Ímportant All Millenium Teams Plz Read!

[blakey]

Niall & Robbo

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments, and it is the unfortunate few who tarnish this wonderful dynamic sport of ours. I have been running small tournies in the Midlands for five years now, and the Midlands Masters is just starting to gather a lot of interest.
Like you I am constantly trying to find ways of improving the rules, so as to enhance the game. The problem is that the 1.4.1 rulings have a calculatable loss factor where certain teams deem it worth the punishment to obtain the win, so where's the detterance.
One of the ammendmants we have made for the MM, is that if a team recieves a 1.4.1 penalty, they then have a warning attached thereafter further infractions would attract minus points in the form of a handicap.(ie a further 1.4.1, -1 point from the game total, these point are accumalative.And as such a team the constantly offends could find themselves on minus 10 points plus before the game starts....)
Another idea is that when teams register they are given lets say in a seven man tourny two additional player passes, serious rule infringements would see the players pass removed, once this has happened twice, one more infraction would see the team only able to field 6 players.
I tried this at the Shoot the Rainbow event a couple of years ago, not a single 1.4.1, lenient marshals or well sportsmanlike teams.
Finally No Look must go, its infuriating no being able to see whats going on, and anyone who can't accept that when they are out, THEY ARE OUT, shouldn't be playing.
Captains only on the field at the end of the game.
I like the idea of a clear elimination zone.

Thanks for reading this rant.

 

[JeanManuel]

I've played in tournaments all around the world for ten years, have written countless articles (though not as many as Robbo) on the Internet and for half a dozen magazines, trained refs and written and thought about more rules than anybody I know of -not all of them good, I admit that.
I make my opinion from what I see on fields, what I hear and discussions with other players. There are rules in the Millennium (or NPPL) I disagree with, even though they are to Laurent 's (and other people) liking. To suggest I'm just Laurent's "yes man" would an insult and a display of ignorance. Yes, I work for the Millennium series, and I want it to be a set of attractive events. I want the players to enjoy themselves and to be treated fairly, and to show paintball at its best.
From that point of view, the "no looks" rule is far better than what we had so far. Rather than "beheading" possible culprits, it just prevents the problem from happening. As I said, players _know_ that violent conduct will lead to a 1x1 or worse, but that slips out of their mind when they witness a call they believe wrong, no matter how loud the near refs may shout. You all know that.
The rule takes the pressure down -prevents it from raising. In that respect, I don't think Nick's proposal to have both dead zones close together is a good idea : it's creating the circumstances of a war!
But even though I strongly believe that rule is an improvement, I definitely agree it can be improved -or that the same result can be achieved differently, though not by increasing the penalties, as some blood-thirsty people ;-) proposed.
The main flaw is that the team's captain (the only player allowed to talk to the refs after the game) cannot watch the remaining of the game.
Let's try to built from there and be constructive with a wider vocabulary than "bull****" and variations of that word.
To check we have a common base, do we agree on the following?
- even though misbehaving players are maybe 1% of the paintball croud, they do more damage than what you'd expect from the small percentage they represent (and if "misbehaving" starts with yells in the dead box, then that percentage is much closer to the 10% I mentionned)
- it's better to prevent a problem than to have to find a cure and invent hader penalties.
- if a rule solves a greater number of problems or more important one than it causes, then it's an improvement (doesn't mean it's perfect and cannot be improved)
OK ? Let's move on to the rule we're discussing. By the above, we know it's an improvement on the past. How can we make it better, what are the main flaws ?
- Team captain's are deprived of necessary information if they are eliminated (important to solve)
- Players get frustrated (mild issue) and Robbo is pissed off (major issue ;-).
I'll join Nick in his quest for a middle-ground. Here's an idea I had five minutes ago I give you for comments.
- How about allowing the captain to watch ? He could be identified by a special armband, and could be allowed to stand out of the blind dead-box. Where he can stand has to be defined : is he allowed to walk around the field? How can refs easily check he's not communicating and so on. Maybe he should stand close to the dead box, and (major novelty!) be allowed to talk to his players, thus reducing their frustration and anxiety.

I'll accept "silly" as a comment if you tell me why it is (the same goes for "terrific" -I'm not that proud)
No hard feelings because of your inuendos, Robbo. After all, if Brits were easy to get along with, why would have God stacked them on an island and punished them with rain and overcooked meat?

Jean-Manuel

 

[TJ Lambini]

...and given em bad teeth.

They don't floss over there..go figure.

 

[JeanManuel]

about the last input from Goose and Nick

You write you strayed from the path, Goose, but you raised some very good points.

1) An Ultimate is not there to correct the fact, but to make sure the refs' decisions are made according to the rules. For instance, if a field ref 1x1s a player, the Ultimate checks whether the rules allowed the ref to assess such penalty. If the ref gave a 1x1 because the player's gun was hot, then the Ultimate can do something about it. But if the refs infliceted a 1x1 because the player played on, then the rules were followed and the Ultimate shouldn't change the call _even_ if the ref got his facts wrong and the player wasn't really hit. It it not the Ultimate's job to check the ref's view of the facts (the Ultimate is not on the field) but to be the "guardian of the rules" -and certainly not to modify them.

2) To modify the rules (or create new ones) "on the spot" should a problem not dealt with in the rules arise and obviously require immediate ruling, the Millennium has a committee of three persons (the Millennium Ultimate, the event Ultimate and myself)

3) I agree the rules are not totally enforced, for various reasons (politics, time, manpower, competence...). I've never seen a tournament were they were, but if that can be a consolation, it can't be an excuse. The problem is not with the rules but with their enforcement. Judges enforce them on the field, but who will enforce them out of the field (in the case of hotel trashing, for instance) and who will enforce the rules regarding the refs?
So far, it's the Millennium board. But they are themselves involved, as promoters or as players (Laurent with Tontons, Magued with Joy Division, Niall with Campaign Power, Pedro with Estratego). I can testify they always try to take the fairest decision, but it's often hard to do when dealing with friends or partners.
I think there should be a committee whose authority would allow them to judge issues involving players, refs and promoters. Some rules concern the players ("game rules" and "series rules"), some concern the refs (the "series rules") and some deal with the organizers (their own "book of requirements").
Nobody being totally neutral, I think the Millennium board should create (and accept the authority of) a group gathering members of the board (to represent the organizers), ultimate judges or member of the rules committee (to represent the fuzzy group of referees) and players. That would be the "disciplinary committee". That way, the possible influence of politics -for instance- would be lessened, or balanced.

4) Some rules are not well enforced because the rulebook is a pell-mell assortment of different levels of rules. It was adapted from the NPPL rulebook, a pell-mell assortment itself. It mixes rules that refs enforce with others the Millennium board has to.
The rules should be separated in two or three books, depending on who enforces them. There could be the "game rules" (most of what we currently call "the rules"), enforced by the refs, the "series rules" (about reffing, Millennium points, etc.) enforced by ??? and the already existing "book of requirements" the promoters have to follow in order to keep their tournament in the series, enforced by ???.
The fuzziness about who enforces what is an issue.

Ok, I've strayed as well...

Jean-Manuel

 

[Buddha 3]

Jean,

You seem to be in favor of having the eliminated players positioned in such a way, that they can not see the game. You say it prevents problems from occurring. This is true, but not having a tournament all together also prevents that, but as you will agree that is a bit over the top. In my opinion, so is the blind area.
I see your point about not having the deadboxes side by side, but again, I don't agree with it. Why on earth would paintballers be any different from 'regular' human beings? Having none participating players from two teams side by side is not a problem in any other sport. It used to be common practice in the WLAF (world league of american football). It worked well, no 'wars' what so ever.Somehow I don't think that the avarage paintball player is a more dangerous or volatile creature than the avarage american football player.
I think the blind deadbox thing is the 'easy way out'.
I honestly do believe that very strict judging, with a dead box set up as proposed by Nick, is the way to go. As pointed out, slap ONE guy really hard, and the REST will listen.
It does require very dedicated and steadfast judging though, something we are not exactly well endowed with (although some judges are excellent). As you pointed out, you have trained refs in the past, perhaps it is time to do some more of that?

Just my opinion.

 

[Gee - Team No Hope]

Originally posted by JeanManuel
From that point of view, the "no looks" rule is far better than what we had so far. Rather than "beheading" possible culprits, it just prevents the problem from happening.

True the no-look rule doesn't behead possible culprits, it beheads everyone. So now every player is guilty until proven innocent. I'm so glad to play paintball in such an enlightened series.

But even though I strongly believe that rule is an improvement, I definitely agree it can be improved -or that the same result can be achieved differently, though not by increasing the penalties, as some blood-thirsty people ;-) proposed.

Why are harsh penalties undesirable?
It means that instead of the player having one of their team mates pulled or just looking an ass to spectators. They have cost their team a place on the podium and now get to answer to the entire team and possibly even their sponsors.

And how many teams do you know. That wouldn't prevent hot headed team mates from costing them a place on the podium?

So i for one would like to appeal to every paintballer out their to contact the millenium series organisers and their sponsors and express their desire to have the "no-look" rule scrapped.
Its a childish, over-reaction that belittles everyone

 

[booga]

Well said Gee, I don't think the 'no-look' situation we currently have works anyway. As Robbo mentioned earlier the game on the JT field at Campaign where three (I think) players were 1-4-1'd , players were quite happy to step out of the blind box to have a slanging match . They may have behaved flawlessly AFTER the event but it did not stop the event occuring in the first place.

My point is marshalls cannot and really should not have to physically stop players leaving the blind box so it should be the whole team's resposiblilty to stop these thing occuring. The only way to do this is every member of the team knowing that if they lose their rag and start shouting down the on-field marshalls etc
they personally will be responsible for the team receiving a large penalty point deduction. It's not a difficult call to make for the marshalls, there's no chance of the marshalls not seeing the offending player (as is possible if a player wipes).

It's simple you step out of the deadbox - you get penalty points - your realistic chance of a podium place is gone (in Pro at any rate) - it's your fault.
There is only so long that sponsors will put up with a team that never reaches the podium and there's only so long a team will put up with players that cost them podium places AND sponsors.

 

[HERMITT]

Right here goes.......

Having spent ages reading the previous posts, i think there is one overwhelming fact: the Blind dead box MUST go.

Having played Campaign as a captain, it made discussing issues that arose in the game, at the end with the other captain and the Ultimate impossible. This has a negative effect. Players go away unhappy that a point they feel is important and valid could not be properly discussed and in the extreme, marshals are unable to be made aware of a mistake (they DO happen!) that may have occured and so how can the standard then improve?

Secondly, and this isn't me being a sore loser and a Pro hater, BUT, there were two standards at Campaign where i personally saw novice and am teams getting heavily penalised for a player turning round (one time the player had actually been shot on the foot under the fencing and just wanted to know where it had come from!), while some high profile Pro teams were not even in the dead box after they had been shot for the rest of the game with no apparent action being taken by the marshalls. This double standard DOES exist, and to an extent has been dealt with effectively but more must be done. Marshalls should not take crap from anyone nov.,am or pro.

I think its a bloody good idea to separate dead players from their guns. What arguement can these players have, as long as the guns are safely stored for the remaining period. The dead boxes should definitely be away from each other, otherwise you really are just asking for trouble. How about having a blind dead box for the players but a separate dead box where the two captains can stan and watch the game with the Ultimate (i do think that the Ultimate should be in a position slightly off the field where he has a much clearer view of all the proccedings on field) and that way he has a similar view to the captains and can answer their points from a perspective that is similar to theirs?

I still think that penalty pointing is an effective method of enforcing the rules. But what about each team having a card where each infringement results in a box being ticked on the card. As the number of boxes ticked increases so the penalties recieved can increase (penlties should be harsh but fair, thus negating the argument of a kneejerk reaction out of proportion to the offence) thus at the start of each game when the teams hand in their cards to the Ultimate on that field appropriate action, dictated by the penalty system can be carried out, ie. one team has to start a player down.

Finally, the subject of having some sort of professional reffing organistation that is to some extent independant has to be raised, since a ref that is wholly at ease with ALL the rules and is not tied to any loyalties (Their team, a team playing on their field or some other paintball politics) will be able to stand up to the players with far more backing and feel much more comfortable in the decisions they have made. Thus certain Pro and Am players will not feel they are above a marshall, and this should therefore increase the amount of respect marshalls receive when doing what is often a thankless task.

 

[HERMITT]

I have to agree Captains in separate dead boxes does have flaws! However, just because an argument hasn't happened at a European event doesn't mean it won't. Plus the way certain teams went off at each other at the Mardis Gras indicates putting them in even closer proximity would have made the situation worse and made it happen much faster.

What do you think of the other ideas though? Anyways SILLY or not they were only suggestions and an idea on a way forward is better than none since it can only lead to more dialogue. And that is truly the only way forward.

 

[TJ Lambini]

Herman, I think Broccoli-Sdwarf was responding to Jean Maire le-Pen, rather than you...though I could be wrong.

Peace