latex gloves or .....?
Hugo Domingues banned for 8yrs for assulting a marshal in Bitburg.
- Thread starter P8ntball News
- Start date
- Status
Ide say 8 years is a hell of a long time for a punishment
I get that yea punishment is punishment and hugo is responsible for the actions etc but damn
8 years is a long time, if i got banned at 20 and knew i had to wait till i was about 30 to play again i dont think i would play again given the time ide have to wait.
Ide say a year or 2 would be suffice depending on how many tournes he'd miss and a fine.
I agree that his actions are way out of line though
I get that yea punishment is punishment and hugo is responsible for the actions etc but damn
8 years is a long time, if i got banned at 20 and knew i had to wait till i was about 30 to play again i dont think i would play again given the time ide have to wait.
Ide say a year or 2 would be suffice depending on how many tournes he'd miss and a fine.
I agree that his actions are way out of line though
How is it a good idea to send out the message "If you sucker punch a ref whilst sat at a table after a game when nobody is expecting it we will just slap you on the wrist"?
A police report was filed and the German authorities were on site looking for Hugo the following day. I have no idea if they caught up with him, if he had any sense he'd have been on an early flight home pronto.
I don't know where German law stands on assault charges, but this is copied from the CPS website:
If the headline to this thread were:
Hugo Domingues jailed for assaulting a marshal in Bitburg.
Would the reaction be the same?
A police report was filed and the German authorities were on site looking for Hugo the following day. I have no idea if they caught up with him, if he had any sense he'd have been on an early flight home pronto.
I don't know where German law stands on assault charges, but this is copied from the CPS website:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#a04
If the headline to this thread were:
Hugo Domingues jailed for assaulting a marshal in Bitburg.
Would the reaction be the same?
Courtesy of View From The Deadbox:-
The Banning of H.D.
At the recent Millennium Series Bitburg event a long time pro player, H.D., was involved in an altercation with a ref that resulted in H.D. punching the ref. Bits and pieces of the details can be found at PBN. While I am aware the name of the individual has been made public I'll be sticking with his initials. The point is that from my perspective the who isn't important. I have no intention of arguing the specific details or the merits of the ban given what transpired. My interest is twofold; documented rules that make enforcement transparent and consistent and a curiosity regarding league standards of conduct with respect to their representatives.
Okay, here's where it gets really tedious. Yep, we're delving into what passes for the MS rules. Sorry but it's necessary. All I can find is the rule book (2006) plus changes that are available on the MS website. In conjunction with those the MS also lists player suspensions for the current season. None of the changes listed includes any relevant to this situation documentation. Consequently I am relying on the only documentation I could find.
Throughout the rule book the phrase that is used for this situation is physical contact. See Penalties and Additional Penalties. Under section 39 [Suspensions, Ejections, DQs & Fines] it goes so far as to identify "intentional physical contact that could be construed to be assault & battery" in subsection 39.04 which results in an immediate ejection from the event and a one event suspension. The only place the language changes is in section 40 [Decorum] subsection 40.02 that stipulates up to a one year suspension can be handed out for a physical altercation. Those are the two areas that speak most directly to the H.D. situation. Within the commonly available rule book there is no banning penalty option--of any duration--unless you use ban for suspension interchangeably. Nor even a multiple event suspension option as 39.06 makes clear that continuing unsportsmanlike conduct after an ejection and/or suspension is to be handled with a fine. The only possibility of multi-event suspensions within the rules is covered in 39.05 that stipulates that should a player be suspended a second time in the same season [player] "will be banned for at least one more event." This could be interpreted as opening the door to multi-event suspensions but only under the very specific circumstances of a second suspension within the same year.
Btw, having found no supporting rules in any available variant of the MS rules I checked to see if the MS was subject--as a member of the EPBF--to any written EPBF rules governing the subject at hand. Turns out there aren't. Any such rules. (For your own look see go here.) As the EPBF appears to be intended to have direct oversight of Eurorefs I took a look there too for any applicable information or guidelines. That portion of the EPBF is to date incomplete. (See here.) And since the EPBF is (at some future date intended to operate) under the auspices of the UPBF as the world governing body I even took a look there. Sorta. Turns out I could have upbf.com from GoDaddy today. (I passed.) The best information I could find on the UPBF is here. Bottom line, from all sources available it appears the decision of an 8 year ban is outside the parameters of the league's own rules. You may argue so were the actions involved. I would disagree given the language in some of the rules provisions. Regardless the point that remains is if the league can mete out arbitrary penalties to H.D. they can do the same at anytime to anyone else too. And that should be recognized as everyone's problem--and one that needs to be dealt with before a similar situation occurs.
If you don't think the issue is one that should concern you take a look at this page on the MS website. It's the current suspensions list for 2012. You will note that to date this year 3 players besides H.D. have received multi-event suspensions--contrary to the written rules.
Now about that other business. Does the league hold its refs and other reps to any kind of standard of conduct? The question arises because part of the story that is coming out claims the ref who got punched lied (prior to the punch) in order to justify pulling H.D.'s card on the field (which constituted an automatic suspension and ejection.) If true it doesn't justify H.D.'s actions. It does go some way to explain how the situation escalated to the point where a punch was thrown. Again, if true, it seems to me to have a bearing on the final outcome. It means the ref shares some portion of the blame and makes the league complicit with the only guy paying a price for his actions, the customer. After all if lying about what occurred on the field is okay with the MS what else is okay? Drunken refs? Refs under the influence? If there are no standards there is no accountability.
In an attempt to assure accuracy and perhaps get a statement regarding the Mill's thinking in leveling a ban of this duration I have contacted the league's head of rules & officials with a series of short questions and a request for a clarification. I asked about justification of the ban in accordance with the current rule book. (Yes, I know but this is serious business so no laughing aloud--or allowed.) I asked about the outcome of any similar past incidents and I asked if the league had any formal or informal standards of conduct for their referees. When that reply is forthcoming VFTD will revisit the topic
Sunday, June 3, 2012The Banning of H.D.
At the recent Millennium Series Bitburg event a long time pro player, H.D., was involved in an altercation with a ref that resulted in H.D. punching the ref. Bits and pieces of the details can be found at PBN. While I am aware the name of the individual has been made public I'll be sticking with his initials. The point is that from my perspective the who isn't important. I have no intention of arguing the specific details or the merits of the ban given what transpired. My interest is twofold; documented rules that make enforcement transparent and consistent and a curiosity regarding league standards of conduct with respect to their representatives.
Okay, here's where it gets really tedious. Yep, we're delving into what passes for the MS rules. Sorry but it's necessary. All I can find is the rule book (2006) plus changes that are available on the MS website. In conjunction with those the MS also lists player suspensions for the current season. None of the changes listed includes any relevant to this situation documentation. Consequently I am relying on the only documentation I could find.
Throughout the rule book the phrase that is used for this situation is physical contact. See Penalties and Additional Penalties. Under section 39 [Suspensions, Ejections, DQs & Fines] it goes so far as to identify "intentional physical contact that could be construed to be assault & battery" in subsection 39.04 which results in an immediate ejection from the event and a one event suspension. The only place the language changes is in section 40 [Decorum] subsection 40.02 that stipulates up to a one year suspension can be handed out for a physical altercation. Those are the two areas that speak most directly to the H.D. situation. Within the commonly available rule book there is no banning penalty option--of any duration--unless you use ban for suspension interchangeably. Nor even a multiple event suspension option as 39.06 makes clear that continuing unsportsmanlike conduct after an ejection and/or suspension is to be handled with a fine. The only possibility of multi-event suspensions within the rules is covered in 39.05 that stipulates that should a player be suspended a second time in the same season [player] "will be banned for at least one more event." This could be interpreted as opening the door to multi-event suspensions but only under the very specific circumstances of a second suspension within the same year.
Btw, having found no supporting rules in any available variant of the MS rules I checked to see if the MS was subject--as a member of the EPBF--to any written EPBF rules governing the subject at hand. Turns out there aren't. Any such rules. (For your own look see go here.) As the EPBF appears to be intended to have direct oversight of Eurorefs I took a look there too for any applicable information or guidelines. That portion of the EPBF is to date incomplete. (See here.) And since the EPBF is (at some future date intended to operate) under the auspices of the UPBF as the world governing body I even took a look there. Sorta. Turns out I could have upbf.com from GoDaddy today. (I passed.) The best information I could find on the UPBF is here. Bottom line, from all sources available it appears the decision of an 8 year ban is outside the parameters of the league's own rules. You may argue so were the actions involved. I would disagree given the language in some of the rules provisions. Regardless the point that remains is if the league can mete out arbitrary penalties to H.D. they can do the same at anytime to anyone else too. And that should be recognized as everyone's problem--and one that needs to be dealt with before a similar situation occurs.
If you don't think the issue is one that should concern you take a look at this page on the MS website. It's the current suspensions list for 2012. You will note that to date this year 3 players besides H.D. have received multi-event suspensions--contrary to the written rules.
Now about that other business. Does the league hold its refs and other reps to any kind of standard of conduct? The question arises because part of the story that is coming out claims the ref who got punched lied (prior to the punch) in order to justify pulling H.D.'s card on the field (which constituted an automatic suspension and ejection.) If true it doesn't justify H.D.'s actions. It does go some way to explain how the situation escalated to the point where a punch was thrown. Again, if true, it seems to me to have a bearing on the final outcome. It means the ref shares some portion of the blame and makes the league complicit with the only guy paying a price for his actions, the customer. After all if lying about what occurred on the field is okay with the MS what else is okay? Drunken refs? Refs under the influence? If there are no standards there is no accountability.
In an attempt to assure accuracy and perhaps get a statement regarding the Mill's thinking in leveling a ban of this duration I have contacted the league's head of rules & officials with a series of short questions and a request for a clarification. I asked about justification of the ban in accordance with the current rule book. (Yes, I know but this is serious business so no laughing aloud--or allowed.) I asked about the outcome of any similar past incidents and I asked if the league had any formal or informal standards of conduct for their referees. When that reply is forthcoming VFTD will revisit the topic
That VTDB paragraph was so badly written, I struggled to get much from it. If what I understand is correct, the point of the article was that:
A: The actions that Hugo took aren't covered in the rule book, or any rule book that could be construed as having effect in European paintball; therefore there is no written punishment for such actions and the ban is somewhat placed on questionable grounds.
B: MS are being directly criticised for handing out 'a ban out of thin air', even going so far as stating that everyone should be fearful of their position in the series because of this.
Please correct me if I misunderstood the above.
If I do understand it correctly - that's hogwash. Seriously.
If somebody can get a five year jail sentence under governing law for their actions, then a ban from playing tournament paintball isn't that bloody questionable, I'd probably say it shouldn't even be that far up on their list of priorities. It's not even from all paintball, it's a MS ban! He can still play other tournaments, or whatever recreational paintball he wishes to.
Not to even mention the fact that that he, or a sponsor, was paying for the privilege for him to be there, it's not his God given right. MS don't have to let him anywhere near their grounds if they don't want to - people seem to be forgetting this. If he wants to throw caution to the wind by hitting the EVENT STAFF, he should be well prepared to not be welcome again. I don't see the difficulty in that logic.
A: The actions that Hugo took aren't covered in the rule book, or any rule book that could be construed as having effect in European paintball; therefore there is no written punishment for such actions and the ban is somewhat placed on questionable grounds.
B: MS are being directly criticised for handing out 'a ban out of thin air', even going so far as stating that everyone should be fearful of their position in the series because of this.
Please correct me if I misunderstood the above.
If I do understand it correctly - that's hogwash. Seriously.
If somebody can get a five year jail sentence under governing law for their actions, then a ban from playing tournament paintball isn't that bloody questionable, I'd probably say it shouldn't even be that far up on their list of priorities. It's not even from all paintball, it's a MS ban! He can still play other tournaments, or whatever recreational paintball he wishes to.
Not to even mention the fact that that he, or a sponsor, was paying for the privilege for him to be there, it's not his God given right. MS don't have to let him anywhere near their grounds if they don't want to - people seem to be forgetting this. If he wants to throw caution to the wind by hitting the EVENT STAFF, he should be well prepared to not be welcome again. I don't see the difficulty in that logic.
This time next year No-one will remember, Oh sure they will remember the incident in Germany but wont remember who it was ... soon forgotten.
- Status