All hits are obvious hits. Good rule or no?

[Nick Brockdorff]

Nick, your statement:

"Players getting eliminated, because some clumsy ref was positioned poorly to see him get hit, and thus has to perform a check by moving the player, is an absolute NO GO..... officials should NOT impact on the game negatively."

is just wrong on so many levels. Players move, sometimes unexpectedly. Players sometimes intentionally hide a bodypart so a ref can see it. Until we get 2 refs per player (1 for each side), you will have not have absolute perfect, no-touch reffing. (Wad - much love brother, but why are you agreeing with this statement

You are missing the point.

I am saying that we do not want refs shoving players out of cover, so that the ref is actually getting the player eliminated.

So EITHER - don't allow refs to touch the players OR stipulate they have to call the player neutral, IF they need to touch him.

I am advocating keeping the neutral call in the rules, to give the ref the OPTION - and I want said in the rules that if a ref needs to compromise a players "safety from opposing player" in order to check him properly, he HAS to call him neutral before checking him.

I don't really see how that is "wrong on so many levels"?

You seem to believe that every player playing extremely tight, has got something to hide? - We'll - actually - sometimes players are just playing tight - believe it or not Mr. Paranoid

- Didn't know you and Steve were related ?

Nick

P.S. Lane is not increasing your salary - so quit sucking up

 

[Wadidiz]

So EITHER - don't allow refs to touch the players OR stipulate they have to call the player neutral, IF they need to touch him. I am advocating keeping the neutral call in the rules, to give the ref the OPTION - and I want said in the rules that if a ref needs to compromise a players "safety from opposing player" in order to check him properly, he HAS to call him neutral before checking him.

Basically what I'm suggesting is a reflection of the de facto reality: neutral calls have all but disappeared. I can't even remember the last time I saw one at a major league tournament. (The one I heard about at Flen this year ended up a cluster-flub). Therefore this is almost a moot discussion.

I would agree with your two-pronged suggestion except I would change "don't touch" to "don't interfere". As I've already stated I tend towards the absolute avoidance of touching at the expense of possibly missing a hit before it disappears. I totally respect a real pro like Shamu with a little touching since I know he can be trusted to not interfere.

Didn't know you and Steve were related ?

We're blood-brothers in the Fraternity of Abused But Happy Paintball Officials.

 

[Chicago]

So EITHER - don't allow refs to touch the players OR stipulate they have to call the player neutral, IF they need to touch him.

Maybe just tell them not to move players so that they'll get shot?

 

[Wadidiz]

Uh, or just tell them not to move players so that they'll get shot?

Exactement!

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Maybe just tell them not to move players so that they'll get shot?

So, if you can't move the player to check him - because he is in risk of getting shot - your proposal it is better to run the risk that he is playing on - than calling him neutral?

Nick

 

[Chicago]

So, if you can't move the player to check him - because he is in risk of getting shot - your proposal it is better to run the risk that he is playing on - than calling him neutral?

No. Pull yourself back to reality for a second here Nick.

The reality where you can move players AND they won't get shot.

The reality where a player is going to find it extremely difficult to both play AND hide a hit.

The reality where if you can't move a player, you can say 'show me your left side', and if they don't, move them anyway and if they get hit it's their problem.


At some point you have to decide that you have not hired a bunch of brainless peons to be your referees and let them, you know, referee.

 

[Wadidiz]

..move them anyway...

Get Lane on the field. He's great at getting people on the field who don't want to move to move. (Damn, I wish I had saved that video clip! Was that WC 2003?)

 

[shamu]

Lane -

Some of us are old enough to remember seeing you play. some of us even remember playing against GZ when they were good.

Nick -

You live in a black and white world. I belive there are shades of gray.

I'm trying to point out that refs shouldn't need to maul players or excessively interfere in their ability to play the game. At the same time, they have to have the right to touch a player, move equipment or body part, or require the player to show them a body part that isn't easily viewed, which by definition may interfere with their ability to play the game. There is a middle ground that combines proper ref training as well as compliance on the player's part.

Sucking up for better pay? Please, who in their right mind does this for the money?
(although "who in their right mind does this?" might be more appropriate)

Chicago - agreed (that doesn't happen often)

Steve - FABHPO? I think we need a better acronym

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

I find it weird that you would think it easy to move a player in a snake, to check the side of him tugged in against the snake, without him being in danger of broing marked..... or a player playing extremely tight in a beercan far up the field, under pressure from both sides.

I find it weird that you would be ok with a ref causing the player to be marked - even if he was clean to begin with.

Maybe you guys should get out and play more

Nick

 

[Chicago]

Screw the players. They cause all the problems anyway.

The cases where I can't move the bunker or the player a little bit to see what I need to see without causing the player any significant additional risk of being shot, including when the player is in the snake, are rare.

Or are the snakes in Europe constructed so that players playing tightly against the snake are sure to get shot out from the tape if they move a couple inches? Cause that's definitely not the case stateside.



Let me wrap this up another way: I can not think of a case where attempting to call a player neutral is better than any other alternative.