Boundary Lines and other rules

[Takedown]

That stills doesn't solve the problem for fields which have been setup for staging like the NPPL Center Stage field. It has an actual stage/area for a camera boom. You could use the thing for cover if there were no tape lines. What's to stop you from running up on the stage? It's in bounds in your scenario. I think removing the chalk lines will make more problems then the one it solves. How about we find a better way to mark it, give a little bit more of a buffer between the bunkers and the tape line and call it good? I'm positive if you allowed people to play anywhere in the net, they would play ANYWHERE in the net including the netted areas near the dead boxes, way out of their bunkers in the back corners, up against the netting by zoning themselves out to the rest of the field, behind camera equipment, stages, etc.

 

[Manning26]

Well, with the stadium seating we've got now, why not some arena walls? You overslide your bunker on the tape, wham, right into a wall.

 

[Red_Merkin]

it's simple, move the side line boundries out another two or three feet, and that will stop players from sliding out of bounds (unless they're really crap at sliding!)
That leaves a small walk way down the side of each field for eliminated players, who should have their hands up anyhow to indicate they are dead.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Takedown
1--You could use the thing for cover if there were no tape lines. What's to stop you from running up on the stage? It's in bounds in your scenario.

2--I'm positive if you allowed people to play anywhere in the net, they would play ANYWHERE in the net including the netted areas near the dead boxes, way out of their bunkers in the back corners, up against the netting by zoning themselves out to the rest of the field, behind camera equipment, stages, etc.

1--For one, it's lousy cover. Two, it's simple. In the case noted there is a slightly elevated stage--make contact with the stage and you're out. The point is, in your scenario, it's the extras added that are the potential problem. Those things are unique to one singular situation.
2--absolutely, players would move anywhere they could effectively play from. And why not? You're discounting the concept on the basis of one field's highly debatable potential problems.

 

[raehl]

No...

For safety reasons, you don't want players making contact with the netting - or near the netting. That just encourages their opponents to bounce shots of the netting, and multiple successive shots to netting in the same spot is bad.

As for my earlier comments about boundry tapes - I'm not saying they play a game-necessary function, but if you're going to have them, they should be RIGOROUSLY enforced. None of this "A ref may issue a warning to a player who goes out of bounds" stuff. If you go out, you're OUT. End of story.

And I know the start station is simple and has been done before and the diagram is obvious and crude...

But for some reason it's still not in the rules, and it should be. "Start station shall be contructed of a rigid materal, rectangular in shape mesuring 1m high and 0.25 m wide per player on each team, erected vertically on and parallel to the back boundry line with no support structure extending into the field of play" or some such. Coupled with a nice, simple, clean-cut "players must start the game with their barrel touching the start station."


- Chris

 

[Takedown]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
1--For one, it's lousy cover. Two, it's simple. In the case noted there is a slightly elevated stage--make contact with the stage and you're out. The point is, in your scenario, it's the extras added that are the potential problem. Those things are unique to one singular situation.
2--absolutely, players would move anywhere they could effectively play from. And why not? You're discounting the concept on the basis of one field's highly debatable potential problems.

1. Whether or not it's unique to one situation, the rules should be the same on every field. The same situation could appear on 2 fields if more tv crews are brought in.

2. I should have quoted nick with this response, he doesn't think people will play 10 yards to the outside of their bunker, and I do. Maybe not everyone, but people will get creative and use the entire field if it's all in bounds. And this is not a negative, but you have to be aware that it will happen and there are negatives as a result of it happening.

Is there anything wrong with making that tape line more visible? Or push the tape line out another foot or two and still have the out of bounds rules. I believe that buffer zone is still needed for the reasons mentioned beyond the stage on the NPPL field.

 

[cjansen]

What the fcuk?

This is getting WAY overcomplicated. If the rule were simply modified to state: "Incidental crossing of the line will not result in elimination. Should a player cross the boundry line for more than X number of seconds, or use an object that is not in the field of play as cover (person, or whatever), then that player will be eliminated.

To have a player eliminated because the toe of his shoe went over the line is stupid (happened to us in Germany.) The boundry line serves no real purpose anyway, and if you just modify the rule to allow incidental crossing, the integrity of the field is still intact. If you want to take a rule from basketball and adopt it to paintball, then look at the 3-second violation. But for paintball, I'd say 5 seconds is more than enough.

 

[raehl]

Well, I suppose I should say 'start station' - but same way is *NOT* sufficient. That's the problem with paintball, rules are written to be "good enough" when they SHOULD be written to be "as good as possible".

The millenium rules on starting need work, specifically the "guns pointed in the opposite direction of the opposing team" or whatever part.

The objective when writing ANY rule should be for it to be as CLEAR and EASY TO ENFORCE as possible. If you're having the rule be "feet have to be here, barrels have to be pointed there", that's a lot more ambiguity (how close to "opposite direction" is good enough?) than something clearcut like "barrels touching the starting station." Stick a ref behind the starting station - if there any barrels on it when the game starts, pull those players. Why keep track of where feet are and barrels are pointed and ask refs to make judgement calls on when barrels are pointed "opposite" enough when you don't have to?

You're writing a rule to solve the question "How can we make sure the players are all starting the same way?" and that's the wrong question. The right question is "How can we make it as easy as possible for the refs to tell if all the players are starting the same way?"

And things like the exact dimensions of the starting/flag station SHOULD be in the rules. It should be EXACTLY the same from field to field and event to event. Every other sport defines properties of the field and ball down to the inch, ounce, and even things like the bounciness of the basketball backboard - and paintball should be no exception.


- Chris

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Takedown
Is there anything wrong with making that tape line more visible? Or push the tape line out another foot or two and still have the out of bounds rules. I believe that buffer zone is still needed for the reasons mentioned beyond the stage on the NPPL field.

If you want to move the lines well out of the way so they don't impact the play of the game in most situations instead of eliminating them altogether--okay. I still don't see your objections as legit but hey, we're allowed to disagree.

Re: cameras, etc. In a television future--should such ever occur--there won't be hand held cameras on the field anyway. All that offers is some of the flavor of playing the game but none of the actual ebb and flow or continuity of a whole game in progress. And while we live in an increasingly music video culture you can't present sports in constant close-up without the context of the game to make it coherent. But that's another thread.

Nick--don't worry about raehl. His points make perfect sense if you read his posts separately from rest of thread. As usual he's off on his own tangent--it just wasn't clear until his most recent post.
Edit added--except for post above this one he snuck in while I was writing. Worse, he's right about how and why the rules should be written.

 

[raehl]

What the fcuk?

Originally posted by cjansen
This is getting WAY overcomplicated. If the rule were simply modified to state: "Incidental crossing of the line will not result in elimination. Should a player cross the boundry line for more than X number of seconds, or use an object that is not in the field of play as cover (person, or whatever), then that player will be eliminated.

How is that LESS complicated than "If a player touches any object outside of the boundry line, they are eliminated".

Your rule is a plain and simple BAD rule - what is "incidental"? Is it like it is currently where pros crossing the line is incidental and rookies is intentional? How are you counting seconds? Is the ref supposed to sit there and go "one one-thousand, two-one-thousand" instead of doing one of the many other things the ref SHOULD be doing?

To have a player eliminated because the toe of his shoe went over the line is stupid (happened to us in Germany.) The boundry line serves no real purpose anyway, and if you just modify the rule to allow incidental crossing, the integrity of the field is still intact. If you want to take a rule from basketball and adopt it to paintball, then look at the 3-second violation. But for paintball, I'd say 5 seconds is more than enough.

It's a boundry line. Don't cross it. If you're not going to eliminate players for crossing the boundry line, then it isn't a boundry line, and get rid of it.


- Chris