Hi Steve,
I am against this idea for many reasons. I hope you don't mind me quoting from your article and responding here. If you wish to e-mail me please feel free.
"I am particularly concerned with play on the “smaller” fields i.e. arena paintball, speedball, sup’air ball, and hyperball not the larger woodland fields, although there might be a case to reduce the velocity even in woodland play."
I honestly do not think there is a case to reduce velocity levels. I believe it will cause more close play and more bunkering type moves. It may also even cause players to get shot more times with more energy going to the player from the projectile (I'll explain why below). I think what there is a good case for enforcing the rules better.
"More and more paintball is now being played in an “arena” environment and this has increased the speed of play and it’s appeal for both spectators and players, which is excellent for the sport of paintball. BUT, what has arisen is the increase in the number of close range hits i.e. muggings, which has increased the potential safety risk for players and marshals. There have been several incidents of serious injury as a result of “muggings” this year."
Paintball is a contact sport. Although no injury is acceptable people that play contact sports understand it is possible. I think that reducing the velocity levels will force more close play and increase the level of muggings that occur. Isn't that exactly what you don't want?
"All players who participant in the sport of paintball accept that there is always a chance of being injured when playing but as a governing body we must look at the RISK element. If you played paintball 10 years ago it was acceptable to play with just eye protection, if you played 5-8 years ago you probably wore eye protection and a small faceplate. Now the wearing of eye, face and ear protection is mandatory and this only came about due to players sustaining mouth and ear injuries. The RISK element was looked at and it was decided that compulsory protection must be worn."
Exactly! Look at what happened here. The risk increased so the safety equipment increased. In a corresponding fashion if this means all players should wear head protection then make that a rule. If it's about safety equipment then make the rule and enforce it. I don't believe reducing the velocity of markers will make the game any safer whatsoever. Especially not without some kind of scientific proof/medical report. Who says mugging someone in the head at 270 is better than 300? It may be that shooting someone in the head at anything over 220 is dangerous. Does that mean at some point in the future you will want to bring the velocity down to 220? I hope not, I don't think we would have much game left. Instead we should make it so that any player is safe to be mugged at 220, 270, 300 and even 320 since we all know hot guns occur. The way to do this is the correct safety gear. If it does turn out that a medical report gets done and you turn to them and say well look we brought our velocity down to 270 they may say 'great now just bring it down to 220' obviously you have done it once it won't harm your game to do it again...
"With the increase in close range hits on the arena fields is it about time we looked at making the wearing of some form of head protection compulsory?"
Yes. I can agree with that completely. Or even make mugging someone in the head an illegal move. Enforce it with a 2-4-1. We all know it happens as it's a good way to stop the player being mugged from swinging on you but just make it illegal.
"Serious injury can occur to the soft parts of the head but a large number of players wear no hat, bandanna or cap to help protect this part of the head. "
You need some stats to back this up I feel, before trying to enforce such a major change on the players of the sport. Serious injury can occur? Yep and tripping over can break your neck. It's damn rare, but it can occur. What is an acceptable risk level? We can't remove all the risk from our sport, it's just not possible.
"Players wear neck protectors, kneepads, elbow pads, some males wear a “cricketers” box and females wear body armour yet we rarely think about protection for the head. The manufacturers of paintball equipment might be looking into “head armour” but in the mean time we should make the covering of the top and back of the head compulsory at all paintball events. (Arena and woodland)"
yes, yes and yes. That's a much more sensible decision and one which I feel would actually make more difference. Back in the old days wasn't some sort of head gear compulsory for a while? I seem to remember it was but having played for over 10 years it's hard to remember. Uvex goggles anyone
"The main change we are suggesting is the reduction of marker velocity on “arena type events” from 300fps to 270-275fps. Several event organisers have already reduced the marker velocities at their events where the playing areas are small and the instances of close range eliminations would be increased."
I think this is the worst thing you can do if you are concerned with players being mugged at short range. If you bring the velocity levels down players will have to get closer to each other to get eliminations. There will be many more instances of players within mugging range and the number of mugs will go up. Any close range indoor event I have been at has had more muggings than any larger field event. Maybe you should just make a minimum field size... no smaller as that increases the chances of being mugged... Your trying to stop the small issue by holding back the large one. Why not just stop small field events?
"Even at the lower velocity close range hits could still result in injuries but the risk of serious injury might be reduced."
Might? you need to quantify this for my mind. Hits at close range will always have an element of serious risk. You will never stop that risk wether at 300 or 270 or 220fps. You have to protect against that risk with relevant safety equipment.
"Will the reduced velocity have an effect on the game?"
yes, it will make it shorter range with more muggings. It will reduce the number of eliminations made at distance and force people closer together. It will make the situation worse.
"I have spoken to several players over the past few weeks and most of the players I have spoken to already run their markers at between 280 – 290 fps."
Obviously as we have to play at a safe level under the 300fps chrono limit to avoid hot gun penalties.
"They also felt that the reduction to 270/275fps would have no adverse effect on the game."
The amount of energy in a paintball is in relation to the square of it's velocity (more on that later also). Bringing the limit down to 270 will mean people run their guns at about 260. The reduction in velocity will mean a significant reduction in range and then also a significant closing of the distances between players.
"Most modern markers running at this velocity when fired from one end of a 7 man sup’air ball field will easily reach the other end of the field,"
Not across any of the larger 7 man supair ball fields I have played lately or seen in the Millenium series, but that's not really my point.
"and if they don’t then it will encourage the player to move to a closer position before trading shots."
Exactly! you have just stated yourself that reducing the velocity levels will shorten the range between players. And this must only encourage bunkering moves. You've pointed out that what you propose will actually make the risk you talk about worse!
"The reduction in velocity should also reduce the number of bruises players and marshals receive."
Actually I disagree. The reduction in velocity means a reduction in the energy of the projectile. Now the reduction in energy of the projectile means the less likely it is to break on impact.
A paintball breaking on impact dissipates it's energy into the 'explosion' of the paintball and the target. A paintball which bounces has a full 180 degrees change of momentum and dissipates more energy into the target than a paintball that splatters. We all know that bouncers hurt more than splats. This is why. Running guns at lower velocities will decrease the chance of a ball splatting and thus increase the number of bouncers. This in turn increases the amount of energy being put into the player.
If we know balls are more likely to bounce we will fire more at our targets... in all cases I think reducing the velocity level will actually mean the player being shot receives more energy in average as they will end up getting shot more times for an elimination. They may have less stinging single shots... As you point out yourself we want to make sure ball's break to ensure less bruising and energy goes into the player. A similiar but opposite way to achieve this would be to increase the velocity level such that long range shots have more chance of breaking and taking the player out at distance... ?get my point? there needs to be a balance of long range short range to keep the levels of energy going into the player acceptable. I think 300fps limit is that level. If it is not for head shots then we need to protect the head not do something which has the potential to detriment our sport and make the very issue you are trying to solve worse!
"No research has ever been carried out, to my knowledge, on the effects of repeated bruising to the body caused by playing paintball."
If there is no research then how can you even know if this will help what you want it to help?
Actually there has been research into the legal amount of safe energy that is non-lethal. That's why we have the 300fps velocity limit already. That level has been researched and deamed safe. The actual safe level corresponds to something like 320fps for a 54grain paintball if I remember correctly.
"The combination of a reduced velocity (270-275fps) and the mandatory wearing of some form of head protection will help to reduce the risk of bruising and serious injury to the top and back of the head."
The enforcement of head protection will, I do not believe the lower velocity limit will. I think it may mean more head shots from close range.
"Combined with the above proposal, marshals must get tougher with players who are over aggressive when “mugging” players, multiple hits must be deemed unacceptable and action must be taken against the over aggressive player."
yes, yes, yes. Enforce the rules! Over aggressive play and overshooting should be penalised harshly. Maybe even mugging in the head should be. As should swinging when you are mugged...
"Another area that could also be looked into is the hardness of the paintballs. Most tournament paintballers use a “brittle” ball, which will burst easily on a target but not in the marker. The increased risk of injury occurs with a “hard” ball that bounces on a target."
YES! and as I pointed out above the energy is in relation to the square of the velocity. reducing the velocity will lead to more bouncers!
"It would be very difficult to set standards to control the “hardness” of a paintball as there are dozens of factors that can affect the performance of a paintball. These factors can alter from game to game. Therefore as a governing body we would ask that players look after their paintballs as suggested by the manufacturers ensuring the paintballs burst on the target as they are designed."
Very true and players should do that anyway. Slapped risks for players leaving bags of paint open should be enforce by roaming marshalls (just kidding
)
"If paintballs are “hard” and not bursting on the target, you are shooting a lot more paintballs per elimination than if they burst on the target first time, increasing you paint bill!!"
yep but the same point goes for keeping the velocity on your gun up. If you keep the velocity up your paint is more likely to break and you will have a lower paint bill also!
I just recently had a practice where I'd lost the shims from my gun and couldn't get the velocity over 255-260 (probably about exactly where people will be running their guns with the new limit your propose). When playing I couldn't get near my opposition and so ended up continually going forwards (I kept getting bouncers at range) and shooting players from much closer ranges. (never mugged so many people in my life!) some of those eliminations at that velocity had great welts...
I enjoyed playing like that, but I didn't enjoy not being able to shoot peopleat range like I normally could.
"I have outlined my the reasons for reducing the velocity and making the wearing of some form of head protection mandatory but I am sure some of you are still not convinced."
Nope I am not. I am vehemently against lowering the velocity limit. I think it will make more muggings, reduce our game and not help solve the problem. I am 100% in support of protective head gear though. I currently find it crazy that people don't always wear head covers anyway!
"At a recent tournament a player who was repeatedly shot at point blank range sustained serious head and neck injuries resulting in several weeks off work, numerous visits to the doctor/hospital and possible retirement from the sport he loves."
Repeatedly shot at point blank range? Where were the marshalls? Were the rules not enforce? If this occurs it is assault and the player responsible should be made aware of it. Such actions can not be condoned and should be severly penalised. By the Law if necessary. Enforce your current laws on safety and overshooting and don't make laws to try and limit the majority to those of idiots and even possible criminals (it could wel be seen as assault!)
"He has since made a full recovery and is back playing but it could have been a lot worse."
Good. How was the player that shot him penalised? If you don't know or can't say then maybe we can see the problem is not in the gun velocity but in the rules and governing of such events.
"My last point is the most serious; a player died recently and a hit from a paintball might have been a contributory factor in his death. I say “might” because the case is subject to an inquest and all factors involved will be investigated. When the findings are published we will know if the hit from the paintball caused the player’s death. I cannot expand on the incident as the case is subject to further enquiries. The findings of the inquest could make recommendations with regards to the playing of paintball."
My severe condolences. I'm sorry it occured, but I also have to say that freak accidents will occur in any sport. Our sport from all the US reports say it is very, very safe. Safer than golf I believe. If we are that safe do we need to try and cover for freak accidents? I don't think so. We all know we take some element of risk when we step on the field. That's why we sign dislaimers. Even if they aren't worth crap in the legal eyes it is something to make us aware we are taking a risk.
"I think it is better that we react to the situation rather than have restrictions placed on the sport of paintball by the authorities."
We have to be careful we react the right way which will help solve the problem and not just open a door for the authorities to keep making changes
"The proposal is:
To reduce the velocity of paintball markers on “arena” type events to 270/275fps and to make the wearing of some form of head protection mandatory at all paintball events."
Can we break that down? I agree with head protection but am against lower velocity limits.
"There could also be a case for the general reduction in the velocity of paintball markers based on the size of the playing field and the chances of close range eliminations."
I don't think there is any case for lowering velocity limits and I just think it will increase close range eliminations. Just the maths behind it says that it will. If you can't reach someone from further there is no way you can eliminate them. Balls at further distances will have less energy (remember the square rule) so players will have to get even closer together. It's not going to help the problem.
"This proposal is for UK based events but it is possible that if adopted by the UKPSF then other organisations will adopt a similar velocity reduction."
I hope it doesn't get adopted here or anywhere. I think it will make our game worse and the situations you describe worse.
If we need better safety gear rules, then make them and enforce them. It was done for goggles and faceplates. If it is now needed for head gear then do it! It will stop all problems you describe and keep our sport at the level it is.
manike
