Rof

[Baca Loco]

In the case of the PSP it has to do with how they enforce the ROF rules. They DO NOT check to see if your gun is shooting 13.33 bps. They randomly check the gap time between any two shots and 13.33 results in a 75 millisecond gap between shots. What the refs are checking is against that number and anything lower than .75 is a penalty. (The old ROF standard was .66)

I assume the MS is doing something similar if not the same, hence the seeming peculiarity of the chosen ROF.

A real rant might be made against the penalties the PSP (at least) has chosen to hand out for ROF violations as in point of fact a single gap violation is not proof of any sort that the marker in question has actually fired more balls in a second than legally allowed because any observation of the gaps between a series a shots shows a measure of randomness up and down. And the reality is virtually every minor infraction penalized is unintentional as well as not being demonstrative of actual rules violation. As a consequence tha vast majority of the ROF penalities assessed are on players trying to abide by the rules. How exactly this is good for paintball I don't know and if more widely understood--oops!--might actually diminish respect for the rules instead of the other way round.

 

[Russell Smith]

In the case of the PSP it has to do with how they enforce the ROF rules. They DO NOT check to see if your gun is shooting 13.33 bps. They randomly check the gap time between any two shots and 13.33 results in a 75 millisecond gap between shots. What the refs are checking is against that number and anything lower than .75 is a penalty. (The old ROF standard was .66)

I assume the MS is doing something similar if not the same, hence the seeming peculiarity of the chosen ROF.

A real rant might be made against the penalties the PSP (at least) has chosen to hand out for ROF violations as in point of fact a single gap violation is not proof of any sort that the marker in question has actually fired more balls in a second than legally allowed because any observation of the gaps between a series a shots shows a measure of randomness up and down. And the reality is virtually every minor infraction penalized is unintentional as well as not being demonstrative of actual rules violation. As a consequence tha vast majority of the ROF penalities assessed are on players trying to abide by the rules. How exactly this is good for paintball I don't know and if more widely understood--oops!--might actually diminish respect for the rules instead of the other way round.

I understand what you are saying Paul but in my experience random shots that break the rule are ignored as long as the rest of the sample are ok.

Russ

 

[Baca Loco]

I understand what you are saying Paul but in my experience random shots that break the rule are ignored as long as the rest of the sample are ok.

Russ

Russ, let me refer you to the rule book. Perhaps you could have a chat with the NXL refs, too.

Given ref discretion where's the line get drawn? one .78 evens out two .74's. Is it still a penalty? I think some accomodation probably limits unnecessary penalty calls but it really only re-draws the line and leaves it up to the ref, again. Just saying.

 

[Russell Smith]

I had a chat with Dan Fagan and Fish about this very issue and they did it the same as me in that the guys who was doing the checking usually did a sample of a minimum of eight shots and although you are correct if the time is less than .65 between shots (as per 2007) a penalty could be assessed.
However I assure you if your string reads something like .65 .63 .65 .65 .66 .65 .65 .65 you would not get a penalty even though in strict interpretation of the rules you could.
The guys who Ref the NXL are among the best you can get and bring something else to the table besides skill, and thats common sense.
You also find shot timings fluctuate quite a lot and a string as consistent as the above is very rare but you get my drift.

Russ

 

[Baca Loco]

I had a chat with Dan Fagan and Fish about this very issue and they did it the same as me in that the guys who was doing the checking usually did a sample of a minimum of eight shots and although you are correct if the time is less than .65 between shots (as per 2007) a penalty could be assessed.
However I assure you if your string reads something like .65 .63 .65 .65 .66 .65 .65 .65 you would not get a penalty even though in strict interpretation of the rules you could.
The guys who Ref the NXL are among the best you can get and bring something else to the table besides skill, and thats common sense.
You also find shot timings fluctuate quite a lot and a string as consistent as the above is very rare but you get my drift.

Russ

All well and good--for the most part, yet you do not address the fact that in essence "you" are ignoring the rules to enforce the rules as "you" see fit. This is less than ideal and leaves quite a lot of wiggle room for potentially less than scrupulous behavior regardless of yours or anyone else's assurances or even best of intentions. For right now it is what it is but at a minimum regulation and enforcement isn't what people think it is.

Nit-picking--you're hypothetical string is a penalty because the lowest legal number was .66, not .65. And Dan isn't responsible for any on-field decision-making in any capacity and Fish does not work either a pact unit or a hand-held chrono. That and NXL ref turnover in the last couple of seasons exceeds 50% and trust me when I suggest I know a few more things about NXL officials than most.

PS--also, you really haven't addressed my original rant except to confirm it actually. Then you added the bit that it's really okay 'cus the refs are a good bunch of sensible lads.

 

[Flash-Bugout]

A real rant might be made against the penalties the PSP (at least) has chosen to hand out for ROF violations as in point of fact a single gap violation is not proof of any sort that the marker in question has actually fired more balls in a second than legally allowed because any observation of the gaps between a series a shots shows a measure of randomness up and down.

Here in London I can legally drive 30 miles in 1 hour. If I go for a 5 minute drive at 60mph, I can reasonably expect to be punished, even though there is no proof that during that hour, I did indeed drive more than 30 miles.

The law in this case is about the rate of driving at a given point in time, not a cumulative counter over a set period of time.

The same goes for the marker - the rules are about the rate of firing, not the amount of balls in a certain time period - otherwise I would be fine with a mode which shoots 24bps in 0.5 seconds then paused for 0.5s, or a rate which shot 48bps for 0.25 seconds, then paused for 0.75s.

 

[Russell Smith]

All well and good--for the most part, yet you do not address the fact that in essence "you" are ignoring the rules to enforce the rules as "you" see fit. This is less than ideal and leaves quite a lot of wiggle room for potentially less than scrupulous behavior regardless of yours or anyone else's assurances or even best of intentions. For right now it is what it is but at a minimum regulation and enforcement isn't what people think it is.

Nit-picking--you're hypothetical string is a penalty because the lowest legal number was .66, not .65. And Dan isn't responsible for any on-field decision-making in any capacity and Fish does not work either a pact unit or a hand-held chrono. That and NXL ref turnover in the last couple of seasons exceeds 50% and trust me when I suggest I know a few more things about NXL officials than most.

PS--also, you really haven't addressed my original rant except to confirm it actually. Then you added the bit that it's really okay 'cus the refs are a good bunch of sensible lads.

Ignoring the rules so I can enforce the rules as I see fit? lets say I interpret the rules as I perceive them and then treat every team/player the same, If I am instructed by the organisation that they want a rule enforced in a particular fashion - thats the way it will be done otherwise a good dollop of common sense will also be applied.
Paul, I thought you knew the rules regarding the rate of fire, the correct cap in use at the PSP before the change was 15.4bps (http://www.pspevents.com/uploads/Rules/RateofFireChart.pdf) and that equated to a reading of .065 on the Pact timer.
If you or anyone else as a player wanted the cap to be enforced in the extreme everyone would have had to set their guns to 14bps to try and make sure they did not get a spurious timed shot.
As near perfect that the Pact timers are you can still get a miss reading of a Milli second occasionally and you would have to be a bit of a swine to use one reading that can hardly make a difference and punish a player/team because of it when the other checked shots in the string are all legal.
And on another thread related point, I am all for the reduction my only concern is it would be far better if the PSP and Millennium Series used the same cap/rule and enforced it the same.


Russ

 

[Baca Loco]

Here in London I can legally drive 30 miles in 1 hour. If I go for a 5 minute drive at 60mph, I can reasonably expect to be punished, even though there is no proof that during that hour, I did indeed drive more than 30 miles.

The law in this case is about the rate of driving at a given point in time, not a cumulative counter over a set period of time.

The same goes for the marker - the rules are about the rate of firing, not the amount of balls in a certain time period - otherwise I would be fine with a mode which shoots 24bps in 0.5 seconds then paused for 0.5s, or a rate which shot 48bps for 0.25 seconds, then paused for 0.75s.

Do you really want to make that argument, Flash? The rulebook specifies a rate of fire in balls per second. It doesn't anywhere qualify that rof as anything but a specific number of shots within a period of time. (And your example is actually 48 bps regardless of the time gap when the marker ain't shooting.)
And as I've already pointed out and Russ hasn't disagreed with the method used to measure compliance isn't testing what the rules allow. In fact given the unavoidable variances in timing the gaps Russ is stating the letter of the rules are in fact being "interpreted" using common sense.

 

[Baca Loco]

1--Ignoring the rules so I can enforce the rules as I see fit?
2--lets say I interpret the rules as I perceive them and then treat every team/player the same, If I am instructed by the organisation that they want a rule enforced in a particular fashion - thats the way it will be done otherwise a good dollop of common sense will also be applied.
3--Paul, I thought you knew the rules regarding the rate of fire, the correct cap in use at the PSP before the change was 15.4bps (http://www.pspevents.com/uploads/Rules/RateofFireChart.pdf) and that equated to a reading of .065 on the Pact timer.
4--If you or anyone else as a player wanted the cap to be enforced in the extreme everyone would have had to set their guns to 14bps to try and make sure they did not get a spurious timed shot.
5--As near perfect that the Pact timers are you can still get a miss reading of a Milli second occasionally and you would have to be a bit of a swine to use one reading that can hardly make a difference and punish a player/team because of it when the other checked shots in the string are all legal.
6--And on another thread related point, I am all for the reduction my only concern is it would be far better if the PSP and Millennium Series used the same cap/rule and enforced it the same.


Russ

1--you may not like the phraseology but that is in fact what is happening.
2--that's you, Russ. Not everybody is you.
3--Well, there you go. The NXL refs, including Dan, used to routinely let us know that .66 was cool and lower was liable to being penalized. Perhaps that was just interpretation and common sense, too.
4--actually I'd be much happier with rules that reflected the method of enforcement in use and a base penalty akin to a minimum fps violation, which strikes me as an equivalent offense.
5--a variety of things impact the results including variances between timers. And not all refs are created equal.

Have a good year.

 

[Flash-Bugout]

Do you really want to make that argument, Flash?

I'd quite like to use that arguement, yes. In my example, the speed limit is stated in a number of miles per hour, but the law is that you must not travel faster than that rate of travelling, not that you must not travel more than that distance in that time period.

I'll hold my hands up, and state that I'm not 100% on the wording of the new RoF rules, but do they state that you must not fire more than X balls in a second, or at a rate of more than X balls in a second, there is a quite a difference in the meanings.