Millenium format ??

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...I still maintain the offender should be in the box particularly when it's a carry over penalty. Otherwise you not only have refs "randomly" picking players to put in the box you may lose the services of a key player through no action of his own and as such ref discretion opens a narrow window to bias and abuse. And if you charted penalties in the NXL last year I'd be willing to bet there were certain players who pretty much never got put in the box....

I think Chicago gave a good explanation of how impractical it would be to put an already-eliminated player into the box. This is one area where I believe in collective punishment. The fact that another player as well as the team has to pay for the infraction usually puts more pressure on the violator therefore it is a better deterent. This is the same as 1,2 and 3-4-1s in old-fashioned PB.

As for "randomly" picking players to go to the box, the rules state the nearest player. In practice that means the nearest player the ref sees. If a ref obviously goes out of the way to take a player who isn't the nearest then some serious discussions about ref bias would be in order. This is also like penalties in single-goal PB.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...That, and as the games play out given current rules almost nobody ever comes out of the box as a live player anyway....

We can only relate our own experiences unless we dig up statistics but I don't think players coming out of the box during game time is "almost never". I can think of many times I've seen that, even at the last World Cup.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...I'd like to see some one minute penalties and more precision defining the playing on infraction....

I totally agree about defining playing on. I believe there are far too many minor penalties given for playing on.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...By adding a 1 minute and a 3 minute to the mix and saving the 5 minute (or 4 as the case may be) and the 10 minute for egregious cases only it would give the refs more options as now they tend to call certain penalties too harshly or not harshly enough depending on temprament and the fact the only option is a 2 minute or a 5 minute.
Adding 1 minute penalties would see more players coming out of the box during a point which otherwise rarely happens and the 3 minute could be a carry over penalty regardless of who scored the subsequent point giving it more impact.

I think you have some good points about maybe changing some of the penalty times but care must be taken to not make things more complicated, especially since X Ball may become more widely played. Maybe 1-minute, 3-minute, 5-minute and 10 (food for thought; I want to think more about what violations go with what penalty, etc).

Reasonably harsh penalties should be kept for playing on because that violation flips off at the basic core of what PB is all about, namely immediately getting out of the game when you're hit. Therein the comparison with hockey penalties breaks down.

 

[Chicago]

Steve, I don't think we're saying players never come out of the box (they always do for majors), just that they almost never do it during the point where the infraction occured, at which point the player who earned the penalty isn't eliminated anymore.

The other issue is tht if the refs really are biased against you, putting a different player in the box is the least of your problems - the extra penalties you're getting are going to be the real killer.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Chicago
Steve, I don't think we're saying players never come out of the box (they always do for majors), just that they almost never do it during the point where the infraction occured, at which point the player who earned the penalty isn't eliminated anymore.

Yeah, you're right about that.

It seems to me that it would be very tempting at that point for the player that is coming out of the box to shoot the player that caused him to get sent to the box in the back, especially since that penalty probably caused the team to lose at least one point and thereby maybe the game. The main thing is that I think this penalty concept is a) the only practical way to handle it and b) SHOULD (if a team isn't so boneheaded) have a serious deterent effect because it really costs the whole team dearly and it SHOULD put some negative peer pressure on the offending player.

Originally posted by Chicago
The other issue is tht if the refs really are biased against you, putting a different player in the box is the least of your problems - the extra penalties you're getting are going to be the real killer.

True, but my point is that if refs are clearly not grabbing the nearest player for a penalty then there are serious problems with the reffing and that would definitely need addressing. That would be a good bit more obvious than assessing penalties for no violation.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
1--I think Chicago gave a good explanation of how impractical it would be to put an already-eliminated player into the box. This is one area where I believe in collective punishment. The fact that another player as well as the team has to pay for the infraction usually puts more pressure on the violator therefore it is a better deterent. This is the same as 1,2 and 3-4-1s in old-fashioned PB.

2--As for "randomly" picking players to go to the box, the rules state the nearest player. In practice that means the nearest player the ref sees. If a ref obviously goes out of the way to take a player who isn't the nearest then some serious discussions about ref bias would be in order. This is also like penalties in single-goal PB.

3--We can only relate our own experiences unless we dig up statistics but I don't think players coming out of the box during game time is "almost never". I can think of many times I've seen that, even at the last World Cup.

4--I totally agree about defining playing on. I believe there are far too many minor penalties given for playing on.

5--I think you have some good points about maybe changing some of the penalty times but care must be taken to not make things more complicated, especially since X Ball may become more widely played. Maybe 1-minute, 3-minute, 5-minute and 10 (food for thought; I want to think more about what violations go with what penalty, etc).

6--Reasonably harsh penalties should be kept for playing on because that violation flips off at the basic core of what PB is all about, namely immediately getting out of the game when you're hit. Therein the comparison with hockey penalties breaks down.

1--except it alters the impact of a minor penalty as the rules state in general the offending player is sent to the box except in cases where the offending player is eliminated--then the closest live player is sent. As a practical matter that frequently strips half the field and changes the nature of the penalty's impact on game play. Alternatively, simply eliminate the offending player and assess the penalty to begin at the start of the next point.

2--if any ref doesn't go out of his way to pull the nearest live player then in effect you have random pulling and there is no way to tell whether it's intentional or not but if the players are expected to act in accordance with the rules surely the refs should be as well.

3--maybe in slow-pokey Xball.

4--and I believe there are far too many major penalties assessed for playing on--see my number 1. The variations are so ill-defined and the gap between penalties so wide the same literal infraction can be called either way depending on what the ref thinks he saw, feels like or had for lunch the day before.

5--there is no requisite the game be as dumbed down as possible but there are good arguments in favor of regulating it in order to maintain control while freeing up the play of the game as much as possible.

6--I have only minor quibbles with the current distinction of obvious and unobvious but the rules are inadequate when it comes to consequential or inconsequential. There are otherwise identical, by present rule, instances of playing on but one has little or no impact on the point and another turns the game. As it stands the refs can call anything from a major to nothing and I've seen it happen with some regularity. That is what I mean by better defined playing on rules and how more varied penalty times might better serve the interests of the game.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...it alters the impact of a minor penalty as the rules state in general the offending player is sent to the box...

The "general" is in reality the exception because the vast majority of penalties are by a long margin for playing on. Verbal abuse, barrel sock violations, etc result in the offending player going to the box and rightly so.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...except in cases where the offending player is eliminated--then the closest live player is sent. As a practical matter that frequently strips half the field and changes the nature of the penalty's impact on game play...

I don't think it changes the nature of the penalty's impact, it does what it should do: provides a severe consequence for a severe infraction. Are you, for some reason, trying to put an umbrella over playing on? What I like so much about X Ball and especially NXL is that they seem to be having a more effective deterent effect on that which cuts to the basic core of the game, namely playing on. This can be seen by the significantly lesser quantities of penalties since the first season. Playing on SHOULD have harsh penalties. If you don't want to lose almost half of your field then don't play on.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Alternatively, simply eliminate the offending player and assess the penalty to begin at the start of the next point.

This idea sets back to pre-NPPL days when Steve Davidson and company realized that it was important to stop the pay-off of cheating as quickly as possible and to apply justice as swiftly as possible. Maybe we should go to Steve's newer ideas and stop the game.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
if any ref doesn't go out of his way to pull the nearest live player then in effect you have random pulling and there is no way to tell whether it's intentional or not but if the players are expected to act in accordance with the rules surely the refs should be as well.

I think it makes more sense practically for a ref to pull the closest player she or he sees than to slow down the process by looking behind every prop and maybe measuring to make sure there is perfect application. But yes, refs should always follow the rules and maybe some fine print will have to be added.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
maybe in slow-pokey Xball.

Happens in NXL too Mr Elitist. Saw it also at the Cup.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
and I believe there are far too many major penalties assessed for playing on--see my number 1.

See my first point. Quite the other way actually.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
The variations are so ill-defined and the gap between penalties so wide the same literal infraction can be called either way depending on what the ref thinks he saw, feels like or had for lunch the day before.

Totally agreed. That's why there needs to be very strong referee leadership which should start by across-the-board training and re-training especially if the right way to do things is to be replicated on a much wider scale. I know someone who has studied this quite a bit recently and is willing and able...

Originally posted by Baca Loco
there is no requisite the game be as dumbed down as possible but there are good arguments in favor of regulating it in order to maintain control while freeing up the play of the game as much as possible.

We shouldn't dumb things down, just be careful that the concepts are as tranferable as possible to ensure as accurate as possible universal application and game management. That's why the rules MUST be developed hand-in-hand with the rule enforcers with significant input from the one the rules are applied to (the players).

Originally posted by Baca Loco
I have only minor quibbles with the current distinction of obvious and unobvious but the rules are inadequate when it comes to consequential or inconsequential. There are otherwise identical, by present rule, instances of playing on but one has little or no impact on the point and another turns the game. As it stands the refs can call anything from a major to nothing and I've seen it happen with some regularity. That is what I mean by better defined playing on rules and how more varied penalty times might better serve the interests of the game.

Again, a question of better rules (with some of your suggestions and much input from people like yourself), much more thorough training, good recruiting, continuous evaluations and hand-on leadership and personnel management.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Alternatively, simply eliminate the offending player and assess the penalty to begin at the start of the next point.

That's a HORRIBLE idea. You're trading an infraction that can determine the outcome of a point for a penalty that just puts you down 5-4 at the start of the next point. If I have 2 or 3 guys left on my team, and I get hit, and the penalty doesn't get assessed until the next point - I'm playing on. Why wouldn't I? I get to stay in the game now, when it's critical, at the expense of a player later, when it's not so critical. If the penalty is an additional player is pulled and put in the box, trying to stay in now can cause me to lose this point, AND the next point.

It's especially bad if it's towards the end of the game - in that case, I want to start the penalty as late as possible (next point would be good) so I can run the end of the penalty off past the end of game time.

1 and 3 minute penalties. The 1 minute penalties should get called like fouls in basketball - all the time. Hit on your hopper, hit on your pack, and the ref sees you playing with it, 1 minute penalty. (If the ref sees you get hit, then they should just run in and pull you, but if they find you playing with an unobvious hit later, they should assess the penalty - you got to play with an extra player for a while, it's only fair that your opponents get to do the same.) Any obvious hit should be a 3-minute penalty. Lots of obvious hits are called as 2-minutes nowadays, which is a mistake.

The other thing I don't agree with is penalizing differently based on whether the penalty had an "impact" or not. You should get penalized for committing the infraction, whether you end up benefitting from it or not. Playing on when it doesn't work out for you is just as bad as playing on when it does. If you only penalize the latter, you're reducing the disincentive for cheating.

Calling the same penalty all the time, the cheater loses when they get caught and they didn't get anything out of it, they lose when they would have gotten something out of it and get caught, and they come out even if they play honest or they don't get caught and they don't get anything out of it. If you only call the real penalty if the player would have gotten something out of it, then they stand a decent chance at coming out ahead by cheating when they don't get caught, don't lose much when they do get caught and get something out of it, and otherwise arn't penalized at all.

If you've got a team that tries to follow the rules and a team that tries to get around the rules, the team that follows the rules should win almost all of the time. If the rules are not set up for that, you've got a problem, as the teams that follow the rules will keep losing and the teams that break them will keep winning - and eventually you'll be left with what we have now: Teams who don't follow the rules. Their experience has taught them that following the rules all the time is a surefire way to lose.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
1--The "general" is in reality the exception because the vast majority of penalties are by a long margin for playing on. Verbal abuse, barrel sock violations, etc result in the offending player going to the box and rightly so.

2--I don't think it changes the nature of the penalty's impact, it does what it should do: provides a severe consequence for a severe infraction.

3--Are you, for some reason, trying to put an umbrella over playing on?

4--What I like so much about X Ball and especially NXL is that they seem to be having a more effective deterent effect on that which cuts to the basic core of the game, namely playing on. This can be seen by the significantly lesser quantities of penalties since the first season.

5--Playing on SHOULD have harsh penalties. If you don't want to lose almost half of your field then don't play on.

6--This idea sets back to pre-NPPL days when Steve Davidson and company realized that it was important to stop the pay-off of cheating as quickly as possible and to apply justice as swiftly as possible. Maybe we should go to Steve's newer ideas and stop the game.

7--Happens in NXL too Mr Elitist. Saw it also at the Cup.
See my first point. Quite the other way actually.

1--even so, that is how the rules read and the fact that various forms of playing on are the principle infraction means they should be covered more in depth, not less.

2--of course it does because the basic minor doesn't have a compenent that removes a secondary player. It essentially creates two classes of minor infraction if not by rule, by result. You can argue the merits of the enforcement all day--and I disagree with you there too--but you can't argue the distinction based on volume of calls, the distinction remains.

3--no, but all playing on infractions aren't equal. That was the point I was trying to make by differentiating between the consequential and inconsequential. There is absolutely no sensible reason and inadvertent playing on that has no impact on the outcome of the point should be treated the same (or potentially so) as a mad bunker run to kill the snake all the while getting lit up. (And if you want to say here of course they shouldn't well, duh, except by current rule and latitude they frequently are. Here you want better refs and I want more discriminating rules.)
What I don't want is serious impediments to the game play for trivial infractions and it happens with more or less frequency depending on a given ref crew or a given day. Better rules would lessen the swings.

4--perhaps or maybe it's because they started putting gaps between the snakes or adding snake side 50 bunkers to slow play down and make difficult calls less frequent. My point is there are lots of possible reasons and you're suggestion is no more and no less valid than any other.
Nor do I think assessing a penalty on the next point by putting a player in the box for committing a penalty on the previous point detracts at all from the penalty's purpose. You seem to be hanging on to some notion of penalty as punishment which I think is only appropriate for misconduct penalties. The object here should be a fair, fast game with as minimal intrusions and interruptions as possible.
The other thing the wide variance allows for is potential ref manipulation of the result and I could give an example but I'd prefer not to. When one infraction can be penalized from simple elimination to 2 minutes to 5 minutes with extra players pulled off the field it's too much and creates an unnecessarily open to abuse situation.

5--again, there are broad distinctions in playing on. Not every instance is identically egregious and shouldn't be treated the same.

6--don't quit your day job, comedy isn't your bag.

7--10% of the time, maybe. One of the values of having a player in the box is that he will come out and can turn a point around in seconds--except if players in the box almost never come out it's nearly pointless.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Chicago
1--That's a HORRIBLE idea. You're trading an infraction that can determine the outcome of a point for a penalty that just puts you down 5-4 at the start of the next point. If I have 2 or 3 guys left on my team, and I get hit, and the penalty doesn't get assessed until the next point - I'm playing on. Why wouldn't I? I get to stay in the game now, when it's critical, at the expense of a player later, when it's not so critical. If the penalty is an additional player is pulled and put in the box, trying to stay in now can cause me to lose this point, AND the next point.

2--It's especially bad if it's towards the end of the game - in that case, I want to start the penalty as late as possible (next point would be good) so I can run the end of the penalty off past the end of game time.

3--1 and 3 minute penalties. The 1 minute penalties should get called like fouls in basketball - all the time. Hit on your hopper, hit on your pack, and the ref sees you playing with it, 1 minute penalty. (If the ref sees you get hit, then they should just run in and pull you, but if they find you playing with an unobvious hit later, they should assess the penalty - you got to play with an extra player for a while, it's only fair that your opponents get to do the same.) Any obvious hit should be a 3-minute penalty. Lots of obvious hits are called as 2-minutes nowadays, which is a mistake.

4--The other thing I don't agree with is penalizing differently based on whether the penalty had an "impact" or not. You should get penalized for committing the infraction, whether you end up benefitting from it or not. Playing on when it doesn't work out for you is just as bad as playing on when it does. If you only penalize the latter, you're reducing the disincentive for cheating.

5--If you only call the real penalty if the player would have gotten something out of it, then they stand a decent chance at coming out ahead by cheating when they don't get caught, don't lose much when they do get caught and get something out of it, and otherwise arn't penalized at all.

6--If you've got a team that tries to follow the rules and a team that tries to get around the rules, the team that follows the rules should win almost all of the time. If the rules are not set up for that, you've got a problem, as the teams that follow the rules will keep losing and the teams that break them will keep winning - and eventually you'll be left with what we have now: Teams who don't follow the rules. Their experience has taught them that following the rules all the time is a surefire way to lose.

1--LOVE the caps but maybe you should go BOLD too just in case somebody missed it. NONSENSE. (See, I can do it too. ) As it currently plays out the penalty almost always results in the penalized team losing the point and wiping the penalty off the board. In essence it may be called a 2 minute penalty but mostly it isn't anything of the sort, it's a 1-4-1. Nor have we yet made a distinction on the penalty assessed. There is a substantial difference between a 1 minute penalty and three minute penalty. And for every example of your view I can give you an example from mine. It's pointless.

2--depends on the score and other factors. As it stands now you could be 1-4-1'd on your own 1 minute unnoticed hopper hit which could more easily turn the game around than anything I've suggested yet that seems to be okay with you.

3--and lots of 1 minute calls are 2 minute calls plus removal of a player now.

4--you may not agree with it but you just defined how to do it in your previous point--you made distinctions between the natures of the same basic infraction, playing on, and assessed different penalties. So make up your mind, which is it?

5--nowhere did I suggest any such thing but you seems to have Wadidiz's disease here. You guys are all crime and punishment and I'm interested in how best to organize a game.

6--so you don't want to fix some broke rules or you do? Pontificating ain't gonna get it done.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Interesting debate - now that it looks like we'll be playing X again next year

A few points:

I fiercely disagree that penalty times should be dropped - in fact I always thought penalty time for playing on was too low.... I'd much rather see all playing on penalties be 5 minute - or until point is scored. - It would clean the game up even more.

I think of penalties for playing on as equivalent to a penalty kick in soccer (for you 3 americans )... because the impact of playing on in paintball, is MUCH greater than most infractions that are penalised in other sports.

It is essentially 1/5 of a team actively playing when they should not be - which is HUGE - when compared to other sports.

Baca talked about differentiating between playing on being inadvertent og not.

Again I disagree.

The main purpose of penalties is not to punish - but to make the game fair, my balancing out cheating by helping those that were cheated against.... or at least it SHOULD be.

From that perspective, it doesn't make any difference whether playing on was intentional or not.

I mean - COME ON - we're all players here... and no matter how much we may theorise about things, we ALL know that 99% of the times a player is playing on, he KNOWS he is hit... and should AT LEAST call for a check.... some are just really good at not flinching and at acting all innocent when the ref comes running in

Making up silly rules about "intent" is just ludicris.

Nick

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
As it currently plays out the penalty almost always results in the penalized team losing the point and wiping the penalty off the board. In essence it may be called a 2 minute penalty but mostly it isn't anything of the sort, it's a 1-4-1. Nor have we yet made a distinction on the penalty assessed. There is a substantial difference between a 1 minute penalty and three minute penalty. And for every example of your view I can give you an example from mine. It's pointless.

I made a very clear distinction - unobvious (pack, maybe hopper) and obvious (everywhere else).

2--depends on the score and other factors. As it stands now you could be 1-4-1'd on your own 1 minute unnoticed hopper hit which could more easily turn the game around than anything I've suggested yet that seems to be okay with you.

It is absolutely OK with me - why shouldn't it be? As it stands now, someone playing on with their own minute hopper hit could easily turn the game in their teams favor. Far better for the team that was playing when they shouldn't have been to lose than for the team who actually shot the guy out to lose.

3--and lots of 1 minute calls are 2 minute calls plus removal of a player now.

I'm not sure what this means. 2 minute calls currently remove a player for 2 minutes. There's no "plus removal of a player" - the guy who is eliminated was already out, the guy in the box is the penalty player.

4--you may not agree with it but you just defined how to do it in your previous point--you made distinctions between the natures of the same basic infraction, playing on, and assessed different penalties. So make up your mind, which is it?

See reply to 1.

5--nowhere did I suggest any such thing but you seems to have Wadidiz's disease here. You guys are all crime and punishment and I'm interested in how best to organize a game.

I'm all "If breaking the rules reliably increases your chances of winning, you don't have a game in the first place, and there's nothing worth organizing."

Dynasty*, for example, cheats on a regular basis. Why do they do it? Because it reliably increases their chance of winning. And I don't mean they get shot up and blatantly play on - that doesn't work. But there are plenty of occasions during a season where a ref runs over to pull a guy, let's say it's Ollie Lang, over what is CLEARLY a hit, and instead of going to the deadbox as he well should, Ollie instead engages the ref in a conversation. Sometimes, the refs sticks to his guns and Ollie goes to the deadbox. But sometimes, the ref is convinced the hit is rub, splatter, from a dead player, or whatever, and the ref wipes the hit for him. Happened in semis and finals in Miami for example.

Why did Ollie do it? Is it because he's scum? It's because he'd be an idiot not to! Either he gets to stay in, or he gets what would have happened had he just followed the rules: Sent to the deadbox.

If there are not real penalties for not breaking the rules, you don't have a game, because the rules arn't going to be followed, and the only thing you have when you toss all the rules is war.

It's ludicrous to expect teams to play honest when the consequence of playing honest is losing!

[6--so you don't want to fix some broke rules or you do? Pontificating ain't gonna get it done.

Who's pontificating?


* To be clear, I don't mean to single out Dynasty - virtually all Pro teams break the rules intentionally. Dynasty just happens to be one of the best at it in paintball, and the team I'd observed do it most recently.