Inconsistencies in Toulouse....

[camsmith]

I do like the idea of "markers capable of shooting in any other mode...", (which I take to mean includes any Race frame with anything other than 2.0.26 firmware installed).

A tough stance like this provides a very simple method whereby competition organisers (hopefully well before the event) can provide a list of markers and firmware supported. This should be easily checked throughout the tournament, even enforced by random checks at a chrono station.

 

[camsmith]

Sorry, my bad... (just shows that everyone needs to read and FULLY understand the rules)

In the example above, even firmware 2.0.25 (where other modes have not been disabled) is legal, as it is not possible to change the firing mode without use of en external tool (e.g. palm/laptop).

PS. I'm only using Race as an example, as that's what I use and am therefore familiar with.

 

[ascutt]

Nick

Is it only in your strange and slightly purple world that one shot per trigger pull not the actual definition of semi-automatic?

 

[RoryM]

Black and white, no grey,,,

Yep, thats the way I always defined semi, I don't think there is any other definition. And the other thing that I saw people having
a little chirp about is that 'the marshall was not holding it properly'

Now, when you watch a game, do you see all the players firing their markers from a conventional position all the time? I will hazard a guess that the answer is no, so lets get rid of that point straight away in the revisions of the rules.

The way forward seems to be a need for the after game arbitration by a fixed, consistent method. i.e a robot, and it should only be used for that purpose, and maybe accsess to it on field walking day may help people set their markers up better.

At the end of the day though, if you are using it, it's your responsability - period. I would rather have one 'dubious' call on a marker before a game than 7 illegal markers on the feild ahead of me (Nick - ) It's a safety thing, that's all!

I think Toulouse was a kick up the arse that alot of players needed to be more responsible and with that in mind more people are going to pay more attention at the next event.
Now thats a good thing surely?

peace

 

[Mark Toye-Nexus]

Now, when you watch a game, do you see all the players firing their markers from a conventional position all the time?

Rory - I'd say 99% of the time actually.

We could go to the nth dgree and catch any marker ever made for bouncing if you set the test up just so

I think that players are asking for clear direction and the means by which they can be sure that they have complied.

At the moment experts are passing guns only to be failed by judges who go too far to fail them

Not only that but, as I pointed out earlier, we seemed to have some good movement forward in this aspect when it was spelt out at the captains meeting that the guns would be passed for bouncing if the degree of bounce did not afford undue advantage.

I dont think that 'allowance' was properly explained to the judges and we now have this lengthy discussion as a result.

As for Nick - I'd rather ban innocent guns than let illegal ones on the fields I'm afraid.

Mark

 

[Baca Loco]

Scutty

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Ok - let me re-phrase then:

I think we need defined what a trigger pull actually IS !

Because - like it or not - a LOT of people subscribe to the view that that means one switch activation per shot fired....... and apparently that is not what you and Steve believes.

The point is - as long as it is dubious what defines a trigger pull (to some people) - there is a clear need for a clear definition - in the rules.

Nick

The obvious distinction is volition. The actual purposeful "pulling" of the trigger each and every time the marker fires a paintball. Anything else isn't semi-auto function no matter how desperately the definitions are finessed.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Mark Toye-Nexus
At the moment experts are passing guns only to be failed by judges who go too far to fail them

I may be wrong but I don't see this as being much unlike chronogaphing guns for velocity. You'll get different values from shot to shot, from chrono to chrono and from time to time. If you run your gun at 299 you will pass on some chronos and fail on some others. Sometimes because of fluctuations in the gun, sometimes because of slight inconsistencies from instrument to instrument.

Originally posted by Mark Toye-Nexus
Not only that but, as I pointed out earlier, we seemed to have some good movement forward in this aspect when it was spelt out at the captains meeting that the guns would be passed for bouncing if the degree of bounce did not afford undue advantage.

I dont think that 'allowance' was properly explained to the judges and we now have this lengthy discussion as a result.

As for Nick - I'd rather ban innocent guns than let illegal ones on the fields I'm afraid.

Mark

I have to take responsibility for any unclarities resulting from the captains' meeting. All the head field judges were there except for one. The main thing I meant to say was that we weren't looking for artificially induced bounce just for the sake of finding a bounce. We would try to stop anything that could possibly give advantage.

But how do you decide whether or not bounce we find while holding a marker firmly might give advantage or not? There's no question about it: this is an extremely ragged line to hold. It is somewhat like a filter that we're trying to hold up to keep the bad guns out, but the filter is too fine in some areas and too coarse in others. And a few really cheater guns are getting through (although they are not able to be made much use of on our fields because they know we're watching).

If one of our testers finds your bounce then there is always the question about how easily you can get it to bounce since it is your gun. I watched every single tester many times during the weekend and they all tested them properly, holding them properly. They are supposed to try pulling the trigger slowly sometimes. We have to see if the guns are prone to bounce and if so how much. I've seen guns that would shoot full auto bursts when you pulled the trigger slowly a couple of times and found the sweet spot. I don't want that gun on my field. Period. Full stop.

Now what should we say while we're waiting for the Mill board to create a budget for a robot (if that's what's going on)? Should we say that one double every 6 shots is OK or every 12 shots? Or that double shooting every 6 shots is OK but definitely not triples?

I say we try to stop the guns that are a little over the line (real bounce) before the game and before penalties. Then, if someone is caught during a game, it is confirmed by a second judge following generally the same procedure. If the team's captain so requests.

I'm listening to any and all suggestions about how we can make everyone happy and still keep our very important gun rules.

Steve

 

[scribble]

Whatever is decided the main point that is constant through the threads is consistency. Everyone is on the same page. This will prevent bias. My concern about consistency and this whole deal is that if it is left up to marshalls - unless very very exact rules and step by step guides are created/written and strictly adheared too by ALL marshalls - then human error will also be a factor between marshalls and true consistency will never be achievable. Maybe robots are the way forward but they are a long way off as a plausible fast, efficient means of testing (See above threads). So as for a solution now, see my previous threads. Simple and effective.

STILL thinking...

 

[Wadidiz]

Hi Steve

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff

- Defining a trigger pull as minimum X milimetres
- Defining that a switch has to have a minimum travel of X milimetres from set position to activation
- Defining X grams as minimum weight in a switch
- Defining that the trigger has to activate the switch on the middle third of the switch arm (when that type of switch is in the gun) - which is also where travel is measured.
- Defining that switches have to have the activation weight printed on them.
- Defining that a switch can show no signs of having been opened up or tampered with.
- Having the tools to measure all this - and judges that are trained to use the tools.

Thanks. We'll have that in place for Madrid.

 

[Wadidiz]

Jeeeez dude !

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
I'm trying to come up with solutions that are sustainable long term...... and you don't take it seriously ?

I KNOW Madrid is right around the corner..... but that does not mean you should ONLY look for a quick fix here.... because..... there IS NONE !

Nick

I do appreciate that it is a concrete suggestion for the long-term. Probably thinkable for the 2010s. What you're suggesting has validity but would be extremely difficult and costly to implement and enforce.

I think we're moving towards acceptable policies, routines and practice this season. Until we get custom-made test instruments it will be uneven and clumsly. It probably will be even afterwards, just less so. But I think it will be acceptable, especially as everyone learns that we're holding the line however uneven the line may necessarily have to be.

Failure to dial in enough velocity margin could lose you a game. Same is true for not having your gun under your control and some margin dialed in for debounce, or whatever.