Fight Club: new MS Rule

[Baca Loco]

For or against the new Millennium ruling that every hit regardless of location is an obvious hit and any instance of failing to call for a check, self-checking or playing on should result in a 1-4-1.

In favor: Missy Q

Against: Ralph

moderator: TFP

This debate will be open until Tuesday March 7 and will close at approx. 8 pm GMT. (Time for Ralph's parting shots and Missy to wake up.)

Either party may open the debate.
Regardless of whatever else you may post to bolster your position please include direct responses to your opponent's views, positions, wild claims and/or ravings, etc. as the case may be.

Comments by non-participants are allowed.

Anything goes within the boundaries of normal forum rules but please stay on topic.

LET"S GET READY TO RUMBLE

 

[Missy Q]

Ralph - I'll let you swing first.

and just so I know - Is this Ralph from Challenge?

 

[Ralph]

No it's not Ralph from challenge although some may say that i am challenged

 

[Ralph]

This new Rule sucks... for one reason and one reason only..

The ref has no say in the matter. If a player has paint on them they will be 1-41nd regardless of where the hit is.

I know we could run through scenarios till the cows come home. But for this instance players A & B are trading with eachother.B takes an unaware hit on the Pack.
The Ref is running toward him to eliminate him. Before he gets there, B resumes fire and hits A square on the Goggs. Now the Ref has to call a 1-4-1 to redress the Balance. i dont have a problem with that.

What if they missed ? Under this rule he still gets 1-4-1nd.The ref does not have the choice and it's that lack of choice i think is wrong.

 

[Missy Q]

This new Rule sucks... for one reason and one reason only..

Wow - you're really going to make it that easy huh?

OK, so we have the one and only reason why the rule sucks. for my argument I want to delve into the psyche of the paintballer for a moment, and explain why a move now away from zero accountability is one of the most important directions our sport must take. But first, your 'points'

The ref has no say in the matter. If a player has paint on them they will be 1-41nd regardless of where the hit is.

Incorrect, they will first have the option to leave the game, or have a ref or even team-mate check to see if they are hit, so that a 1-4-1 may be avoided. In the unlikely situation that the player did not feel the hit, that does not diminish the fact that he has been marked by a player on the other team, and is out. The likely result here however, is that the player will assume himself hit, and take off down the field to 'take a few with him'. This is the fundamental problem with the old 'unobvious hit' rule, it is exploited at every opportunity by normal people who can't help being lying unreasonable cheats while on a paintball field, because they seem to think that is exceptable behavior. The only way the behavior is deemed unacceptable (to the player) is if there is a penalty involved that would harm his teams chances, or get him in trouble with his captain/team-mates.

Your argument only works if we apply the common malaise of players these days, where you guys don't believe you should leave the field unless you are dragged kicking and screaming away from your bunker by a ref, and that the job of the ref is to do this - to stop you from playing on. That is not the case. It is your job to make sure you don't play on, hence it is you that is penalised when you do it. The refs job is to ensure that if you do gain unfair advantage by doing this, that you have a penalty applied.
Refs are there to ensure safety and fair play. It is not really the job of a ref to tell a player if they are hit or not, it IS however the responsibilty of the player to make sure that when they are hit they leave the game, as described in the rules, which you have already demonstrated that you have read.

It is pointless playing out the rare scenario's where you might feel mistreated by the rule, because there are far more poignant examples seen every day of how players are discharging themselves from the responsibility of leaving the field when they are out, which is also known as 'cheating'. I doubt anyone would say that behavior on the field is generally improving, the decreasing accountability players are taking for thier actions is a dangerous movement towards a farcical and entirely unappealing spectacle that deters new players and potential investors alike, and it is damaging our sports chances of being successful.

This said, when people who see and appreciate the real long term danger this lack of accountability represents, and apply rules which, is nothing else, defer some of the responsibility of leaving the field to the player who has been hit, there is an outcry. This outcry is, I believe, a direct symptom of the initial malaise, and therefore predictable, but totally insupportable.

 

[Missy Q]

too easy - next!

 

[Missy Q]

Ralph?

 

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Missy Q
Incorrect, they will first have the option to leave the game, or have a ref or even team-mate check to see if they are hit, so that a 1-4-1 may be avoided. In the unlikely situation that the player did not feel the hit, that does not diminish the fact that he has been marked by a player on the other team, and is out. The likely result here however, is that the player will assume himself hit, and take off down the field to 'take a few with him'. This is the fundamental problem with the old 'unobvious hit' rule, it is exploited at every opportunity by normal people who can't help being lying unreasonable cheats while on a paintball field,.

Sorry for the delay in replying, my typing is a bit slow and i fell asleep twice reading your post

You obviously did not read my scenario correctly. However unlikely that the player did not know when they were hit, It does happen and it should be up to the Ref to decide as whether or not they enforce a 1-4-1. If they choose to enforce it,all well and good that's their choice as Refs. However if they have to enforce it, that's another matter.

Players are going to spend a lot of time and money attending these events. Why do the organisers think they can install a rule that makes every customer guilty ?
I dont have a problem with 1/2/3/4/5/6/7-4-1 rule but it's got to be used correctly.
If one of my team gets 1-4-1nd and i ask the Ref afterwards what happen and he explains X & Y =Z. I may not like it but i have to respect his decision and then warn my players. I would get seriouly frustrated if i was told that Rule X sub section c,paragraph 2 states....blah blah blah.
If i was in charge this is what i'd tell the refs
1: If your not certain pull them out.
2: If your certain 1-4-1 them
3: If certain they're takin' the weeee pull more out

I dont see that it's that hard for refs 2 do on fields that are the size of postage stamps under the full gaze of spectators.
In my oppinion Refs are players with out guns that's all. They know the score and should be able to make decisions accordingly

Regards Ralph

 

[Missy Q]

Yay - I thought you had given up, saw you on here hours ago and just coudln't work out why you were so shy...

Sorry was my post too long for you? Too many big words?

So what are you saying thats new?

You obviously did not read my scenario correctly. However unlikely that the player did not know when they were hit, It does happen and it should be up to the Ref to decide as whether or not they enforce a 1-4-1. If they choose to enforce it,all well and good that's their choice as Refs. However if they have to enforce it, that's another matter.

Rules are there to be enforced. The job of the ref is to enforce the rules. thus, yes, they have to enforce it.
It is not better to have a rule that may possibly, however unlikely, penalise a player for playing on when they may not be aware that they had been legitimately eliminated from the game or is it fairer to work within a grey area where every player can claim they did not know they were hit and blame a ref for enforcing a rule that the player knows they have 'latitude' to deal with? That was the problem beofre, that is the reason that this rule was put in place. Are you seriously saying that the refs should decide 'on the field' which rules to allow and which to ignore? That is not viable.
Are you saying that players would do anything other then work this grey area until they are expecting people to believe that they did not feel the shot on the hand because they had gloves on?

I am not sure you read my post at all.....

Players are going to spend a lot of time and money attending these events. Why do the organisers think they can install a rule that makes every customer guilty ?

This is exactly the reason that rules have to be fair and people have to take responsibility for going out when they are hit. If a player didn't know they were hit, and the hit was not seen by a ref, and that player is then seen by a ref firing his gun and partaking in a game he was legitimately eliminated from, then he is pursuing an unfair advantage, knowingly or not, and that infraction has to be redressed for the sake of the people at the other end, who, as you say, have spent time and money to be there and deserve a fair result. And the first rule, by the way, is to go out when you are hit. We are not talking about a friendly game down the local field here. We are talking about top flight competition. Rules are in place to make it a legitimate sporting contest. We are not talking about the fundamental rules of paintball, only the means with which the refs are permitted to enforce said rules.

I dont have a problem with 1/2/3/4/5/6/7-4-1 rule but it's got to be used correctly.

If one of my team gets 1-4-1nd and i ask the Ref afterwards what happen and he explains X & Y =Z. I may not like it but i have to respect his decision and then warn my players. I would get seriouly frustrated if i was told that Rule X sub section c,paragraph 2 states....blah blah blah.

Firstly, if a ref said that, then you would have every right to be confused, however....
Fact is, if you are expecting the refs to get to the bottom of every incident and make these decisions in the midst of the game then you have not played top level paintball. Decisions have to be quick and final for the game to progress without further bias. The players will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to avoid elimination by a ref. Players who are hit and think they can get away with it WILL 100% of the time try to influence the game before going out. This is cheating. In order to combat said cheating, the rules have to be tweaked to combat the problem.

I dont see that it's that hard for refs 2 do on fields that are the size of postage stamps under the full gaze of spectators.

Then you have never reffed top flight painball either.

In my oppinion Refs are players with out guns that's all. They know the score and should be able to make decisions accordingly

Then I see why you have the view that you have. Your problem is twofold:
Firstly, you have no respect, or real understanding, of what refs do. This is apparent, and it is going to be difficult for me to make you understand the complexities of the job at the sharp end if you have so little knowledge of it. You are talking purely from a players perspective, and I am tallking from a ref/organiser/sport/fairness/non-spoilt brat kinda direction.
Secondly, you are not addressing any of my own points, only restating your own personal objection at the fact that you might possibly get a 141 when you personally don't feel you deserve it, even though you were playing with a hit on you at the time...

I think if you want to argue for fairness, then you can only really argue that the rule is a good one. But I would be interested to see how you combat my own points, rather than regurgitating the same stuff about how low-life refs should know it all anyway...

Try not to keep me waiting so long though, or if you must, come up with something better.

 

[Missy Q]

......just in case, its the points I raised in my first post that need addressing by you. You don't need to worry about the second one just yet, I was only dealing with your own responses as is fitting in a 'debate'.
Your turn...