Good boy.........Operative word was "easiER"
- and that is discounting all female paintball players ofcourse (or Anja and my sister will beat me to death next time I see them)
Nick
Joy Stockholm official comment on OC NPPL
- Thread starter Magued
- Start date
Ignoring the actual meaning of a sentence so you can claim my grammar sucks is ad-hominem.
Ok, so maybe you wern't intentionally ignoring the meaning of english words - maybe you just don't understand the concept.
I have one thing, and I have another thing. Thing A has MORE of a quality than thing B. By definition, Thing B *MUST* have LESS of that quality than Thing A.
Ergo, if it is bad that a penalty has MORE of an impact based on when it happens, it *MUST* be true that the penalty you are comparing it to has LESS of an impact. It is simply not logicially possible that you can allow some penalties to have less of an impact based on circumstance while not allowing some penalties to have more of an impact. There is no difference. More and Less are COMPARATIVE operators. It's impossible to have one and not the other. Either penalties have the same impact or they don't.
Yes. For three reasons. One, clearly, if you get a major penalty with 4:59 left in the match, that doesn't justify swinging a point. And with the 90-second rule, you don't start awarding the point until the penalty is 'short served' by AT LEAST 3.5 minutes. Minor penalties are only 2 minutes long. So at 90 seconds, you're only being shorted 30 seconds of the penalty, not 3.5 minutes.
Two, minor penalties don't usually stay on the board for the full duration, as the team that gets them usually loses the point and their guy comes out of the box. So the practical effect of a minor penalty is usually a one-for-one - lose another body this point, then get him back at the start of the next point. When a minor penalty is called in the final 90 seconds of the game, the practical effect is likely the same as if it were called any other time in the game - lose a guy for this point.
Three, part of the reason for the 90-second penalty is to have a proper disincentive for breaking the rules. Major penalties are just that - major. It's hard to commit them accidentally. Minor penalties are much easier to commit accidentally. So while having the 90-second rule is likely to have an effect on the behavior of the players (make them careful not to commit major penalties), that same effect isn't nearly as effective on minor penalties - you can't use a disincentive to get players to not do something they're not trying to do in the first place.
So, it isn't in my judgment less, it is, as a matter of fact, less.
If that's the case, then the NXL rules suck. In PSP rules, if a player has a match misconduct, the player committing the infraction is removed from play for 10 minutes. This carries over to the following match. That player ALSO has a teammate placed in the box for three minutes. If this occurs in the last 90 seconds of the match, then a point is awarded.
The match misconduct rule originally in the NXL rules was the most confusingly, ambiguously written paintball rule I have ever seen, hands down. It's been rewritten in every other edition of XBall rules outside of the NXL. So I wouldn't be surprised if the rule hasn't been updated in the NXL book and therefore still sucks and is the cause for your confusion.
Didn't you earlier object to me looking at the rules from the standpoint of players being able to willingly cheat to achieve benefits greater than the penalty of being caught on the basis that it was a mistake to base a rule on an atypical situation? And now you are trying to argue that you MUST evaluate a rule based on the atypical case? Because sometimes a point might not be scored, then it's wrong to award a point when MOST times a point would be scored?
Pick an argument here.
Fortunately, I'm right in both cases. While cheating to get a benefit greater than the penalty may be atypical presently, if you don't fix it people will figure it out and it will become the common case in the future. Like intentionally fouling in the final minutes of a basketball game to preserve game time. People didn't originally do that, but once people figured out that it was an effective strategy, it became common.
In your case, however, it is absolutely proper to assign a point penalty even if SOMETIMES a major penalty doesn't result in any points being scored. When a penalty is assessed, we don't know how many points will be scored. But we *EXPECT* that at least one and possibly more points will be scored, because that is what USUALLY happens. If we didn't expect the penalty to have any effect, it wouldn't be a penalty now, would it?
Is it POSSIBLE that no points are scored? Sure. It's also possible that THREE points are scored. So when a player is playing in the beginning of the match, and he is in a position where he can play on or not play on, he will usually choose to not play on, because he know that if he gets caught, his team will immediately lose a player on this point, and probably lose 1, 2, or 3 points while that player sitting in the box for the next 5 minutes. That's his expectation. If he's playing in the final 90 seconds of the match, the player knows he won't miss any points after this point because the match will be over. Awarding the point and stopping the clock immediately preserves a similar level of disincentive in the major penalty.
Because that's not what I think. It has nothing to do with the refs. With perfect reffing, a major penalty in the final 90 seconds is not nearly as severe as a major penalty with 5 or more minutes on the game clock. That's all there is to it.
Ooo, feminine logic! Whether other penalties are consistent or not, or what I would do about it, has no bearing on whether or not having a 90-second rule for major penalties is correct. If you want to talk about whether there should be a similar rule to the 90 second rule for other penalties, then that's a separate discussion.
But, just for fun, here you go:
I only want to award a point when the difference between the NORMAL impact of the penalty and expected impact of the penalty called late in the game is about one point, or more. I don't want to award a point for a minor penalty called in the final 90 seconds because the EXPECTED difference between that minor penalty and a minor penalty called some other time is *NOT* one point. And while I don't want penalties to become much less significant at the end of the match, I don't want them to be more significant either.
Clearly, we can't have all penalties have exactly the same impact all of the time. I can't award 1/300th of a point for a major penalty committed with 4:59 on the game clock. BUT, all things considered, awarding a point for majors in the last 90 seconds creates MORE consistency in the impact of the penalty than not doing it, so it should be done. Other penalties not being perfectly consistent is irrelevant to whether the 90-second rule makes major penalties more consistent.
But cute.
I disagree with everything. I don't agree that just because someone plays or coaches XBall, even for a long time, that they necessarily understand the best strategy. I don't agree that some XBall teams had not already figured out that it was a good strategy to commit major penalties instead of leaving the field at the end of the match because the expected penalty was less than the expected reward. I don't agree that your personal experience with and without the rule in place is valid data - many of your opponents didn't understand how to exploit the rules at all, so not observing them doing it doesn't mean anything. Not being a problem YET doesn't mean it's not a problem.
I will send you a white flag to wave.
Because it's a good rule and shouldn't be changed.
Even though Baca is done with this debate, I thought I would give you all a tip on how to argue so that half the arguement is not wasted on miss translation. Before you state your arguement, restate your opponents arguement to THEIR liking. Just a tip so you all may be able to come to a conclusion or at least an understanding of the other person's logic.
If you can argue against what your opponent is saying than you can win. If your argueing with someone about something that you THOUGHT they were saying (but they were saying something entirely different), you can't win.
I just thought it would be helpful.
I've read alot of articles from Robbo and others about how things don't get accomplished when dealing with issues such as this and all sorts of things in the paintball community. Well, this debate is a prime example of how NOT to solve anything. I'm not saying anything about your intelligence, because your probably smarter than I am, but 2/3 of what I read was missunderstanding.
I just thought it would be helpful.
I've read alot of articles from Robbo and others about how things don't get accomplished when dealing with issues such as this and all sorts of things in the paintball community. Well, this debate is a prime example of how NOT to solve anything. I'm not saying anything about your intelligence, because your probably smarter than I am, but 2/3 of what I read was missunderstanding.
Somebody went to debate class.
2/3 of what you read wasn't misunderstanding at all, Andy. Chi and I understand each other completely, I have no doubt.
Since we're offering advice
--The easiest way to read the "argument" is to read each side and make up your mind, if it matters in the least to you, which one you like better. If you wish to examine it in more detail find the specific arguments and rebuttals (where they exist) and see how they stack up. Btw, Chi, you call that the last WORD? Good thing I didn't bother reading it.
Oi oi, don't bring me into it mate coz as far as I am concerned, if you end up saying what your opponents likes to hear then there is no argument which therefore makes your suggestion somewhat paradoxical.
Far be it from me to suggest your initial post is illogical but hey wtf, your post is illogical
Well Baca if you all understood what each other was saying than my mistake, just didn’t appear that way at all.
Robbo, you don’t just say what your opponent likes to hear, you say their argument to their satisfaction and then you make your argument against that. It prevents you from stupefying their argument and when you do that, you aren’t arguing against that person, but against your negative thoughts on the issue.
I wish I took debate class, maybe I could make myself a little more clear.
Robbo, you don’t just say what your opponent likes to hear, you say their argument to their satisfaction and then you make your argument against that. It prevents you from stupefying their argument and when you do that, you aren’t arguing against that person, but against your negative thoughts on the issue.
I wish I took debate class, maybe I could make myself a little more clear.