NPPL Worldbreaking news!

[Chicago]

What is the basis for thinking it was overturned based on video evidence?

Maybe they just took the extra time to do what they should have done in the first place.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Yeah - or they used a swami - or consulted the psycic network... but what do YOU think is the most realistic possibility ?

 

[Robbo]

Let me clarify.

In the game in question, there is absolutely no doubt that Sebban should have his suspension lifted. - I agree wholeheartedly with the verdict.

But, It disagrees with me that the descision was based on video evidence - as I believe it creates a dangerous precedent.

You may not view it as a "call" as such - but to me, when it is in the rules, it is all part of the same mix, and there is no distinction in the rules as to what decisions can be overturned based on video evidence, and which cannot.

My point is, that while I believe the descision to lift the suspension is correct, I fiercely oppose the manner in which it was reached, because I see an abyss opening here, with teams running up to refs after games to document this and that with handheld cameras, videos surfacing weeks after the fact documenting (or trying to) that some ref made a mistake or some player cheated, and so on.

Alternatively, the rules should clearly state, that video evidence can only be used in connection with suspensions, which are decided upon after the event anyway.

Nick

Nick, I am not being contrary here but I will contest the use of the word 'dangerous' as if this precedent is somehow against the interests of the game or inherently bad.
I would ask the question, since when has a tool (video evidence) that has the ability to put a wrong right, to clarify and explain situations that were previously unclear been a bad thing ?

There are so many injustices in paintball, we have all had them mate, including you I am sure, and if somebody somewhere has evidence, video or otherwise, that can throw light on an injustice, then just because it's retrospective then this should in no way deter from its use.

It may be a different road 'yes', but certainly not dangerous.
It also could be viewed as the lesser of evils (using vid evidence as against not using it) but I would always tend to err on the side of clarification rather than obfuscation (player's accounts).

 

[Beaker]

I don't have a problem with video being used for any implication post match (just as the FA uses it to asses suspensions) BUT I would have a big problem if the decision on the field (i.e. the game result) was overturned. Simply because from then on you'll open a massive can of worms.

XSV pay for 4 guys to video their opponents each game, trying to see missed hits and wipes. They might lose a 2 on 2 but one of the bad guys wiped a hit so they complain and get the win. Dynasty could pay for one camera a player all event trying to spot mistakes by the refs if they though they could get a field decision overturned.

Right or wrong, the decision on the field must stand.

 

[Chicago]

I don't think Beaker is protesting the use of video per se, he's protesting the use of video captured by someone other than the league.

If we were filming these games consistently, from a consistent set of angles, with equipment that allowed the officials access to the footage during the game, that's one thing.

Making decisions after a game based on video submitted from the sideline is another thing entirely, and should be avoided.

 

[Beaker]

But then if you had "official" cameras purely there for these purposes then surely you'd just have accusations of incompetence and "looking the wrong way" for the cameramen as you (currently) do the refs?

I agree with Nick (god that hurt ) that it's all about making the refs on the field better. Train them, treat them well, water them, let them rest, have morning and afternoon session refs, pay them a decent wage so they actually come back. Have standards they have to meet rather than simply bodies on the field. I think if we brought in the video side then we're just trying to patch a hole created by the leagues bad treatment of refs inthe first place.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Well, in this instance, paintball is a far cry from any other sport.

Video footage of paintball will always be flawed, in that you might be able to see that one guy is hit, but you will then not be able to see if the opponent is. - Or, a guy may very well be hit, but it does not show on footage.

Take the game in question as an example... can anyone REALLY see when BC gets hit and when Karl gets hit, during that scirmish in the snake?

I don't think so, despite numerous videos covering the instance.

In most other sports, the action is a lot more clear cut, and there, video footage is a valuable - but in paintball, where there is such a great possibility that you cannot see a hit somewhere on a guy, I think it is very problematic to use video footage for making calls.

Nick

 

[mikey601]

IF placed correctly and in a static posistion cameras could be a god send in helping out officials

Agreed, you couldn't cover every single angle, but sports cameras never do.

They would be an added aid for the officials and in my book that cant be a bad thing

 

[jcressey]

I agree with what nick is saying, although there intentions may be of the possitive nature, When it comes to big games like these, The teams have worked long and hard to reach them stag they are at , they should at least be rewarded with The more experianced Refs that know there stuff and are not bios at the least !

And following up from what Robbo was saying , I have a question

"Why do pro teams cheat / wipe, if i was up there as one of the top boys, the last thing i would want is the embarresment of all your fans knowing you as a cheater, i would reather end the game on a loss and know that we played fair , this is a issue my team have been talking about, and we have come to a conclusion that i guess this is a tactic as well as a cheat.

Would this be correct Robbo ?


Jason

 

[mikey601]

Its one thing getting to the top, its another thing staying there