Inconsistencies in Toulouse....

[RoryM]

Every tourney has it's inconsitencies, but the one thing that always remains constant is Scutty, and this is a good thing. If it means players are no longer going to just ignore the safety and legal aspects of their markers behaviour, then something good has been achieved.

If all Judges were the same standard as him, that surely would be a good thing? Closing the door before the horse has bolted is always a good practice in my book.

If you were caught by Scutty, in some way, it may not have been your fault, but he just does his job 100% to the letter, and for that he should be commended.

 

[fred1]

As Ulrich Stähr posted, the problem isn't Andy Scutt. He is totally competent, totally unbiased and, like my other professional head referees, totally trusted by me. In fact, we couldn't have made the progress we've made this year without him. He has served as my right-hand man for the 7-player series all year and is extremely dedicated to quality, consistent reffing and reasonable rules.

Agreed. As I stated before, anger clouded my reasoning and I missed the point. I should not have directed this on Andy's way of applying the rules but rather towards how the rules are defined.

Concerning Autocockers, Nick Truter--the E-blade meister--proved to the world that Cockers can be made legal and still shoot at top speed. After he had it clarified with me what we were going to allow and not allow (which can be ascertained from the published rules and what was said in the captains' meeting) there was ZERO problems with the guns he adjusted. That says everything to me. I truly feel sorry for the individuals and the teams that suffered because they didn't have the technical competence to make their markers comply with the rules.

I saw Nick run a gun test procedure and ran it on my gun and I can assure you that it passes the test 150%.... that doesn't mean you are not going to find a bounce. I do not lack technical competence (not one ref bounced my gun during the tourney and many tried). What I lack is knowledge of what is permitted and not or what is tolerated or not...... I still think it's foggy.

 

[MrPink]

Originally posted by RoryM
Every tourney has it's inconsitencies, but the one thing that always remains constant is Scutty, and this is a good thing. If it means players are no longer going to just ignore the safety and legal aspects of their markers behaviour, then something good has been achieved.

If all Judges were the same standard as him, that surely would be a good thing? Closing the door before the horse has bolted is always a good practice in my book.

If you were caught by Scutty, in some way, it may not have been your fault, but he just does his job 100% to the letter, and for that he should be commended.

Totally agree! In fact, Scutty should run courses imo.

 

[camsmith]

Personally, I think the problem lies in a slightly different area.


How do you define a trigger pull?


In the sport of fencing, there are specific measures taken before each bout to ensure that (where applicable) buttons on the ends of each competitor's weapon conforms to the rules in terms of the weight required and the button "travels" a certain distance before a point can be scored.

By having these rules and testing procedures, the sport ensures fairness and the competitors know what to expect come testing time.

The issue is slightly more complex when you introduce the technology inside current tournament markers, as this allows things like ramping, burst fire, etc. However, I don't think it would be impossible to define a testing procedure for these settings as well.

It might sound strange, but currently I believe every version of the rules I've read are far too ambiguous to be able to enforce fairly. It's not meant as a criticism on anyone in particular, but simply put, as the sport evolves, the rules need to as well.

 

[John C]

Originally posted by Russell Smith

I am sure they they was not being used at factory settings and as such brings me on to to the point which will be raised at some point so it might as well be me.

Why not make it a rule that all markers must be used at agreed settings at all events maybe a default factory setting that can be checked quite easy.

Russ

We bought a marker brand new straight out of the box (Joy Fly) and in no way was it tourney legal.

It was stacking shots like a motherf*cker.
It took us ages to work out what settings to change to calm it down. (The techs at the tourney couldnt help us fix it, they had all packed up )

The board in my IR3 (the bruce lee board), made by my own fair hand doesnt even have a hint of bounce or stacking and passed every judge on every field, as do most.

That doesnt mean mine (and many others) doesnt stack shots, it stacks for 1/10 of a second at the most, no human can percieve that interval of time (not even Andy) so it was never pulled up.

So where do you draw the line?

You can stack one shot for 0.1s but how about 2 shots for 0.4s?
how about 3 shots for 0.1s?
1 shot for 0.5s?

how is a human being supposed to measure these tiny time intervals?




PS Thanks to Kellys for lending us a marker in the first finals game!

 

[TJ Lambini]

Originally posted by John C


how is a human being supposed to measure these tiny time intervals?

Witchcraft?

 

[fred1]

Ninjitsu.....

 

[camsmith]

Originally posted by TJ Lambini
Witchcraft?

BURN HIM!!! He's a witch!!!

 

[camsmith]

Seriously though, if this level of testing is required, I believe the only way this could be achieved is to have some form of robotic testing device...

Just a thought for the future.

 

[Red_Merkin]

robot,

(i've not seen the robot from Huntington Beach, so if this is the same thing i'm talking about here can someone please say so).


motor with a cam (not cam smith!) that activates the trigger, and outputs it's frequency to a laptop, which is interpretited as a graph.
Lock the gun into a vice and run the cam over the trigger, and measure over a balistic chronograph that also outputs it's information to a laptop, interperated as a graph.

Run several different shot speeds, and then using the lap top overlap the graphs and measure the descrepency between the revolutions of the cam and the shots fired over the chrono.

Define the amount of tolerance allowed before the gun is considered illegal.

This way if a player's gun is seized at the end of the game, we can use science and math to determine if the gun is illegal or not.

All the judges need to do is determine if the gun is suspect and shoud be assessed by the robot. This removes the subjective nature of the gun tests.

Of course if you have a full auto gun like the twats from the Yank team who got caught in the semis, i think we should skip the trial by robot and go strait to public whipping!
'no judge, give me my gun back, i need to switch the cheat mode off before you test for bounce...'

There are only real drawbacks to the Robot, one is that they're expensive, but i think the players diserve a less subjective way of testing guns!