Inconsistencies in Toulouse....

[camsmith]

Steve,

Given two seconds, I see only one small problem (but no way to fix it, sorry). Every scrutineer is human. I defy any human to hold their hand completely still. Therefore, a human cannot depress a trigger in "one continuous motion".

I think it's a good rule overall but perhaps now it is up to the marshalls (effectively the Ultimate marshall) to interpret these rules as they were meant so that no player gains an unfair advantage.

Cam

PS. The reverse of this should be applied as well to prevent players being unfairly disadvantaged, however "More power to the marshalls".

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by camsmith
Steve,

Given two seconds, I see only one small problem (but no way to fix it, sorry). Every scrutineer is human. I defy any human to hold their hand completely still. Therefore, a human cannot depress a trigger in "one continuous motion".

I think it's a good rule overall but perhaps now it is up to the marshalls (effectively the Ultimate marshall) to interpret these rules as they were meant so that no player gains an unfair advantage.

Cam

PS. The reverse of this should be applied as well to prevent players being unfairly disadvantaged, however "More power to the marshalls".

Until we get test instruments this is what we'll have to live with. I will make a strong effort to make sure everything is as consistent as humanly possible. This will be discussed and decided in our pro reffing meetings and I will be even more diligent in monitoring how things are implemented during the tournaments.

Steve

 

[John C]

Originally posted by Wadidiz

I'm suggesting for the next rules revision that the following wording be added to the definition of a legal trigger:

"No paintball may be discharged after ½ second of the release of force on the trigger and in no case shall more than one paintball be discharged after the release of force on the trigger."

Let's keep talking about it. We may get somewhere.

Steve

The only problem I see with this is the marshalls perception of 1/2 second.

Limiting shot stacking to one shot is a good idea.

 

[MrDan]

definately getting there..........

anymore thoughts?

john, i think steves proposal covers that, as only one ball can come out of the barrel after the trigger is released, in a way this limits the shot stackingto one, but also (splitting hairs) the human perception of one shot after releasing a trigger pull may be hard to judge, especially if you were shooting fast.

agreed that .5 second may be just as hard to measure for mere mortals.

perhaps someone could make a robot to check timing/no. of shots fired etc, (know i said it before) but if someone made one that worked (unveiled at a millennium or something) and it worked, then i dont see why it would ever need replacing.

or have i been watching too many sci-fi films?

 

[cjansen]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
Thanks for catching that. How about this?

"7. The player will switch off any paintball detection system (if present and if switchable)and then switch back on the paintball detection system. The judge will then activate the trigger at the highest rate she or he can to test for any non-semiautomatic mode. The marker may not have discharged more than one paintball per trigger cycle."
Steve

Steve - this is definitely going in the right direction. The only problem with #7 is "The judge will then activate the trigger at the highest rate she or he can to test for any non-semiautomatic mode. The marker may not have discharged more than one paintball per trigger cycle." There is no way that anyone, while walking the trigger as fast as they can, can accurately count how many times they activated the microswitch and how many balls actually were fired. If they could do that, they wouldn't need the robot. And this would be a judgement call by the marshall beceause without a robot to prove that shots were added, or the marker jumping into a noticeable turbo or auto mode, the marshall can't be 100% sure. As it is written now, a marshall could say that "he thinks" some shots were added, so the gun or player is dq'd. He's either 100% sure, or he's not.

No idea how best to word it, but it should be changed. Without a robot, this will be hard as hell to enforce unless the gun goes into a noticeable turbo mode, or simply goes full auto.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by John C
The only problem I see with this is the marshalls perception of 1/2 second.

Obviously this endless, on-going discussion about semi-turbo-auto has caused me to watch guns and players and trigger fingers and shots a whole lot more. One thing I watch a lot for is stacked shots that come out all at once when the trigger is activated (pop-shooting firepower).

If I see a bunch of balls come out after the trigger has clearly been released I will pull the player's armband and suspend the player. In fact I might as well call game over because the outcome is already decided: 0 -100. Obviously that is something like wiping, that I would have to have zero doubts about what I saw. In this case, several paintballs discharged after the release of pressure on the trigger. I can't see any other way to interpret the rules.

Steve

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by cjansen
Steve - this is definitely going in the right direction. The only problem with #7 is "The judge will then activate the trigger at the highest rate she or he can to test for any non-semiautomatic mode. The marker may not have discharged more than one paintball per trigger cycle." There is no way that anyone, while walking the trigger as fast as they can, can accurately count how many times they activated the microswitch and how many balls actually were fired. If they could do that, they wouldn't need the robot. And this would be a judgement call by the marshall beceause without a robot to prove that shots were added, or the marker jumping into a noticeable turbo or auto mode, the marshall can't be 100% sure. As it is written now, a marshall could say that "he thinks" some shots were added, so the gun or player is dq'd. He's either 100% sure, or he's not.

No idea how best to word it, but it should be changed. Without a robot, this will be hard as hell to enforce unless the gun goes into a noticeable turbo mode, or simply goes full auto.

Two EXL players were suspended in Amsterdam for illegal guns. Neither argued nor complained at all. In both cases the veteran NXL ref saw and felt them ramp ROF. I felt the same thing with a gun that was suspended at Max Masters. You can feel the recoil increase and the fact that it is shooting faster than you're pulling.
You won't be able to tell if it's shooting 16 PBs for 14 pulls but you can tell it in obvious cases. We wouldn't have caught the gun that caused a team to get DQd at a recent NPPL event.

Point taken: we need a robot. I'm focusing right now on what to do until we get a robot because I don't know when it's coming. Meanwhile we will make judgments and try to make them as fair and consistent as possible.

 

[John C]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
Obviously this endless, on-going discussion about semi-turbo-auto has caused me to watch guns and players and trigger fingers and shots a whole lot more. One thing I watch a lot for is stacked shots that come out all at once when the trigger is activated (pop-shooting firepower).

If I see a bunch of balls come out after the trigger has clearly been released I will pull the player's armband and suspend the player. In fact I might as well call game over because the outcome is already decided: 0 -100. Obviously that is something like wiping, that I would have to have zero doubts about what I saw. In this case, several paintballs discharged after the release of pressure on the trigger. I can't see any other way to interpret the rules.

Steve

I was thinking more of the pre game chrono procedure.

On the boards I have made: Shots stacked are given a time to live, for safety.

How can a marshall differentiate between a TTL of 0.4seconds (which is legal) and 0.6seconds (which isnt) ?

 

[Red_Merkin]

the marshall can't
which is why you need the robot, because the data will show that.

THe marshall however can suspect it, and then have it sent to the robot, all the marshall has to do is notice 'something odd'. It stops the final decision from being subjective.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Red_Merkin
the marshall can't
which is why you need the robot, because the data will show that.

THe marshall however can suspect it, and then have it sent to the robot, all the marshall has to do is notice 'something odd'. It stops the final decision from being subjective.

This thread: we need a robot; we have to have a system until we get a robot; we need a robot; yeah, right, but we don't have one yet and what do we do meantime; yeah but we have to have a robot to do that...ad infinitum.

We ain't got a robot. It is a shame that the current state of affairs means that every tournament or field has to have rare, expensive instruments (over and above netting systems, stationary and hand-held chronographs and high-pressure compressors). Everything is already too expensive.

Meanwhile (once again) we gotta do the best we can with what we got and try to make it fair.

Steve