the biggest wimp out there -- I don't like getting hit anywhere, even if it's on the gun! So I wind up playing really tight in my bunker and moving when I'm less likely to get hit. I'm watchful for people trying to bunker me, and try to keep my eyes open so I know where everybody is so I don't get caught unaware. I also try to cover and work with my team, because if they get eliminated, that tends to increase the chances of me getting shot. I'll be the first to admit my wimpy ways!

[xXHavokXx]

You mean they're no longer drilling to that? Hrm. Dang. Chalk up another "advantage" to being old school...

-Tyger

Nope I know people who tell kids not to flinch because that's an obvious hit.

[rabidchihauhau]

Someone on here said 'if the insurance companies did their research' - or something to that effect - then they would be requiring masks.

What I'm saying is:

The insurance provider I used DID their research

The insurance provider I used provides insurance for all CONTACT sports

The insurance provider I used is used to seeing claims for broken arms, collar bones, necks, concussions, multi-million dollar career-ending injuries, hockey pucks hitting children's heads, stadium seating collapsing, criminal charges stemming from fights between spectators and game officials (and players), etc., etc., etc.

The insurance provider I used has been in business for decades and was one of the LEADING providers of sports insurance coverage

The insurance provider I used researched paintball standards by consulting the ASTM standards, other sports protective gear standards, various experts in the paintball industry and their own internal resources.

Their conclusion was that masks were not necessary to provide a safe, insurable environment.

In fact, they went so far as to provide me coverage for specators not wearing goggles - without netting - so long as the spectators were x feet away from the action (the distance being determined by the amount of velocity a ball would shed in that distance): remember - these guys deal with hockey pucks, baseballs and golfballs going into unprotected crowds.

I informed all attendees at the event that they were free to play maskless if they chose to do so; no one took me up on the opportunity BUT:

the issue is THE PLAYERS HAD A CHOICE

And I found out that it is possible for paintball to be treated like any other sport - when it comes to insurance coverage and spectating. (Our plan was for premium seating to include a pair of goggles - but no netting around the field. Ultimately we did not do that for a variety of reasons [safety concerns NOT being one of them] - but I could hook back up with those guys again in a heartbeat and do it)

Oh, btw - many of the refs worked with half masks or goggles only..... and I see that often at events and some fields. Don't refs usually take more paint than players....?

Choice and NOT being forced to do something when it is unnecessary except to line someone's pocket or give them a feeling of control, that's what I',m talking about

[GoatBoy]

I'm having deja vu...

[rabidchihauhau]

must be a reset of the matrix...

[GoatBoy]

must be a reset of the matrix...

Hahaha... that just gave me a flashback to the MTV parody of the architect scene with Will Ferrell...

[Evil Bob]

Interesting... removing the netting to provide a better view for the spectators.

Where paintball differes from all the other sports you mention: In all the above sports save golf, there is only one ball being used at a time, golf is the exception because there is one ball per player participating.

Baseball: A single ball goes out into the audience, it's usually caught by the fans, they're easy to see.

Hockey: a single puck, black, difficult to see once it's off the ice, it has a tendency to surprise fans when it lands in the bleechers simply because they couldn't see it coming in the poor lighting.

Golf: Usually white balls, sometimes flourescent, can be easy to see if you know what to look for, but can surprise people if they're not paying attention.

Paintball: multiple projectiles, many focused into the same area at any given time (that whole accuracy through volume deal).

Paintball typically has players playing at the edge of the field, rounds fly out of the game area on a regular basis as other players are trying to eliminate these players on the tape, the logistics alone for cleaning up the resulting mess makes setting up netting a no brainer to help contain the game area, thats not even touching upon the safty aspects of spectators on the sidelines, unlike any sport you mentioned, there is more likelyhood of spectators getting hit in paintball then any other sport you mention.

So how fast does an object have to be moving to cause eye injury? 200 mph? 100 mph? 50 mph? 10 mph? How quickly does a paintball shed it's speed and at what range does this insurance agency deem it "safe" to go without eye protection for the spectators? I for one would like to see their research on the subject.

Who was it that turned and fired on the audience in x-ball when they were getting heckled by the spectators? There was a net involved, so the folks on the sidelines were relatively protected, all they got was a bit of splatter... imagine what would have happened without netting when this "pro" player cut loose? We see pros lose their tempers quite often in big tournies, why would anyone not want to protect the spectators at all? Should we lower the board height in hockey to 4 feet to give the audience a better view of the game? Provide complimentory face shields to the first three rows? Why not? So many other sports dont have such restrictions, why should hockey be any different? why should paintball be any different? Just tell the spectators to "tough it out" and dont worry since your insurance is paid in full. If someone gets hurt or dies, they're covered.

Hypothetical situation: You get said insurance and decide not to put up netting because you desire paintball to be viewed just like any other sport... As is inevitable, team A is gunning down a lone runner from team B on the tape, several hundreds rounds of paiint fly into the first couple of rows of spectators, multiple people are hit, one in the 4th row (outside of the complimentary goggle zone) suffers a serious eye injury, they in turn sue the venue for not providing a safe family environment. No prob, you're covered by insurance, the insurance company pays the injured spectator off. So do your premiums go up the next time you seek out company X for insurance or do they give you the same bargain with zero stipulations or requests to change your format? How many people need to get hurt before the common sense factor kicks in?

This reminds me of the method that the US Navy used to establish the dive tables we use today... Seaman Johnson, take this tank of air and go down to 50 feet. Johnson hits 30 feet and dies. Seaman Smith, take this tank of air (same fill as johnsons) and go down to 50 feet. Smith hits 30 feet and promptly dies just like Johnson. Chief: Yeah, that confirms it, pure oxygen is leathal at that depth, lets try 40 feet this time...

-Evil Bob

[rabidchihauhau]

Evil Bob,

you are confusing 'willful acts' with 's*** happens'

and, the one major difference you did not mention (unless I missed it) was that all of the other balls/pucks used are larger in circumference than the eye orbit of a person (victim); something smashing into your eye can break the bones surrounding it, but sinfce that will absorb most of the impact and stop further penetration, its unlikely that permanent damage will be done to the eye itself; a paintball getting in there, at velocity, can destroy the entire eye.

You are also somewhat attacking the concept, which allows me to pontificate a little: when I get involved with something, I never accept the status quo 'just because'; I always question. Why do we do it this way? Why not try that way? Everyone says its too dangerous - well, lets find out instead of taking them at face value.

The concerns you raised are really only appropriate for discussion in the area of unintentional spillover - bouncers off of bunkers, ricochets, etc, and all of our research has shown that by the time a ball bounces off of a bunker, its shed enough velocity to be harmless (so far as permanent injury is concerned).

Permanent injury - this is what an insurance provider is really concerned about, because permanent injuries are the ones that produce million dollar lawsuits; someone who's arm was broken gets their doctor bills paid; someone who loses an arm gets wages, doctor bills, pain and suffering, etc.

A player who turns and fires into the crowd would: A - be tackled and beaten to death immediately by the reffing crew that I hire; B. would be the ultimate defendant in a suit C. would get sued by me, my insurance provider and the person(s) shot (not to mention the people sitting next to them who got scared) and D. would be defending himself from a jail cell.

We solved the distance issue by closing off the lower tier of seating, so that any shot was not only travelling 100-150' of linear distance, but also an additional 20 some odd feet because of the elevation. You could stand there all day and take hits and few, if any of them would break (this is distance from the outer boundary of the playing field); the height of the stands makes it 'feel' closer, so nothing was really lost in the imemdiacy of 'being in the action'.

[Beemer]

another one

" How many people need to get hurt before the common sense factor kicks in?"


Thats Classic..........Tell that to the industry that put up SAFETY Standards and then just blows them off

[DK1]

Rabid- I guess what I would say is, I don't trust that insurance company to tell me what is safe. I trust them to tell me what they are willing to insure, but insurable and safety are two separate things. They can pay for stitches, and even plastic surgery. They can compensate for eye injury.. but what's it worth to not have to worry about it at all? That's what safety standards committees are for, deciding what is safe, not just what is cost effective. Most large casualty/property insurance companies are in the game top make money off of your premiums by investing it. They figure they are going to have to pay the total of the premiums out to cover claims and expenses, but their profit comes from that interest, not your premiums. That means that they aren't counting on no accidents happening, just that not enough of them will happen so as to bankrupt them. I'd say paintball specific insurance companies are trying to prevent the accidents alltogether, not just hedge against the financial impact of them, thus they require higher standards.

DK1

[Beemer]

Feel

I feel a rant coming



"That's what safety standards committees are for, deciding what is safe, not just what is cost effective."


You dont get it. They put up standards and are not following them. Can you say SMG fullauto banned[why] deemed unsafe or high risk. No standards even exist that I know of for HPA systems 3000psi let along 4500psi. Gun standards.......Ya they decide what isnt safe but do it anyway..............................

[DK1]

I feel a rant coming



"That's what safety standards committees are for, deciding what is safe, not just what is cost effective."


You dont get it. They put up standards and are not following them. Can you say SMG fullauto banned[why] deemed unsafe or high risk. No standards even exist that I know of for HPA systems 3000psi let along 4500psi. Gun standards.......Ya they decide what isnt safe but do it anyway..............................

Their following or not following the rules doesn't make the rules invalid, it just means they are hypocrites. And HPA tanks fall under DOT regulations, I'm not sure about the regulators themselves.

DK1

[GoatBoy]

Rabid- I guess what I would say is, I don't trust that insurance company to tell me what is safe. I trust them to tell me what they are willing to insure, but insurable and safety are two separate things.

Bing! Exactly what I tried to say... what, a page ago.

If everything was safe, you wouldn't need insurance in the first place. They're out there selling you coverage for stuff. You make the decision of what you want to pay and what risks you want to expose yourself to. If they find something unpalatable, they raise your rates or refuse to cover you. What they find palatable and unpalatable is not set in stone -- these things can change.

They run in the same circles. The same people who would have you wear facemasks are the same people who would probably tell you to close off the first tier of seating to spectators. I mean, shouldn't the spectators have the option of sitting in the first tier, should they choose to?


Again, this somewhat philosophical question can be answered without delving into dubious insurance based arguments. The further you attempt to dig in with insurance, the more you invite counterpoints to an already bad position.

[Beemer]

Their following or not following the rules doesn't make the rules invalid, it just means they are hypocrites. And HPA tanks fall under DOT regulations, I'm not sure about the regulators themselves.

DK1

So if you were using a gun that you knew didnt meet astm standards you would be a hypocrite to right? Hmmmm