Millenium format ??

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
1--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.

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

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

4--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.

5--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

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

Nick

Nick, you seem to be missing the point so I'll try one more time but only one as I'm not particularly invested here.

1--not necessarily. Not every instance of playing on according to the rules results in some gross inequity and the current rules don't discriminate. That latitude now falls to the refs and it shouldn't.

2--maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on what they do. If they slide into a position with a hit on their hopper and post up to cover a lane it is vastly different from some mad dash open bunker run yet the rules and the penalties available don't reflect that except by the minor/major distinction.

3--no, I didn't. I differentiated between the consequences of playing on. Right now the current rules only take into account obvious and unobvious which accepts the fundamental concept of differentiation so what y'all are objecting to is the application I've suggested.

4--I don't disagree with the sentiment, only your ham-fisted approach.

5--true, which is why the differentiator ought to be consequence. For us Americans think of it like a face mask penalty in football. Any grabbing of the mask is a penalty but incidental (or unintentional) contact is a 5 yard penalty while pulling a player down by his mask is a 15 yard penalty. I'm suggesting a similar approach instead of a one size fits all situations call because one size doesn't fit all.

6--intent isn't the issue, result is the issue.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Chicago
1--I made a very clear distinction - unobvious (pack, maybe hopper) and obvious (everywhere else).

2--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--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--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.

1--point is you're willing to differentiate and all I'm suggesting is a different basis for the differentiation. Btw, a hopper hit isn't unobvious while a pack hit is most of time unobvious but other back hits may or may not be--refs discretion.

2--all I'm saying is made up anecdotal stories aren't particularly persuasive.

3--No, it is a minor penalty by definition and all minors are two minutes assigned to the offending player except in situations where the offending player is eliminated, in which case a secondary player is pulled. (The result is a defacto differentiation in calling a minor 2 minute penalty. The consequence is it isn't the same result as any other minor call.)

4--that's a pretty big leap from suggesting a different way of assessing penalties. But it sure sounds scary.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Nick, you seem to be missing the point so I'll try one more time but only one as I'm not particularly invested here.

Don't think I missed it

1--not necessarily. Not every instance of playing on according to the rules results in some gross inequity and the current rules don't discriminate. That latitude now falls to the refs and it shouldn't.

There shouldn't be any latitude - and the rules don't give the refs any.... if they take it upon themselves to to use latitude (in terms of intent), they are not doing a good job.

2--maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on what they do. If they slide into a position with a hit on their hopper and post up to cover a lane it is vastly different from some mad dash open bunker run yet the rules and the penalties available don't reflect that except by the minor/major distinction.

So - you want rules that only penalise players if they get something out of cheating? - I know that's not QUITE what you are saying - but you are leaning that way, and think it will be a danherous precedence to set in our sport.

At any rate - how on earth is a ref to determine if they happend to shoot anyone whilst covering that lane? - the ref is looking at the offending player.

3--no, I didn't. I differentiated between the consequences of playing on. Right now the current rules only take into account obvious and unobvious which accepts the fundamental concept of differentiation so what y'all are objecting to is the application I've suggested.

Well yeah - that concept accepts differentiation - and as stated earlier, I don't think it should... so I am not objecting to the application - I am objection to the principle of differentiating.

Most players feel when they get hit in the pack - and even if they didn't, they will still have played after having been hit, thereby giving their team an unfair advantage.

4--I don't disagree with the sentiment, only your ham-fisted approach.

But, can't you see that differentiating the way you suggest, goes against that sentiment?

- At least it does, if you do not want refs trying to look at where "their" players are shooting to ascertain if they are being effective, instead of looking at whether they cheat.

5--true, which is why the differentiator ought to be consequence. For us Americans think of it like a face mask penalty in football. Any grabbing of the mask is a penalty but incidental (or unintentional) contact is a 5 yard penalty while pulling a player down by his mask is a 15 yard penalty. I'm suggesting a similar approach instead of a one size fits all situations call because one size doesn't fit all.

Trouble just is, that in our sport, there is absolutely no way for a ref to know what the consequences of a player playing on are - except if he sees the hit when the player receives it, and is able to see with a great degree of certainty how many opponents he hits after that - AND how many opponents he stops from moving - AND how helpfull any communication he shouts is, etc. etc.

I honestly don't see how it would function in practical terms?

6--intent isn't the issue, result is the issue.

Sure - I agree in principle - but netiher concept works in paintball..... I wish they did

Nick

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...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...

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff...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...

There are several purposes that penalties serve (and some of these aspects overlap one another):

1) Justice. To be fair and do what is right. Punishment (penalties) is part of this and connects to a great degree with deterrence although it is something that should stand alone, separately. This has to do with attempting to establish or upholding ideals of universal harmony (kind of deep, I know).

2) Compensation and restitution. The ancient "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" code. An attempt to restore that which was wrongfully taken from the offended party by the offending party. Or to try to find a way to give restitution from a perpetrator to a victim.

3) Deterrence. Creating effective negative incentives for doing that which has been defined as wrong, breaking the rules or breaking the law. The basic idea is that the cost of breaking the rules should be sufficiently high enough so as to make taking the risk unreasonable. Effective enforcement is obviously a highly important corresponding component.

4) Propaganda. The rules/laws themselves inform and declare for the community what values we have, what we consider right and wrong and what behaviors are desired or not desired. Putting penalties with these declarations establishes further the importance of this code. If we are willing to penalize violators as a consequence of unwanted behavior/actions at the risk of disrupting the flow of the game and at the risk of humiliating, embarrassing or shaming the perpetrators then it amplifies how important our community thinks these rules are.

5) Respect. The proper application of penalties helps establish respect for the rules and for the enforcers of the rules. That's why having reasonable, balanced and well-thought-out rules is of paramount importance as is not having rules that are universally ignored or outdated. It is equally important, at least, that the officials are competent and exhibit professional behavior and are also held accountable for their actions and overall performance.

Then we can go on to the details. I think we're all right in at least several aspects of our arguments here; it is just a matter of coming up with what is most practicable. I think we all agree that we have to get a whole lot more consistency in the application of the rules and penalties regarding playing on. I don't think refs can effectively consider too much the intent or possible result/advantage of players' violations.

I used to be against the concept of hopper and gun hits always being considered obvious hits. I've always argued that a ref should make a judgment about those. When Ulrich stated that we must always consider such hits as obvious and penalize accordingly I expected the worst but complied. Amazingly enough I saw players start checking their hoppers and guns more and more as the season went which proved to me that players can "stretch out their feelings" and "know when they're hit" more often than before. And there were almost no arguments I heard about penalties for playing on with such hits.

Jorge, jotajotaz, suggested to me in Madrid that all hits, including backpack hits, should be considered obvious because a) playing on with any hit does mean that someone who is eliminated impacts the game one way or another and b) it takes away the possibility of wrong interpretation of intention by referees and c) backpack hits are known by the player much more often than most people admit (in fact I've come to believe that players are aware of backpack hits much more often than not). My first take on that had always been "no" because I don't believe in ever penalizing for things that someone might not be consciously aware of. Then I starting considering the logic of the arguments for. When I considered that the benefit of the doubt should probably be shifted to the shooter rather than the shootee (because playing on is the major bug-a-boo of our sport) I started favoring the idea.

What shifted me away from that is the vision of seeing most of a team being wiped off the field on both sides after the start signal in front of the astonished eyes of the spectators.

So what I see out of this discussion is the need for some serious adjustments being made. But there ain't no easy answers; only intelligent choices to be made.

Merry Christmas to all! And mind the road.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
1--There shouldn't be any latitude - and the rules don't give the refs any.... if they take it upon themselves to to use latitude (in terms of intent), they are not doing a good job.

2--So - you want rules that only penalise players if they get something out of cheating? - I know that's not QUITE what you are saying - but you are leaning that way, and think it will be a danherous precedence to set in our sport.

3--At any rate - how on earth is a ref to determine if they happend to shoot anyone whilst covering that lane? - the ref is looking at the offending player.

1--but there is and there always will be as refs make judgment calls or non-calls all the time. I am suggesting they use a different template for making that judgment than the one currently used. There is no way around some subjectivity in officiating but there may be, in fact I obviously think there are, ways to confine the subjectivity so that the overall result is more equitable.

2--not in the least--that, in part, is what the 1, 2 and 3 minute penalty distinction is for. If the refs have more options to cover more situations they will ultimately be more comfortable making more calls and as the calls will (hopefully) be commensurate with the infraction committed you will end up with less teams screaming bloody murder cus they got hammered over what looked to them like ticky-tack calls and infractions that deserve serious penalties will get them.

3--in the same way players working together create a team refs ought to be trained to work in concert as a unit. Please don't say they do cus they don't--not even close. There are numerous simple ways the refs can coordinate certain kinds of calls that are routinely a crap shoot today but it won't happen until a comprehensive breakdown of the refs role is analyzed and a system developed to fix the present weaknesses.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
There are several purposes that penalties serve (and some of these aspects overlap one another):

1) Justice. To be fair and do what is right. Punishment (penalties) is part of this and connects to a great degree with deterrence although it is something that should stand alone, separately. This has to do with attempting to establish or upholding ideals of universal harmony (kind of deep, I know).

2) Compensation and restitution. The ancient "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" code. An attempt to restore that which was wrongfully taken from the offended party by the offending party. Or to try to find a way to give restitution from a perpetrator to a victim.

3) Deterrence. Creating effective negative incentives for doing that which has been defined as wrong, breaking the rules or breaking the law. The basic idea is that the cost of breaking the rules should be sufficiently high enough so as to make taking the risk unreasonable. Effective enforcement is obviously a highly important corresponding component.

4) Propaganda. The rules/laws themselves inform and declare for the community what values we have, what we consider right and wrong and what behaviors are desired or not desired. Putting penalties with these declarations establishes further the importance of this code. If we are willing to penalize violators as a consequence of unwanted behavior/actions at the risk of disrupting the flow of the game and at the risk of humiliating, embarrassing or shaming the perpetrators then it amplifies how important our community thinks these rules are.

5) Respect. The proper application of penalties helps establish respect for the rules and for the enforcers of the rules.

A--When Ulrich stated that we must always consider such hits as obvious and penalize accordingly

1--this is a game and as such in order to be a fair arbitor of each player's and team's skills and abilities it needs be organized and adjudicated in such a way that the result is based on the play of the game and as little else as possible. There is no justice in chess or poker or tiddly-winks. If all you mean is an equitable playing field then fine. If you're after something more transcendental you're outta luck insofar as Pball is concerned.

2--again, a little over the top in my estimation but here there's something to work with. My question to you would be is it then fair and equitable for the refs to take an eye for a tooth? Which, in essence, is my previous point, the penalty assessed should fit the infraction and I am, and have been, asserting that too frequently now it doesn't work out that way.

3--now, here you are in potential conflict with your point 2. Either you are trying to balance the playing field or you're trying to deter and when those two values are in conflict which way does it go?

4--the only relevant value is a fair game. All the rest is irrelevant and possibly detrimental to actually constructing a fair game as you are trying to force on it a purpose beyond its scope. The only thing the players share is a desire to play and win. Nothing in this context should be more important than the game.

Any failure to deliver a fair game is a failure of the rules and the officiating.

5--which is what we's talking about. Perhaps the current levels of respect or the lack thereof reflect not on the players but on the rules and officials.

A--fine with me. Call any hit a hit and do away with obvious or unobvious. At that point are you prepared to penalize every instance of a hit the exact same way? If you are I think that's a mistake. If you aren't then you have to come up with another means to differentiate.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...My question to you would be is it then fair and equitable for the refs to take an eye for a tooth? Which, in essence, is my previous point, the penalty assessed should fit the infraction and I am, and have been, asserting that too frequently now it doesn't work out that way...

Penalties can very seldom fit the infraction any more than a fine for excessive speeding can fit that violation. What's the police officer going to do? Drive his patrol car at an excessive speed in front of the offending driver's house? Should the state execute family members and friends of a serial murderer? Often in the world of rules and laws remedies are established for punitive and compensatory reasons. The main thing is to try to be as reasonable as possible in serving the purposes of the rules and concept of penalties.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...now, here you are in potential conflict with your point 2. Either you are trying to balance the playing field or you're trying to deter and when those two values are in conflict which way does it go?...

I thought I made it clear that penalties at once serve mulitiple purposes? Deterrence and balance would, under the best of circumstances with decent rules and enforcement, both be taken care of.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...the only relevant value is a fair game. All the rest is irrelevant and possibly detrimental to actually constructing a fair game as you are trying to force on it a purpose beyond its scope. The only thing the players share is a desire to play and win. Nothing in this context should be more important than the game...

I obviously don't see anything out of place with philosophically underpinning the reasons I see for penalties especially since you made a swipe at it with the "crime and punishment" comment and since Nick brought it up. It's obviously your privilege to focus things back on the more basics of playing and maybe winning. There's no forcing any purposes here.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...Any failure to deliver a fair game is a failure of the rules and the officiating...

Totally agreed and there's a lot that's needed here and there will always be. Long established nations and communities have been trying to get a handle on this for eons.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...which is what we's talking about. Perhaps the current levels of respect or the lack thereof reflect not on the players but on the rules and officials...

Agreed and I've suggested generally what needs to be done and what structures need to be put into place. At the same time we can continue to hash out the details which might make substantial differences. Having said this, this doesn't give license to rule-breaking with impunity. We still need to come down hard on playing on.

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...fine with me. Call any hit a hit and do away with obvious or unobvious. At that point are you prepared to penalize every instance of a hit the exact same way? If you are I think that's a mistake. If you aren't then you have to come up with another means to differentiate...

I already expressed my reservations about penalizing playing on with any hit. Hypothetically, if we did have such a rule, then it should be applied totally univerally and with extreme prejudice by any and all referees to any and all violators.

 

[Baca Loco]

Steve, obviously we disagree about a few things. If you thought any of my comments were unfair, I apologise. However, I think it is a serious mistake to even evaluate the game in terms of your philosophical underpinnings as I think it inappropriate to the issues at hand.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Steve, obviously we disagree about a few things. If you thought any of my comments were unfair, I apologise. However, I think it is a serious mistake to even evaluate the game in terms of your philosophical underpinnings as I think it inappropriate to the issues at hand.

Ahh - but Paul - aren't your views on the issue are also ripe with "philosophical underpinnings"? - they just come from a different perspective

As we are talking about sporting rules (not the criminal justice system or morality on a whole)..... it is ALL a question of philosopy.

If I understand you correctly, you want the rules to lean more towards the punichment fitting the result of the "crime" - whereas I think it should be "punishment fitting the crime irrespective of the result of the crime".

I think that if the rules are changed the way you suggest, two things will happen:

1) Players and coaches will to a MUCH greater extent try to "talk down" penalities - because it is no longer simply a question of whether the rules were broken or not - but now also to what degree and what the outcome were..... creating a whole lot of BLA BLA BLA

2) Refs will find it increasingly impossible to make correct calls, because they have no way of ascertaining what the outcome of cheating was.

Now, I know you seem to think refs should "just" be able to work as a team and get it sorted out.

I just don't think it is possible, unless you double the number of refs so half of them can watch the players and the other half watch what the result of the players actions are.

You always favour using US Football as an example.... but I think it is a poor example in this instance, because all the game stoppages makes it easy for the refs to huddle up and make right decisions.

You don't have that luxury on X-Ball or regular paintball - because the call almost always have to be made "in game".... which is exactly why I think your idea will not be practical, however "right" it may be from a pilosophical standpoint.

Thus endeth the Christmas rant

Nick

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
1--Ahh - but Paul - aren't your views on the issue are also ripe with "philosophical underpinnings"? - they just come from a different perspective

As we are talking about sporting rules (not the criminal justice system or morality on a whole)..... it is ALL a question of philosopy.

2--If I understand you correctly, you want the rules to lean more towards the punichment fitting the result of the "crime" - whereas I think it should be "punishment fitting the crime irrespective of the result of the crime".

3--Now, I know you seem to think refs should "just" be able to work as a team and get it sorted out.

1--Nick, please note precisely what my response to Steve was.

2--you guys continue to make part of my point for me by talking crime, punishment and cheating. I know that's standard in paintball but I don't think it has any place in trying to analyze what constitutes a fair game.
And yes, I would like to see additional tiers of optional calls available to the officials based on a somewhat different "reading" of the game than is currently practiced.

3--Not hardly, Nick, but just because something is perhaps difficult and not consistent with the current standard doesn't mean it's either wrong or impossible. (And I could make sufficient changes over a weekend with the present NXL on field staff to cover at least 80% of the sorts of instances I'm talking about. Easily.)

Either way it's unlikely to matter and I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Merry Christmas all