What about deadboxes on one side of the field, close to the fifty/ref's tent? Very little paint seems to be going that way. Plus it makes it easy for the refs to keep the deadbox inhabitants (Piper) in check.
"Bonus Ball" solutions
- Thread starter Tyger
- Start date
Actually I feel that the deadboxes are best kept at the back - keeps them away from what the action.
How many times have we seen a team go crazy in the deadbox when something happens right in front of them??
But anyway back to bonus balling, please...
goose
How many times have we seen a team go crazy in the deadbox when something happens right in front of them??
But anyway back to bonus balling, please...
goose
Agreed. Usually in the middle at the back takes the least blind paint as that more often cuts across field...
And if ya have players walking towards the other team at the 50 without thier hands up the bonus balling is gonna be even worse..
But how bad is bonus balling on your side of the pond??Cuz here its become a regular part of the game..Im just trying to figure out if this is a Paintball as a whole problem or just in the States..I can gaurantee that in at least 6 out of 10 games here youll find someone walking off the field all lit up for no reason..It started with the Pros and has slowly trickled its way down to the Ams and Novs..Near fights are common place now because of it and its gotton way outta hand..
It's not a real big problem, it's mainly teams that play in the states like Shockwave, or American teams that really do it. It's not uncommon to get an extra two or three balls, but when the Yanks do it, they make sure you're going to have to change your cloths.
All the Yanks who play in the Milleniums do it. I've seen Bob Longs, Dynasty, the AA's, SC Ironmen...but they're worst when they're playing against themselves.
Netted dead boxes are a must. In one of the back corners.
All the Yanks who play in the Milleniums do it. I've seen Bob Longs, Dynasty, the AA's, SC Ironmen...but they're worst when they're playing against themselves.
Netted dead boxes are a must. In one of the back corners.
Only one problem...
It's fairly clear what is done with malicious intent and what isn't. Every ref can see who's being over zealous and who's just being caught in a bad spot where it "Sucks to be you".
That being said, I don't think it's irrational to give the referees the power to start yanking guys who are shooting to punish, and not shooting to play. It would stoop incidents like LaSoya givign a concussion to some kid. Or at least give some kind or recourse to the officiating staff to punish the aggressor.
I also don't think it's irrational to make all player use a "universal" signal to show they're out (hand on head), and to give the authority to punish players who refuse to heed that. If there's no rule against an action, players will continue to do it. We all know this is the case, so if overshooting is a problem (which, IMHO, it is), you need a black and white solution.
-Tyger
Well, someone has to decide it. Hense my wording of malicious intent. If the dead boxes are placed in a corner (like at Skyball this year) and you have to run through 2-3 fitring lanes to get there, that's not malicious intent. IF somoene stops at a bunker, and plasters you 20 times in the head and neck, that IS.
It's fairly clear what is done with malicious intent and what isn't. Every ref can see who's being over zealous and who's just being caught in a bad spot where it "Sucks to be you".
That being said, I don't think it's irrational to give the referees the power to start yanking guys who are shooting to punish, and not shooting to play. It would stoop incidents like LaSoya givign a concussion to some kid. Or at least give some kind or recourse to the officiating staff to punish the aggressor.
I also don't think it's irrational to make all player use a "universal" signal to show they're out (hand on head), and to give the authority to punish players who refuse to heed that. If there's no rule against an action, players will continue to do it. We all know this is the case, so if overshooting is a problem (which, IMHO, it is), you need a black and white solution.
-Tyger
The only "black and white solution" would be to have a limit on the number of times a player can be shot-refs count how many times a player shoots someone.
If that kind of rule was ever inforced I believe it would be too inconsistant between judges, lead to too many arguments and give biased refs another angle to abuse their powers.
It would also add to the work load of already overworked/pressured judges and the average quality of judging could fall. While a judge is counting how many balls 1 player takes, he could be missing something much more important kicking off on the other side of the field.
Lighting up clearly eliminated players (arm raised fully) is already against the rules, its just not enforced as well as it should be. Adding pressure to the judges will not help, there is no realistic b&w solution to over shooting live players. If a player dosnt have his arm raised, hes game, and thats his problem. If he raises his arm and is continually shot, thats where the line has been crossed......
The rules are fine as they are, judges should just be a lil sharper on the amount of abuse clearly dead players are recieving and be ready to penalise offenders.
If that kind of rule was ever inforced I believe it would be too inconsistant between judges, lead to too many arguments and give biased refs another angle to abuse their powers.
It would also add to the work load of already overworked/pressured judges and the average quality of judging could fall. While a judge is counting how many balls 1 player takes, he could be missing something much more important kicking off on the other side of the field.
Lighting up clearly eliminated players (arm raised fully) is already against the rules, its just not enforced as well as it should be. Adding pressure to the judges will not help, there is no realistic b&w solution to over shooting live players. If a player dosnt have his arm raised, hes game, and thats his problem. If he raises his arm and is continually shot, thats where the line has been crossed......
The rules are fine as they are, judges should just be a lil sharper on the amount of abuse clearly dead players are recieving and be ready to penalise offenders.
Tyger's first and fourth points are the best for reducing bonus balling. As a ref, you need a clear rule to base your call on. Something that's vague ("intent to injure") will only lead to disputed calls. You need a condition (eliminated player is hit while leaving the field, outside firing lanes or blind lanes). You also need the state (players hand raised) so you have clear grounds for making the call.
As a NPPL ref, I don't mind having more grey areas. Most of the calls we make are based on a certain amount of judgement. The bonus ball call wouldn't be much different than the obvious hit call - (condition- the player is hit on his arm. state - did the player react to the hit? yes? then it's an obvious hit and he gets a penalty if he keeps playing). Trying to make a call when the basis for that call isn't well defined is asking for headaches and most refs won't do it.
Goose - The refs on a field will know where the paint is going and where the lanes are from watching games on that field all day and from their own experience. Making a call on whether a player is intentionally getting bonus balled is a judgement based on the players location on the field and where the action is. A good ref can make that call.
So let's say Tyger's rule are implemented. A player is hit and walking off the field. He gets four more balls to the back. Is the player in bounds or in a firing lane? (no) Is the players hand up, clearly signaling that he's eliminated? (yes) Could the other player clearly see the eliminated player and not blind firing? (yes) The ref can pull the player for unsportmanlike conduct/bonus balling.
Now we just need to get the leagues to add the rule to the rulebooks. PGI to the rescue?
As a NPPL ref, I don't mind having more grey areas. Most of the calls we make are based on a certain amount of judgement. The bonus ball call wouldn't be much different than the obvious hit call - (condition- the player is hit on his arm. state - did the player react to the hit? yes? then it's an obvious hit and he gets a penalty if he keeps playing). Trying to make a call when the basis for that call isn't well defined is asking for headaches and most refs won't do it.
Goose - The refs on a field will know where the paint is going and where the lanes are from watching games on that field all day and from their own experience. Making a call on whether a player is intentionally getting bonus balled is a judgement based on the players location on the field and where the action is. A good ref can make that call.
So let's say Tyger's rule are implemented. A player is hit and walking off the field. He gets four more balls to the back. Is the player in bounds or in a firing lane? (no) Is the players hand up, clearly signaling that he's eliminated? (yes) Could the other player clearly see the eliminated player and not blind firing? (yes) The ref can pull the player for unsportmanlike conduct/bonus balling.
Now we just need to get the leagues to add the rule to the rulebooks. PGI to the rescue?
Reffing quality
Grey areas may be fine for experienced and good marshals, but for a team who is doing it for a favour etc. there are enough bad calls made. We need it to be as black and white as possible (IMHO) for the lower down level tournaments
Richard
Grey areas may be fine for experienced and good marshals, but for a team who is doing it for a favour etc. there are enough bad calls made. We need it to be as black and white as possible (IMHO) for the lower down level tournaments
Richard