Enforcing the rules and unsportsmanlike conduct

[Wadidiz]

Here is another idea posted by Pete Martin on the thread about the Millennium series:
________________________________________

I think the best thing here is to push the PRO ref thing forward although I do appreciate this is some way off, with the reffing I think the tournament organizers should not only pay the Ultimate judge but have paid head refs on each field and it is there responsibility to control the level of marshalling on that field. Perhaps even spending a couple of hours with there allocated refs giving them pointers as to what is actually required, (again I see some floors).

________________________________________

I think there is something to this. There needs to be a "boss" with some kind of authority on every field in order to maintain quality control and consistency.

I don't know what teeth this field judge would have though.

Steve

 

[Wadidiz]

I have edited my first post with the rules amendments to include a 12th amendment about assigning an independent head-judge to each field who has the authority to maintain quality and consistency. I hope it is okay with the moderators to do so.

Steve

 

[Buddha 3]

Fine with me!

 

[Wadidiz]

Wondering if we can do a reality check?

Let's try to imagine the following scenario on a playing field at an NPPL or Millennium tournament:

1. A field with plenty of well-trained, competent judges who are resolved to apply and enforce the rules consistently.

2. The judges have attended a pre-tournament briefing where it was confirmed what the expected standards were. Where it was seen that everyone understood the rules and what should be done in some of the tough situations that happen in top-level play.

3. A field where all the judges knew that a boss, who has authority, was there to make sure everything was handled properly and consistently. And where all the judges knew the field was being video-taped for later review (maybe, and only for quality control).

Now imagine that at the captain's meeting:

1. All present were told that the rules were going to be enforced. No ifs, ands or buts.

2. All the new rules were clarified.

3. Everyone was told that they must instantly obey a judges call, even when the judge might be wrong. And that it was made doubly clear that discussing or arguing with a judge about a call could never make anything better for that player, only worse. And promises are made that honest answers will be given to honest questions about what happened and why, after the game.

4. Everyone was told that unsportsmanlike conduct will be penalized without exception.

Now imagine some of the scenes we heard about at the Nations' Cup X-Ball tournament. Imagine a top-name, celebrity player runs downfield, gets shot but still takes a player out of his position, and still continues to try to take more out. Judges witness this.

What happens now? What's going to be the best possible way to deal with this situation? What will be the likely response of the offending player/team? How do we make sure the team and player that violated the rules gets a very negative consequence rather than a positive one (such as breaking open a side, or allowing a team-mate to get a key position)? How do we break the cycle of pushing the play-on limits?

1. Should we go with the suggestions at the beginning of this thread? (Take a 1- or 2- for-1 plus give the player in question her/his first mark towards the 3-strikes-you're-out.)

2. Should we try Goose's suggestion of a 3-4-1 penalty for a game-changing play-on and nothing more?

3. Should we have penalty points after the fact that make sure the team doesn't get point advantages for the action but instead negative points?

4. Ask for Zeus to stike the offending player down with a bolt of lightning?

5. Some other suggestion.

6. What is too often done now: nothing.

With all these goes, naturally, that the players shot after the offending player was hit get wiped (if alternate 4 or 6 is not chosen).

If anyone thinks this is interesting, take the volleyball and bounce it back.

 

[paintyerass]

Option 1 would make a good start, and see how it goes.

 

[Wadidiz]

Updated list of suggestions

Here is the list of suggestions, revised with a couple of additions and a couple of omissions. The relatively new ones are in bold:
________________________________________

1. Continue to train PRO refs to get them up to the level they need to be.

2. Require a pre-tournament briefing for all refs to make sure everyone is totally consistent on enforcement of the rules. Give them a pop-quiz to gauge how well everyone knows the rules and go over the important rules most get wrong.

3. Carefully monitor the quality of judging at every tournament and encourage excellence and consistency. (Perhaps one or two video cameras could be set up to monitor quality, but not to change any decisions.)

4. Institute a 3-strikes-you're-out rule: if any player gets caught and penalized for the same violation (playing on, for example) 3 times, that player shall be pulled from the tournament and the team shall play with 1 player less.

5. If a player is pulled from 2 tournaments during a season then the player shall be automatically suspended from NPPL and Millennium for that season (alternative: the next 2 tournaments, if necessary carried over to the next season).

6. Keep statistics of penalized infractions and violators.

7. Put in and enforce very clear rules about threatening, abusing (physically or otherwise) or attempting to intimidate refs. Make suspensions for said offenses mandatory with no exceptions. Zero tolerance!

8. Make sure that NPPL/PSP and X-Ball tournaments have a mix of international refs to avoid the appearance and possible reality of bias because these events are now truly international.

9. Assign a head-judge to every field who is independent of any player/ref team and who has the authority to maintain quality and consistency and to assess penalties for infractions committed by judges (such penalty assessments shall be reported to the ultimate judge who shall then, after verification, apply the penalties).

10. The teams of the judges who are performing their duties for series points shall be subject to all the penalties related to infractions during the tournament in question, e.g. failure to wear goggles in the presence of un-bagged markers, etc. The required warnings and penalty assessments shall be spelled out in a list (I suggest 50 points for most infractions after one warning).

11. Judges who are professional or who are not performing their duties for series points shall be subject to the same applicable rules as the judges in point 10, except that any penalty point assessments shall result in a fine of €1.00 or $1.00, whichever is applicable, or the equivalent in local currency, for each penalty point assessed. For example a judge who fails to wear her/his goggles when and where required after one warning shall be assessed a penalty of €50 or $50 for each infraction. (These are tough fines but judges must set examples.)
_________________________________________

More food for thought in an effort to get better respect for following both the safety and the game rules.

Steve

 

[raehl]

There is no way..

You're going to get judges to ref events if they're subject to fines. They're doing you the service, not the other way around. If you think you need to have penalties and fines for oyur judges to do their jobs, I think you need to hire better judges in the first place.


- Chris

 

[Wadidiz]

There is no way..

Originally posted by raehl
You're going to get judges to ref events if they're subject to fines. They're doing you the service, not the other way around. If you think you need to have penalties and fines for oyur judges to do their jobs, I think you need to hire better judges in the first place.

- Chris

O.K. I don't agree it is judges doing the tournament or league a service. It is, or should be, mutual.

And the biggest thrust of my suggestions are about improving the quality of judging and, at the same time, giving the rules some teeth.

What I'm after here is accountability. And I'm looking for a way to fix the problems I mentioned. In the last couple of rules we're talking about a safety problem. Do you agree that what has been reported and what I have seen of judges taking off their masks in the presence of unbagged guns and at chrono stations is a problem?

NPPL and Millennium have a system for getting the teams to pitch in and ref one tournament each. They are rewarded with points. There needs to be some way to ensure quality and enforce the rules for them too. Right now there isn't much of an accountablity system. Thus my suggestions of a penalty system. Again, the penalties should have a behavior modifying effect. So the desired result should be that judges keep their masks on when they need to. If a player-judge keeps taking her/his mask off after warnings, said player will cost the team points and will get chewed out and/or pulled from reffing. We don't need that kind of judge anyway.

The fines for the paid judges are more symbolic, to be fair vis-a-vis the team judges. They will keep their masks on because that is part of their job description and job requirements. If such a paid judge won't keep his/her mask on after a warning, we don't need such a judge.

Don't think I'm buttering you up, Chris, but I respect your opinion and what you've written before. What do you suggest to improve this situation, if you agree the situation needs improving?

 

[raehl]

Three things...

Traning.

Money.

Promoters and rules with a spine.


You need a training program to train the refs. You need the money to pay trained refs more to make them taking the training worthwhile. And you need promoters and rules which allow the trained refs to be unreproachable gods on the field.


You can't pay refs the same you pay 13 year olds who ref peewee soccer and expect to get professional level reffing.



As we are able to attract more out-of-industry money to the sport, we'll be able to pay for better reffing. As our reffing gets better, we'll attract more out of industry support. The crux of the issue, really, is given the choice between better reffing and cheaper tournaments, players choose cheaper tournaments. Players COMPLAIN that they want better reffing, but players do not want to PAY for better reffing, and better reffing is not free.


Fortunately, WDP wants to pay for better reffing, so that's why we have PRO.



- Chris

 

[shamu]

Where to start

First, I think this is a great discussion. Better then the similar one on Smacktalk (Wadidz - I replied on that one too). Some great points and usefull suggestions, but I'm gonna put in my $0.02 anyway - which is about what refs get paid per game

The biggest problem I see is inconsistency in the enforcement of the rules. This comes from two areas - lack of clear definitions or guidelines in the actual rules themselves (see previous discussions regarding kneeled on paint vs. actual hit) and lack of maturity in the the judging staff. As the lack of clarity in the rules themselves has been discussed already, I'll open up a can of whoop a$$ on maturity in the judging corps.

By judging maturity, I refer to a judges confidence to quickly and accurately assess a situation, make a call, stick to it even if it's unpopular (player arguing, fans on the sideline second-guessing, post-game confrontations) and, perhaps most importantly, make the same call again later. This requires a certain maturity that comes from strength of character and self-confidence. These qualities are not necessarily dependant on past playing experience or quality of instruction, although these can be determining factors in building these qualities. For these reasons, I think former players vs. trained professionals is a null arguement. What really matters is the quality of the individual who is reffing.

I myself have played NPPL, although I'm certainly not a pro. I've reffed many events with higher level players who, frankly, sucked as judges. Part of the reason is inconsistency in interpreting the rules and part is due to the nature of the individuals. Paintball players, in general, are aggressive individuals. However, a good ref has to maintain a certain level of composure. When things get fast and furious in the game, a good ref has to be able to see the action, evaluate the events as they happen, make a call and enforce it - often in less time than it takes to read that sentence. Now, do all this efficiently and without getting sucked into an argument Too often we see players and refs arguing back and forth. See if this sounds familiar:

ref: 'player, you're gone'
player: 'no I'm not! I got him first!"
ref: 'you're gone. Get out"
player: "(insert favorite profanity) you, I got him first!!'
ref: 'get off the field now!'
(continue for another 30 - 60 seconds while the game goes on around the argument)

The ref has to be in control from the minute the teams walk on the field until the teams leave the field. Arguing with players doesn't promote an image of control. Let's try that same argument again from a different perspective....

ref: 'player, you're gone on your pack'
player: 'no I'm not! I got him first!'
ref: 'player, it's a mutual. you're both gone. go to your deadbox.'
player: '(insert favorite profanity) you, I got him first!'
ref: 'failure to leave the field is a 1-4-1' (refs pulls the teammate)
(end of discussion)

OK, this may be a bit simplistic or even extreme but I think you get the point. Actually, given the length of this you've probably fallen asleep by now so let me sum up this dissertation:

I think the rule suggestions are a great idea, particularly implementing suspensions for gross infractions. However, the training of a professional reffing staff to implement the existing rules, let along the new rules, is equally if not more important.

That's my bit. See you in Orlando!

PS - Wadidiz: If you remember the Smacktalk discussion, I'm Nobody Special