Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

Joy Stockholm official comment on OC NPPL

shamu

Tonight we dine in hell
Apr 17, 2002
835
0
0
Now-Cal
A mistake is one thing, to blatantly lie is another thng. And thats exactly what Dan Perez have done. The question is why?

Magued
Still cameras, video cameras, spectators - none of them had exactly the same view as the ref who made the call. From what he saw, he made the best call he could. That's what i do every game. I hope that I'm right more often than I'm wrong, but to hear the crowd and the players I'm wrong about 100% of the time. But that's part of being a ref in any sport - making split second decisions to the best of your ability.

Everyone's had a few days now to study pictures and video. I bet you've studied the pictures and watched the videos a few times before you came to a final conclusion. The referee, with four players blasting away at each other, had less time to make the calls than it's taken you to read this post.

Whether Dan made the right call or not, I'm willing to bet that he made the best call he could in the situation. I know Dan pretty well and I don't think he has a bias for or against either team. To imply that he does just shows what level of respect refs in this sport receive.

Chicago had a good quote from Max about chaos and winning - "Games are won and lost in chaos." if the game descends into chaos, the referees are the ones who end up having to decide who wins and loses. Until the sport progresses to the point that instant replay is an option, we're going to have to live with the referees decisions.

(I cribbed a quote from Chicago. What can I say - I got shot in the head a lot this weekend)
 

Magued

Active Member
Jul 10, 2001
512
1
43
Visit site
Whether Dan made the right call or not, I'm willing to bet that he made the best call he could in the situation. I know Dan pretty well and I don't think he has a bias for or against either team. To imply that he does just shows what level of respect refs in this sport receive.

QUOTE]

Andrew.

Its very very simple. Dan perez stated loud and clear that he saw our player going in to the snake getting called out, that his armband was taken and that he still keept shooting. This is the entire base why he gave the win to Dynasty.

Now 1 picture show that he clearly lied. The armband is still there on Karl!
Hell we cant even see if karl did shoot a single ball after hes dive, but we can CLEARLY see that karl havent been called out. Beacuse it was a matter of 1-2 seconds
Also in the video from pbstar its clearly that the reff discuss with Dynasty, and its actuelly Brain Cole that suggest the "overshooting" call. During all this time Im prevented to enter the field and the team have to stay in the deadbox. Then after the reff and Dynasty have talked for a while we are allowed to approch. Dan then tell us something like "I dont care which of your players did what, but you will get a overshooting penalty and the game will go to dynasty."

So please spare me the Dan is a straight up no bias bs, beacuse Andrew this is bias. And it doesnt matter how many times you say it isnt as long as the reff do stuff like this.

You guys ****ed up in the biggest game of the year, and how about taking some responsibilty and say " yes we did, sorry" Instead of supporting a blatant lie, beacuse Andrew Dan Perez never saw what he said he saw did he?

And the worst part is that we are facing suspension beacuse of this lies! I think that Dan Perez should be suspended instead for the lie he pulled.

Sack up and tell it like is, Dynasty got all the slack. you guys couldnt reff 4 live players with 12 reffs beacuse your positions sucked. And you allowed dynasty to state their case but stopped us from doing the same thing.

Magued
 

Magued

Active Member
Jul 10, 2001
512
1
43
Visit site
Andrew

Let me remind you what Dan Perez did with us on your field in Denver.

We played a Us pro team and their last player was had a hit on hes shoulder when he hung the flag. You gave them a 1-4-1 and the game went to us. Then Dan Perez came down and after talking to the other captain over turned your call and gave them the game. He said that the player had intention to check himself beacuse the player had said that he looked at hes shoulder and couldnt find any hit. So beacuse he had "intention" it wasnt playing on. Now I suggested that intention to check means CALL FOR A ****ING PAINTCHECK! As anybody could otherwise say that they had intention to check and keep playing with hits. But the call went to the other team and we missed the quarters.

True or false Andrew?


Also we get a 3 game supsensions for throwing a pot but when the same thing happen to one of the big US teams nobody gives a flying ****. Unbaised my ass! We have to play way way better than some teams to even have a chance over there. You are not like that, but you know very well that alot of the reff doesnt make the calls against Dyansty, XSV etc in NPPL.
And the funny part like Missy pointed out is that the same teams accuse us for getting favors. 1 team that we beated with 100-0 started to bitch about that. makes me sick.

Magued
 

Booya39

New Member
Jul 15, 2003
295
0
0
Michigan Ave.
www.dieselpaintball.com
In the 2 videos above I saw playing on and spinning from both teams... and you expect the refs to sort it out so that both teams are happy with the result??? I'm not getting into what Dan Perez said or didn't say but how can you blame the refs for a call when you don't even have any ground to stand on because you're team is playing the grey just as much as the other team? Someone had to lose.
 

Chicago

New Member
Jan 31, 2005
1,380
0
0
Visit site
If you shoot a player, and that player continues to play, how can a ref penalise you for shooting him again? Thats the part I don't get, but I don't want to join the ranks of the sore-loser pussies that litter pro-paintball, a collective that Joy have so admirably separated themselves from, so I'll leave it at that.

If you know he's out, the smart thing to do is turn your back to him to make it obvious that you shot him first and hope he racks up some more penalties whie he's at it.

This assumes that the referees are capable of correctly figuring out which player was shot first in such a situation, which has historically been a stretch and might explain the general Professional reaction to do the exact opposite.