Joy Stockholm official comment on OC NPPL

[Chicago]

What are you blathering on about Baca?

If there is 30 seconds left in the match, and you run down the field with hits, and the ref calls the 3-minute major on you in perfect execution of proper referee duty...

You *STILL* only serve 30 seconds of a 3-minute penalty. You've entirely missed the point. The point is that IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE REFS ARE ON THE BALL, BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT THE REFS DO they can't make you serve a 3-minute penalty when there's only 30 seconds left.

And if the WORST thing you can get for playing on with obvious hits is a 30-second penalty, then there is virtually no reason not to do it, and absolutely nothing the refs can do about it. The ref can immediately see the infraction, assess the penalty, and get you off the field, but you're still only going to serve 30 seconds.


THAT'S why the point is given. If you don't give a point when a major penalty is committed in the final 90 seconds, you essentially don't have ANY major penalties at all once you get to the end of the match because there just isn't any time left to serve them. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OFFICIALS.


And, I didn't say ALL major penalties were willful. I said that major penalties generally dealt with willful infractions - specifically, playing on with an obvious hit. Is it POSSIBLE that you have an obvious hit and didn't know about it? Sure. Is it LIKELY? No. And it is ridiculous to write the rules to cater to the small number of cases where the players might accidentally break one. It's exactly that kind of attitude that has gotten us in this mess in the first place. "Well, he MIGHT not have felt that hit on his elbow through his three elbow pads, and since I'm not sure he really meant to play on I'm not going to assess the penalty." And what has that gotten us? A bunch of players very good at acting like they might not know they were hit, arguing with officials trying to convince them that they shouldn't really be penalized because the official doesn't really know if the player meant to do it or not.



It's simple. If you don't want to give up a point to the opponent, don't play on in the final 90 seconds. If you 'accidentally' play on anyway, sucks for you. It's not perfect, but it's better than people playing on in the final 90 seconds with obvious hits when the worst penalty they can get is a 30-second one because there's only 30 seconds left on the clock.

 

[Baca Loco]

And if the WORST thing you can get for playing on with obvious hits is a 30-second penalty, then there is virtually no reason not to do it, and absolutely nothing the refs can do about it. The ref can immediately see the infraction, assess the penalty, and get you off the field, but you're still only going to serve 30 seconds.

So what? At issue is the point in question. In the situation y'all always describe has players running pell mell down the field shooting everything in sight. Ok, what do the "normal" rules stipulate? Eliminate the hit player and put another in the penalty box. IF EVERYBODY is doing it then you have no problem 'cus all the offending team players will be eliminated or in the box. There is no GOOD reason to award a point. Say there is now 15 seconds left and the penalized team is starting with 3 players. Do they have a chance to score a point? Sure, just like any other time in the match.

THAT'S why the point is given. If you don't give a point when a major penalty is committed in the final 90 seconds, you essentially don't have ANY major penalties at all once you get to the end of the match because there just isn't any time left to serve them. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OFFICIALS.

The ticking off the clock is irrelevant. ANY penalty in the last 2 minutes lasts the remainder of the match.
What about Minors? What should you do when time runs out but Minor penalty remains on the clock? IF the issue is serving a full penalty what about them?

And, I didn't say ALL major penalties were willful. I said that major penalties generally dealt with willful infractions - specifically, playing on with an obvious hit. Is it POSSIBLE that you have an obvious hit and didn't know about it? Sure.

"And remember that major penalties are 'willful' - playing on with obvious hits, etc."

That is your exact statement. No qualifier. The fact is the call is the responsibility of the official who determines what is Major and what is Minor. And there is absolutely no overriding justification to put the outcome of a match within the official's pervue. You can argue the minutiae all day long.

Is it LIKELY? No. And it is ridiculous to write the rules to cater to the small number of cases where the players might accidentally break one. It's exactly that kind of attitude that has gotten us in this mess in the first place. "Well, he MIGHT not have felt that hit on his elbow through his three elbow pads, and since I'm not sure he really meant to play on I'm not going to assess the penalty." And what has that gotten us? A bunch of players very good at acting like they might not know they were hit, arguing with officials trying to convince them that they shouldn't really be penalized because the official doesn't really know if the player meant to do it or not.

Where exactly did I, or anybody else, suggest the rules ought to take into account intent? I am saying that the basic rules, as they stand, are sufficient, given decent officiating, to handle any game situation and that the 90 second rule is both unnecessary and excessive and a cop out and can put the outcome of a match at the ref's discretion.


PS--Btw, Lane, an NXL major should be reduced to 4 minutes since our match time was reduced this past season as it has gone from 20% of a half to 25% with the reduced game time.

 

[Chicago]

I think you're picking nits here. The officials ALWAYS have the ability to determine the outcome of a game. Saying a rule lets the refs determine the outcome of the game is stating the obvious. That's their job, make decisions affecting the outcome of the game.

And I didn't say 'willful' in the sense that the refs had to determine intent for each instance. They have to determine whether a hit is obvious or not. That's it. The RULES are written so that an obvious hit has a greater penalty for playing on than an unobvious hit, because the RULES make the assumption that if you're playing on with an obvious hit you SHOULD know the hit is there, and are likely intentionally playing on even though you have a hit, and should be penalized more.



As for NXL penalties, I wholeheartedly agree. 2 minutes and 5 minutes are based on a 60 minute game. Of hockey. The original XBall matches were 15 minute quarters, stop clock, and took 3 hours to play. With 25 minute halves and 5-minute stop-clock per half, you're getting about 30 minutes of actual play time, and the penalties should be 1 minute and 2.5 minutes if scaled linearly. Playing down a man for 1/6th of the match because of one penalty is ridiculous, and is entirely counter to one of the main benefits of XBall - any particular call is far less likely to singlehandedly determine the outcome of a contest.

I'll give you one guess as to why the only place that penalties in XBall arn't 1 and 3 minutes is the NXL.

 

[Baca Loco]

Well, you're not much of a dancer but then the tune you're trying to whistle isn't much of a tune.

This is the best you've got left?

I think you're picking nits here. The officials ALWAYS have the ability to determine the outcome of a game. Saying a rule lets the refs determine the outcome of the game is stating the obvious. That's their job, make decisions affecting the outcome of the game.

It is NOT the officials job to make calls that determine the outcome of the match otherwise why bother playing? It IS the officials job to see to it the match played conforms to the rules and/or that violations of the rules receive the appropriate penalty. (Yeah, I know, you didn't really mean what you posted.)

And I didn't say 'willful' in the sense that the refs had to determine intent for each instance. They have to determine whether a hit is obvious or not. That's it. The RULES are written so that an obvious hit has a greater penalty for playing on than an unobvious hit, because the RULES make the assumption that if you're playing on with an obvious hit you SHOULD know the hit is there, and are likely intentionally playing on even though you have a hit, and should be penalized more.

Again, not relevant to the issue under discussion but I thought you just finished saying the rules don't care about intent and now all of a sudden--"because the RULES make the assumption that if you're playing on with an obvious hit you SHOULD know the hit is there" -- they do?

..and is entirely counter to one of the main benefits of XBall - any particular call is far less likely to singlehandedly determine the outcome of a contest.

Except for the ref's call in the last 90 seconds.

I'll give you one guess as to why the only place that penalties in XBall arn't 1 and 3 minutes is the NXL.

I don't need to guess. I know why.

 

[Chicago]

The problem is definitely not the tune!


Ok, it is the officials' job to enforce the rules. IF the official is enforcing the rules, whether the official correctly or incorrectly enforces the rules can very well change the outcome of a contest. Yes, their job isn't to pick who wins. But the consequence of doing their job is that who wins can depend on the official's judgment.


The rules don't care about intent on a per-instance basis. An obvious hit is an obvious hit, whether or not you knew it was there and played on intentionally or didn't know it was there and played on accidentally.

The rules *DO* care about intent on an aggregate basis. If a hit is obvious, it is far more likely that the player with the hit is intentionally playing on than if the hit is not obvious. The rules therefore include a more significant penalty for playing on with an obvious hit.

 

[Robbo]

Chicago, let me tell ya something mate about our friend Baca, if you get into with him and he begins rolling out the bullet points, this is a good indicator to something quite profound.

I am sure you have seen on Discovery or whatever, an attack by a boaconstrictor. That snake is one bad mofo.
This is Baca.
The reason?
Because when he metaphorically grabs a hold of you in a debate, and you begin to struggle with rebuttals, the grip inevitably tightens, you struggle some more, he tightens even more.
In the end you find yourself with your lungs collapsed, unable to expand them again and he then continues to squeeze the rebuttal life out of you.
With Baca, you have to pick your fights, you have to know you are 100% right because if there is any room whatsoever in your argument then he's gonna invade that space, slip a coil in and....... well you know what's gonna happen next.
The best skill I can advise when going at it with him is to learn to recognize grey areas in your position, if any of these grey areas can potentially undermine your position, then assume 100% he will find them and exploit them to the Nth.
Chicago, you are a very smart guy, very smart indeed, but even you need to know your limits mate.

 

[Chicago]

No worries, if all else fails, I shall employ feminine logic.

 

[Robbo]

No worries, if all else fails, I shall employ feminine logic.

You mean start crying and use your sexuality as leverage?
Bejeeezus Chi Town, if that works on Baca I am gonna be surprised, still, we live and learn and if it does work, let me know, I am sure the world of paintball will definitely want to know if Baca succumbs to your womanly devices.

 

[Chicago]

You're married, right? Surely you've had an argument with your wife where you were 100% correct, yet lost it anyway...

If your wife wins those arguments with sexuality, I congratulate you. Mine wins by using feminine logic, which is just impossible to argue against.

For example:

"Honey, you need to stop leaving your dirty dishes in the living room!"

"You've been out late drinking with your buddies three times this week! And we've been at your family's for Christmas two years in a row! And I wanted BLUE napkins at the wedding!"

See how that works?

I don't either.

 

[Baca Loco]

I'm having a hard time seeing how this is working for you, Chi, as you aren't even trying to defend the 90 second rule anymore.

Chi-town says "Ok, it is the officials' job to enforce the rules. IF the official is enforcing the rules, whether the official correctly or incorrectly enforces the rules can very well change the outcome of a contest. Yes, their job isn't to pick who wins. But the consequence of doing their job is that who wins can depend on the official's judgment."

Which is fine -- (now that you are agreeing with me as to what the official's duty is) and which is also the very reason there shouldn't be any SPECIAL rule that has more or less impact than the rules used the rest of the time.

You mean start crying and use your sexuality as leverage?
Bejeeezus Chi Town, if that works on Baca I am gonna be surprised, still, we live and learn and if it does work, let me know, I am sure the world of paintball will definitely want to know if Baca succumbs to your womanly devices.

Good thing I haven't eaten yet. It may occasionally seem like it but this ain't no prison and even if it were, trust me, Chi-town doesn't have what it takes--devices or otherwise--to divert my attention. However I think it's pretty plain that in this instance anyway, Chi-town is my b*tch.