Millennium Series Division 1 Captains

[Matski]

It's not entirely accurate when in football for example, a red card is used for a major infraction whereas a general infraction might be a free kick etc. If a player is gonna be one4one'd for a hit on the pack and receive the same penalty as someone playing on with a chest shot....then the above does not ring true that well. In many other sports, the same generic penalty is not used to punish infractions of strongly differing seriousness.

It would make things more simple for the lay viewer though...

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Agreed - but many other sports do not have the same possibility as us of "putting things right".

Our sport being about elimination, puts the elimination of a player for a rules infraction in a whole other light, than a red card in football for instance.

Nick

 

[Matski]

True.

It does make me wonder how game strategy and technique under such a rule will develop though. Getting 141 for pack shots might improve the quality of play as players will undoubtedly practise keeping very tight (staying alive being probably the most important skill to master), we could see a whole new breed of playing standard. On the other hand though, we could see slow, cautious paintball. Which is why the incremental approach MS have chosen, in my opinion, is the most sensible one. Personally though, I'd hope teams can train enough to make the chances of the later unlikely.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Don't thing you'll see much change.

It's not like people will be getting eliminated left, right and centre on this basis..... how often does it REALLY happen that a player is eliminated with a pack shot, after having played on?

The only change will be that players are more inclined to call for a check when they feel the hit - that's all.



Nick

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by matski
It's not entirely accurate when in football for example, a red card is used for a major infraction whereas a general infraction might be a free kick etc. If a player is gonna be one4one'd for a hit on the pack and receive the same penalty as someone playing on with a chest shot....then the above does not ring true that well. In many other sports, the same generic penalty is not used to punish infractions of strongly differing seriousness.

Why is playing on with a hit on your chest more serious than playing on with a hit on your pack? The consequence to the game is the same.

Slide tackling a player from heind on a breakaway for the goal is not the same as the ball bouncing off your hand in front of the goal. One has a more severe impact on the game than the other, thus the more severe penalty.

 

[Matski]

We could use examples of context all day Chicago. The fact is, in paintball, players can use the knowledge that they have been shot to affect a ''more severe impact on the game''. A player that does not know he has been hit at all, does not have the knowledge to make such a decision.

 

[Matski]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Agreed - but many other sports do not have the same possibility as us of "putting things right".

Our sport being about elimination, puts the elimination of a player for a rules infraction in a whole other light, than a red card in football for instance.

Nick

Besides, I agree with this. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by matski
We could use examples of context all day Chicago. The fact is, in paintball, players can use the knowledge that they have been shot to affect a ''more severe impact on the game''. A player that does not know he has been hit at all, does not have the knowledge to make such a decision.

Who is going to pay for the intentographs the refs are going to have to carry in addition to the bps timers and chronographs?

Besides, I don't agree with your assertion anyway. A player who is hit and doesn't know about it does the same damage as a player who is hit and does. Are players sitting around onthe field thinking "Man, I was just sluffing off this whole game, but now that I've been shot I'm going to start playing!"

I think you're confusing a player's dtendency to make RISKIER moves if they know their hit to doing more damage. I chalk that up to stupidity; wrecklessly running down the field doesn't get any less stupid just because you've already got a hit on you. If it was better for you to stay in your bunker before, it's STILL better for you to stay in your bunker. And if it is beter for oyu to be running down the field, then you shouldn't have been sitting on your butt in the first place.

 

[Missy Q]

I find myself agreeing with Chicago on this, which I hate, but it is basically impossible, without torture or truth serum, to know whether the player knew he was hit or not. The only thing for certain is every single players answer to this question in a game environment, which will of course be:

"no, I had no idea I was hit"
or even
"get the xxxx away from me you xxxxing xxxx ref before I xxxx you in the xxx, you suck!"

If a player is found to be playing with a hit its a 141 (I would prefer a 241). If the ref see's him hit before he plays on then he could be pulled without penalty. If the player thinks he may be hit he can ask to be checked at any time, not that they will of course (in most cases) but they could if they weren't so busy trying to lose the hit as soon as possible by any means at thier disposal.

It seems strange to me that such leniancy should be displayed to players who have been hit when there is little or no fair play left in the game at the top level. I think penalties have to go up, and become far more severe (eg. minimum 241 for playing on) if the sport is going to be turned around and become something more palletable than body-building, which is a sport where you know full well ahead of time that the winners are the guys that cheated the most.

 

[Steve Hancock]

Are there different penalties in football for the ball bouncing off your hand, and using your hand to deflect the ball?

To be honest I don't know. If so, the only difference in that example would be intent. Accidental breach of the rules requires redress regarless of intent, and in addittion deliberate infractions need an addittional punishment to act as a deterant.

I have another ill-informed football anology/query. When a player unintentionaly fouls another player a free-kick is awarded to return control of the ball to the team that had it unfairly taken (redressing the unfair advantage of the foul) and in adddition, is a yellow card only given when the foul was the result of intent or disregard for safety? If that also is the case, the re-dress is always present but the deterant punishment is only used when the ref deems necessary.

Please forgive any heinous missunderstanding of the football rules, and heinous spelling for that matter. - Night all.