I like the new rule. The less the ref has to make judgement calls the better. Also, it means more consistent reffing.PEBBLE said:
All hits are obvious hits. Good rule or no?
- Thread starter Wadidiz
- Start date
So, you do not agree that the rules are there to make the game fair - but rather to penalise offenders ?
Nick
.
there is too many players getting penalised as it is, this will cut it down a little so we can actually get our moneys worth of paintball for a weekend as we are customersNick Brockdorff said:So, you do not agree that the rules are there to make the game fair - but rather to penalise offenders ?
Nick
Well, after being a marshall for a good part of the year I must say that I think that this rule makes the game fairer.
As many have mentioned in this thread, it's not a matter of having felt the hit or not, it's the fact that it creates an advantage for your team, if you've been hit and should have been pulled and you stayed in.
I don't think you should leave it up to the refs wether to penalize someone or not, because then you'd have a level of reffing that's less consistent.
It's the same thing, as let's say a bouncing gun, you could also leave it to the ref to decide if the gun was bouncing on purpose or not, but...you don't, you allways apply the same rule, and that makes for consistent reffing and for a significant less bouncign guns, because people know 100% sure that they'll be penalized if they're caught.
The same thing now, I've seen players go from sliding into a bunker and not giving a **** and playing on, to actually stopping and checking themselves. And that makes for a fairer game.
All that would take to have this rule work at it's fullest potential would be to have 100% consistency in all the refs in applying this rule. As sometimes less experienced refs or team refs are a little less eager to assess penalties.
So basicly, I think Ulrich hit the spot with this rule.
Oh and btw, I believe they have been using this rule in X-Ball, every hit is basis for a 2 minute penalty.
As many have mentioned in this thread, it's not a matter of having felt the hit or not, it's the fact that it creates an advantage for your team, if you've been hit and should have been pulled and you stayed in.
I don't think you should leave it up to the refs wether to penalize someone or not, because then you'd have a level of reffing that's less consistent.
It's the same thing, as let's say a bouncing gun, you could also leave it to the ref to decide if the gun was bouncing on purpose or not, but...you don't, you allways apply the same rule, and that makes for consistent reffing and for a significant less bouncign guns, because people know 100% sure that they'll be penalized if they're caught.
The same thing now, I've seen players go from sliding into a bunker and not giving a **** and playing on, to actually stopping and checking themselves. And that makes for a fairer game.
All that would take to have this rule work at it's fullest potential would be to have 100% consistency in all the refs in applying this rule. As sometimes less experienced refs or team refs are a little less eager to assess penalties.
So basicly, I think Ulrich hit the spot with this rule.
Oh and btw, I believe they have been using this rule in X-Ball, every hit is basis for a 2 minute penalty.
A lot of players who ref don't understand the philosophy of having a referee in the first place.
The job of the referee is to guarantee that the game is played fairly. Most refs feel their job is to pull as many people as possible. What they forget is that they are employees of the series, and their job is to provide a service… a fair game for both sides.
A ref’s job is to make a decision if the game is being played fairly or not. The rules are the guide to what is fair play, and the ref uses these rules as a metric to determine if the play deviates from fairness, and the degree of penalty which will make it fair again.
The primary purpose of a penalty (141, 341,etc) is to restore the balance of fair play.
The secondary purpose of a penalty is to create a negative re-enforcement that discourages players from cheating.
A player who continues to play with a pack hit, but makes no indication that they felt the hit, and reacts to it in no way, is likely not cheating. They are however affecting the fairness of the game, and the fairness needs to be restored. If for example the player played on, and shot an opposing player, they have really affected the fairness of the game. It is the job of the referee to restore the balance:
Either pull the player with the pack hit, and call the other player clean.
Eliminate both players, but 141 the player with the pack hit.
The situation changes when a player gets hit on the pack, flinches, and then continues to play. Now the player has indicated that they are aware they have likely been hit, but continues to play with the intention of gaining an unfair advantage. Now the referee must restore balance, but also punish the deliberate unfair actions of the player. If the player continued to play, and eliminated an opponent, the very minimum that must happen is a 141 penalty.
To restore fairness:
Either pull the player with the pack hit, and call the other player clean.
Eliminate both players, but 141 the player with the pack hit.
In addition the referee’s duty is to punish the player, in which ever way the rules allow it. I would imagine this infraction requires a 341 penalty, but the referee must be certain that the player in question is in fact deliberately trying to gain an advantage.
The difference may seem trivial, but we must understand the goal of the rules (fairness – in case you forgot), and if we keep our attention focused on the goal, the logic of the rules becomes clearer.
I know, life isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.
The job of the referee is to guarantee that the game is played fairly. Most refs feel their job is to pull as many people as possible. What they forget is that they are employees of the series, and their job is to provide a service… a fair game for both sides.
A ref’s job is to make a decision if the game is being played fairly or not. The rules are the guide to what is fair play, and the ref uses these rules as a metric to determine if the play deviates from fairness, and the degree of penalty which will make it fair again.
The primary purpose of a penalty (141, 341,etc) is to restore the balance of fair play.
The secondary purpose of a penalty is to create a negative re-enforcement that discourages players from cheating.
A player who continues to play with a pack hit, but makes no indication that they felt the hit, and reacts to it in no way, is likely not cheating. They are however affecting the fairness of the game, and the fairness needs to be restored. If for example the player played on, and shot an opposing player, they have really affected the fairness of the game. It is the job of the referee to restore the balance:
Either pull the player with the pack hit, and call the other player clean.
Eliminate both players, but 141 the player with the pack hit.
The situation changes when a player gets hit on the pack, flinches, and then continues to play. Now the player has indicated that they are aware they have likely been hit, but continues to play with the intention of gaining an unfair advantage. Now the referee must restore balance, but also punish the deliberate unfair actions of the player. If the player continued to play, and eliminated an opponent, the very minimum that must happen is a 141 penalty.
To restore fairness:
Either pull the player with the pack hit, and call the other player clean.
Eliminate both players, but 141 the player with the pack hit.
In addition the referee’s duty is to punish the player, in which ever way the rules allow it. I would imagine this infraction requires a 341 penalty, but the referee must be certain that the player in question is in fact deliberately trying to gain an advantage.
The difference may seem trivial, but we must understand the goal of the rules (fairness – in case you forgot), and if we keep our attention focused on the goal, the logic of the rules becomes clearer.
I know, life isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.
Well there is something that alot of people keep forgetting, which is the need to have the highest level of consistency possible in the series, otherwise you'll get one field with really harsh refs and another one with easy going ones. Or one side with harsh refs, etc.
To minimize this, it is important that you leave as less as you can up to the referees to decide. And it also makes it easier for us refs to make decisions as the guidelines are much clearer.
I'm a player too, and I can get shot in the pack and not flinch easily, so basicly that means that if a player is a good actor, he gets away with it everytime, just by claiming he didn't know he was hit.
And get this, it is nigh impossible for us refs to know who shot that guy all the way across the field. It could have been a dozen different people. So how can you expect the refs to make things right if that happened?
Your sugestion is very nice, but it's impossible to put into practice.
I sincerely think that this rule in itself solves alot of problems.
To minimize this, it is important that you leave as less as you can up to the referees to decide. And it also makes it easier for us refs to make decisions as the guidelines are much clearer.
I'm a player too, and I can get shot in the pack and not flinch easily, so basicly that means that if a player is a good actor, he gets away with it everytime, just by claiming he didn't know he was hit.
And get this, it is nigh impossible for us refs to know who shot that guy all the way across the field. It could have been a dozen different people. So how can you expect the refs to make things right if that happened?
Your sugestion is very nice, but it's impossible to put into practice.
I sincerely think that this rule in itself solves alot of problems.
There are too many players not getting penalized as it is, this rule increases it a little so we can actually get our moneys worth of paintball for a weekend as we are a customer.PEBBLE said:
Cause, you know, your ass was hit and still playing, maybe the CUSTOMERS you are playing against would like their money's worth and would like the refs to do something about the fact you're not following the rules.
Steve has proposed a false dichotomy. Both his choices are wrong.
Pack hits are (usually) NOT obvious, AND playing with a pack hit must be penalized.
OBVIOUS hits should have more severe penalties.
I disagree with Red; the referees should make no effort to ascertain whether the player intended to break the rules or not. Red has misunderstood the player's responsibility: It is not the player's responsibility to merely not try and break the rules; it is the player's responsibility to ACTIVELY OBEY the rules.
Any hit that the player could have been aware of is an obvious hit and should be penalized as an obvious hit REGARDLESS of whether the ref thinks the player was actually aware of it. If the player isn't aware of the obvious hit, that's the player's fault. A good example of this is the player who wears a significant amount of padding and thus doesn't realize he's been hit in the arm. He may not be 'intending to ignore the hit, but he also failed to act such that he WOULD be aware of the obvious hit by choosing to wear too much padding.
Along similar lines, all hopper hits should be obvious all the time. If players don't like getting penalties for obvious hits on their hopper, someone will invent a hopper with a light on the back that flashes when the hopper gets hit in the front.
Pack hits are (usually) NOT obvious, AND playing with a pack hit must be penalized.
OBVIOUS hits should have more severe penalties.
I disagree with Red; the referees should make no effort to ascertain whether the player intended to break the rules or not. Red has misunderstood the player's responsibility: It is not the player's responsibility to merely not try and break the rules; it is the player's responsibility to ACTIVELY OBEY the rules.
Any hit that the player could have been aware of is an obvious hit and should be penalized as an obvious hit REGARDLESS of whether the ref thinks the player was actually aware of it. If the player isn't aware of the obvious hit, that's the player's fault. A good example of this is the player who wears a significant amount of padding and thus doesn't realize he's been hit in the arm. He may not be 'intending to ignore the hit, but he also failed to act such that he WOULD be aware of the obvious hit by choosing to wear too much padding.
Along similar lines, all hopper hits should be obvious all the time. If players don't like getting penalties for obvious hits on their hopper, someone will invent a hopper with a light on the back that flashes when the hopper gets hit in the front.
So at what point do you forgo customer service to provide a fair competition, or vice verse?PEBBLE said:
It has been my experience that there are always two "customers" with polar customers service needs involved in every paintball game. This creates a situation where every episode leads to 1/2 of your "customer" base leaving with a taste of bad customer service.
I may catch hell for this. But, I am totally against the idea that the teams are customers. The teams are competitors. They paid an entry fee to compete in an event. They didn't buy a used car.
It's a fine line, I know. And I try to walk it best I can. But, IMO, when it gets right down to it, I throw "customer" service out in favor of competitive fairness.
In addition, I played for a long time. And when you play as bad as I did, you have lots of experience getting hit. I would venture to guess that of the tens of thousands of times that I was hit, there were only a handful of times that I didn't know it. I certainly knew which hits to acknowledge, and which which I could credibly deny knowledge of receiving. But, I almost ALWAYS knew when I got hit.
I'm glad someone said that. I've been wanting to say that for years.PSPLane said:
True, players are the leagues' customers. But when they start competeting, to your point, they should not be regarded as "the customer is always right". According to me the customers are paying the refs to be hard on them when necessary. That doesn't mean that refs have license to be dicks. Courtesy and balanced friendliness are the hallmarks of professional officials. But the accommodating behavior cabin personnel or car sales people are supposed to display have no place on a field of competition.
Off the playing field is where the leagues and promoters can apply tender customer service and care.
Back to topic:
It seems like most who have responded so far think the new MS rule is good. And I agree that most players know when they're hit the large majority of time, regardless of where they're hit.
The only problem is with consistency. Maybe it's the exception but I saw many instances on the CPL field in which a player moved up and got zapped in the pack, didn't call for a paintcheck, played on but only got pulled. If refs are going to cut the players slack--as I alluded to earlier--then we might as well have the old rule under which refs decided if the player should have been aware of the hit or not.