not again, again
- Thread starter SteveD
- Start date
Has he not said enough? aside from which about 90% of this site coulda predicted it'd be Chris saying what's been said.
Paul
Hey Pete!
good show. the truth will out and similar sentiments.
I have to admit that I have not read the '03 incarnation of the rulebook (which undoubtedly will be used by some to hang me from a yardarm) but I do think that you are being too 'nice' in stating that you 'made a mistake' in walking onto the field, after the game and after gaining permission to do so.
Its not at all uncommon for coaches, eliminated players and team captains to want to consult with the referees after the conclusion of a game, and its not at all uncommon for it to take place as the field is emptying - given the fast pace and extremely tight schedules of today's events.
Its all well and good to recognize that your presence contributed to the incident - obviously it did - but in my book that's the same as the auto insurance companies assigning a minimum of 15% of the responsibility for an accident to anyone who was present. (If your car hadn't been there, that guy couldn't have made a left hand turn across two lanes and into your rear...)
I do not think that this incident warrants you relinquishing your position on the rules committee, or as coach. As conflicts of interest go within paintball, especially considering that the committee is a rules development group and not an enforcement group, this is nothing. Certainly not anywhere close to say, a league's legal counsel being one of its promoters....
If anythng, I would suggest that this leads to a rules modification - one that you are uniquely qualified to propose:
following the end of a game, the head referee is REQUIRED to consult with the team captains/coaches/managers and determine if they have any questions regarding the resolution of the game, the score, penalties, etc. If the coaches wish to question an on-field ref, that ref will be questioned through the head ref - if he deems it appropriate. If worse comes to worse, issues can be escalated to the ultimate at that point.
Something along these lines needs to be incorporated into the schedule, so that citing the schedule is not used as a 'rush to judgement' on the part of reffing crews who just want to avoid controversy or brush a real problem under the rug. It should not, however, be license for coaches to bitch or hold things up.
Along with such a rule would be the mandate that both teams in a game are ENTITLED to have all of the penalties and rulings provided to them and explained where necessary.
One of the major reasons for upset on the part of players and teams during an event is not so much a 'bad' call itself, as it is the seeming 'secrecy' and lack of information surrounding it. Too often I have seen bad situations get worse, when all that was required was a small piece of information, provided by a ref, that would explain a rule interpretation or the 'logic' behind a call.
When teams KNOW that the refs ARE trying to enforce the rules, understand them, can explain them, the comfort level goes way up, and it becomes much easier to accept rulings - even when you disagree with them.
Again, its good to see that you're ok and that the 'hype' was just that.
good show. the truth will out and similar sentiments.
I have to admit that I have not read the '03 incarnation of the rulebook (which undoubtedly will be used by some to hang me from a yardarm) but I do think that you are being too 'nice' in stating that you 'made a mistake' in walking onto the field, after the game and after gaining permission to do so.
Its not at all uncommon for coaches, eliminated players and team captains to want to consult with the referees after the conclusion of a game, and its not at all uncommon for it to take place as the field is emptying - given the fast pace and extremely tight schedules of today's events.
Its all well and good to recognize that your presence contributed to the incident - obviously it did - but in my book that's the same as the auto insurance companies assigning a minimum of 15% of the responsibility for an accident to anyone who was present. (If your car hadn't been there, that guy couldn't have made a left hand turn across two lanes and into your rear...)
I do not think that this incident warrants you relinquishing your position on the rules committee, or as coach. As conflicts of interest go within paintball, especially considering that the committee is a rules development group and not an enforcement group, this is nothing. Certainly not anywhere close to say, a league's legal counsel being one of its promoters....
If anythng, I would suggest that this leads to a rules modification - one that you are uniquely qualified to propose:
following the end of a game, the head referee is REQUIRED to consult with the team captains/coaches/managers and determine if they have any questions regarding the resolution of the game, the score, penalties, etc. If the coaches wish to question an on-field ref, that ref will be questioned through the head ref - if he deems it appropriate. If worse comes to worse, issues can be escalated to the ultimate at that point.
Something along these lines needs to be incorporated into the schedule, so that citing the schedule is not used as a 'rush to judgement' on the part of reffing crews who just want to avoid controversy or brush a real problem under the rug. It should not, however, be license for coaches to bitch or hold things up.
Along with such a rule would be the mandate that both teams in a game are ENTITLED to have all of the penalties and rulings provided to them and explained where necessary.
One of the major reasons for upset on the part of players and teams during an event is not so much a 'bad' call itself, as it is the seeming 'secrecy' and lack of information surrounding it. Too often I have seen bad situations get worse, when all that was required was a small piece of information, provided by a ref, that would explain a rule interpretation or the 'logic' behind a call.
When teams KNOW that the refs ARE trying to enforce the rules, understand them, can explain them, the comfort level goes way up, and it becomes much easier to accept rulings - even when you disagree with them.
Again, its good to see that you're ok and that the 'hype' was just that.
rancid
I'd still much rather see it out in the open - what's the camera gonna focus on for the 'between games' footage...?
or better yet, maybe we just have a half-time show that consists of the 'bench-emptying brawl'.
I'd still much rather see it out in the open - what's the camera gonna focus on for the 'between games' footage...?
or better yet, maybe we just have a half-time show that consists of the 'bench-emptying brawl'.
Robbo:
Since you're on the rules committee, maybe you can answer this for me...
Why was Rage allowed to play on? They should have been disqualified from the event...
And, good to hear you're doing ok.
Since you're on the rules committee, maybe you can answer this for me...
Why was Rage allowed to play on? They should have been disqualified from the event...
And, good to hear you're doing ok.
Maybe it's cos the promoters would have 'evened-it-out' by banning Nexus as well. And given that likelihood, Mr Robinson would back down.
Besides which, that's a case for the disciplinary people, not those who write the rulebook (at least in my opinion).
I put in a formal request to Mr. Hendsch and the Rules Committee.
Aren't those people one in the same?