Notice the language:
21.03 Three-Game Suspension. Players may be suspended, causing the team to play short for three games for the following infractions:
(2) Physical contact during or after play that does not result in injury (e.g., shove, grab, shoulder-bump).
19.04 Two-for-One. Assessment of the two-for-one rule (the removal of the player committing the infraction and two teammates) may take place for the following infractions:
(1) Playing-On. Player continues to play after an obvious hit and materially
alters of the course of the game.
20.02 Elimination of Last Player. If the last player on a team is found to have been playing on with an obvious hit or wiping then the other team will automatically be awarded the pull and the hang.
If anyone even pays attention to the wording then it seems to me that the penalties are optional. That means you're a dizick if you actually pull the penalties; an attitude that is still far too pervasive. How many times have you watched games in any league and seen refs who would finally get around to seeing a hit a player has been wearing and simply call 'em out and pulls their armband, no penalty?
I can read in some old NPPL rulebooks how they were wrestling with that attitude. They added lines to their playing on rules: "..the penalty must be assessed..." But nevertheless if you're 100% percent consistent in enforcing the rules for playing on (which includes staying still after you're hit) then you will--as a ref--get a lot of flak.
In my opinion they should change the verbs "may" and "will automatically" to "shall". Then they ought to do something radical: enforce the playing on rules just like the rules are written. Pull a penalty every single time a player is still in the game wearing a hit. Pull two-for-ones like they were meant to be. If a ref sees paint break on a player, goes in and can't find the hit, pull a three-for-one, every time.
ALL the top teams' players are going to stay in wearing a hit as long as they possibly can, dependent upon their assessment of the overall reffing and the refs in their area. If you assess a penalty against such a player after you ran in and pulled an armband for an obvious, self-checkable hit, he will call you a prick or a Nazi and say, "But you were watching me!"
Baca has pointed out his cynism to rules and rulebooks because they tend not to be worth the paper they're written on. Missy even pointed it out in a concise post regarding a certain league's reffing problems: consistency. We need good, clear, well-written but--most of all--REAL rules that are really meant.
Some good, hands-on officiating leadership is required to shapen these things up in all the leagues. Otherwise this cancer will keep growing and players will have to keep wasting time practicing skills that aren't really to do with paintball.
At least, perhaps, reversing the suspensions was better than ignoring the whole shebang. And Magued seems to get at least some satisfaction and vindication out of all this.
