Millennium Series Division 1 Captains

[Matski]

Originally posted by Chicago
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.

Not confusing anything... obviously many times you see players make irrational moves when they get hit to 'try and do some damage' only to achieve nothing but another 141 for their trouble. Like I said, it depends on the context...if a player is hit on a run-thru but carries on and causes a problem...I've seen teams utilize the situation to win the game even after the 141 against them....is that the fair result?

Anyway, I think you mistake me for someone who is against the dishing out of harsher penalties. In replying to Nick, I was merely disagreeing with the idea that penalties are there to make the game fair and not to punish cheating. I think refs need the power and flexibility to dish out more than a generic 141 for any infraction. Players need to fear cheating, a 141 is not always reciprocity for the damage done to the other team.

I don't believe WalMart stock intentometers, but having reffed MLT myself, it's clear when a player is 'taking the piss', as we say over here.

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

I think refs need the power and flexibility to dish out more than a generic 141 for any infraction. Players need to fear cheating

I completely disagree with that.

We do not want to create an environment where players "fear" making mistakes - that will just promote inactivity.

I also do not for one second agree that penalties have any other purpose than making the game fair.

What other purpose could there be - really?

I think one of the major problems with the reffing in our sport, is that many refs think they are there to "catch cheaters" or to "teach them a lesson".

It's exactly that kind of mindset that creates overzealous or dictatorial refs - the type of guys that hang around the bar at the hotel at night, bragging about how they 141'd "that famous player".

That mindset is also the breeding ground for bias.

To put it simply - it's unprofessional.

I would like for the reffing corps to be completely free of those kinds of emotions - and instead realise that their purpose - their whole reason for existence in the context of tournament paintball - is to make the game fair.... no more - no less.

If we ever get a reffing corps together, with that frame of mind, the reffing in our sport will improve tremendously.

Nick

 

[Chicago]

The purpose of the rules is to make sure the team who is best at the sport is most likely to win.

Unfortunately, a rule book can't enforce itself. So we need officials. The officials are there to make sure that the best way to win is to play by the rules.


Nick is right - you don't want players to FEAR penalties. I can FEAR a raving lunatic with a gun, but he wouldn't make a very good police officer. We don't want to discourage players from cheating with fear - fear isn't going to stop people from cheating. We want to discourage cheating with results - if cheating causes you to lose, then people won't want to cheat. And if cheating is going to cause you to lose, it's not going to cause you to lose because of trigger-happy officials, it's going to cause you to lose because of even, reliable, significant enforcement.


A 1-4-1 assessed for most playing on is far better than a 3-4-1 rarely assed for plaing on.

 

[Matski]

Originally posted by Chicago

A 1-4-1 assessed for most playing on is far better than a 3-4-1 rarely assessed for playng on.

I can settle for that, but still don't believe it's harsh enough to mend all situations. At least it's consistent though - which is the important thing.

 

[Christian-Malera]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
I completely disagree with that.

We do not want to create an environment where players "fear" making mistakes - that will just promote inactivity.

I also do not for one second agree that penalties have any other purpose than making the game fair.

What other purpose could there be - really?

I think one of the major problems with the reffing in our sport, is that many refs think they are there to "catch cheaters" or to "teach them a lesson".

It's exactly that kind of mindset that creates overzealous or dictatorial refs - the type of guys that hang around the bar at the hotel at night, bragging about how they 141'd "that famous player".

That mindset is also the breeding ground for bias.

To put it simply - it's unprofessional.

I would like for the reffing corps to be completely free of those kinds of emotions - and instead realise that their purpose - their whole reason for existence in the context of tournament paintball - is to make the game fair.... no more - no less.

If we ever get a reffing corps together, with that frame of mind, the reffing in our sport will improve tremendously.

Nick

We might not agree on field design Nick but for the rest you are very often spot on

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

We might not agree on field design Nick but for the rest you are very often spot on

You'll come around to my way of thinking some day buddy

Remember: If you do worse than 3rd overall in the MS this year - my designs were an advantage for you

Nick

 

[Christian-Malera]

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
You come around to my way of thinking some day buddy

Remember: If you do worse than 3rd overall in the MS this year - my designs were an advantage for you

Nick

Yeah, that would nicklogic at it best

 

[shamu]

Originally posted by Missy Q
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!"

It's usually the second one. Trust me on this.


I think Chicago and Nick both have their points. We don't want referees who are 'out to get' players. However, we also don't want refs who are intimidated by players or fail to do their job for fear of affecting the game. Both mindsets result in poor officiating.
The best refs are dispassionate about the teams playing. They should be passionate about enforcing the rules.

The rules can be the tricky part. If you look at other sports, many of them do, in fact, distinguish between intentional and unintentional fouls. In american football, there are two facemask penalties - intentional and unintentional, with the difference being the severity of the infraction. A hand on the facemask is a 5 yard unintentional penalty. Grabbing or yanking the facemask is a 15 yard intentional penalty. The referee makes the determination in which penalty to enforce.

As it applies to paintball, the difference should be in how the player interacts with the game. Continuing to sit in a bunker with no change in attitude should be a simple 1-4-1 or 2 minute penalty. Running down the field to bunker someone (the infamous "hit and run") should be a 2-4-1 or 5 minute penalty. The difference is in the players actions after the initial infraction. If you don't like unintentional vs. intentional, how about standard infraction vs. flagrant infraction.

Players should not fear the referees. They should fear the consequences of breaking the rules.

 

[Chicago]

Originally posted by shamu
As it applies to paintball, the difference should be in how the player interacts with the game. Continuing to sit in a bunker with no change in attitude should be a simple 1-4-1 or 2 minute penalty. Running down the field to bunker someone (the infamous "hit and run") should be a 2-4-1 or 5 minute penalty. The difference is in the players actions after the initial infraction. If you don't like unintentional vs. intentional, how about standard infraction vs. flagrant infraction.

I disagree with this entirely: The players actions are the same. They are hit and they are not leaving the field of play. And the penalty should be the same.

There's a bias in the paintball mindset that running down the field after you get hit is worse than sitting in a bunker after you get hit. This is false. If shooting from a bunker were worse than running down the field, players would always be running down the field. For example, a player in the snake who is hit would do FAR more damage continuing to play from the snake than he would trying to get up and run down the field where the one hit the ref didn't notice turns into 5 hits nobody can miss. That's the extreme example, but staying in your bunker is usually going to be better for you than taking off down the field; whether you have a hit the officials havn't seen yet doesn't make a difference.

If an official is running at a player to pull them, and THEN the player runs down the field to avoid the official, then you need a more severe penalty - but the infraction there isn't the playing on, the infraction is avoiding the official. That should be a separate, severe penalty.

 

[Steve Hancock]

I'm with shamu on this. You can't prove intention, but you can let refs apply their judgement, so long as it is clear what criteria they are judging.