NPPL 2k4 rules releaseds
- Thread starter Dannefaerd
- Start date
Robbo's view here makes perfectly good sense except for one small factor--the time involved to get anything done. In the past when manufacturers for whatever reason have produced product that pushed the envelope on then current rules or slipped around unclear rules the result was a bit of public hand-wringing, an announcement that some rules peeps would take up the subject sometime and presto, before you knew it 6 months or a year or more had gone by and everyone involved usually decided it was easiest to get along by going along so rules were either ignored or quietly altered.
This padded jersey thing is relatively innocuous in current form but does leave the door open for much more aggressive exploitation.
Same thing with TonTons jerseys from last year. They were in clear violation of NPPL color rules but were roundly ignored. Were the Rules committee slaving away trying to come up with a precise definition of "orange" perhaps?
My point is any rules ambiguity that is ignored or not acted on in a timely manner becomes a de facto rule change--or has done with great regularity in the past.
100% on the money......again.....this is becoming tiresome Paul...I thought I was the only one who was always rightOriginally posted by Baca Loco
Robbo's view here makes perfectly good sense except for one small factor--the time involved to get anything done. In the past when manufacturers for whatever reason have produced product that pushed the envelope on then current rules or slipped around unclear rules the result was a bit of public hand-wringing, an announcement that some rules peeps would take up the subject sometime and presto, before you knew it 6 months or a year or more had gone by and everyone involved usually decided it was easiest to get along by going along so rules were either ignored or quietly altered.
This padded jersey thing is relatively innocuous in current form but does leave the door open for much more aggressive exploitation.
Same thing with TonTons jerseys from last year. They were in clear violation of NPPL color rules but were roundly ignored. Were the Rules committee slaving away trying to come up with a precise definition of "orange" perhaps?
My point is any rules ambiguity that is ignored or not acted on in a timely manner becomes a de facto rule change--or has done with great regularity in the past.
Well Mr Sigs 'R Gay,
At least peepz know who I am so they can analyze my game (or lack thereof).
When are you gonna come outta the closet?
Is it when you get to close to the truth the kids starting to scream ugly words.
Yes Robbo you have done very much for the sport of paintball and for the paintballers.
But some times your own/Nexus gain in a important-subject comes before common sense and you don't care about the rest of the paintballers. You have hard to listen to what other paintballers have to say when you are going into this mode. Just if everything goes your way you listen.
Isn't that what this person calls her/himself in her/his signature?Originally posted by TJ Lambini
Mr Gay???
I'm guessing our mystery gues hit a nerve...
The Sig-Gay person wanted to stir up things so I figured it should be indulged.
Well Ron, if we play you in HB i will either demand that said top from Granny is removed.....or i will shoot you accordingly.....
See you on the beach buddy
See you on the beach buddy
To get away from all these threadjackers...
If I have my way about it (and I may not) we won't keep rules that aren't enforced.
I don't see anything ambiguous about the padding rule myself. I can see very easily if a top has padding in the wrong places. I can also see the difference between a sweat-shirt (not allowed) and a jersey (allowed if it doesn't have padding in the wrong places). It's not rocket science.
There should no longer be the compromise solution of asking players to disrobe to prove they don't have two layers in any one place.
Then the color thing: that rule was put there (like the clear hopper thing) so's I won't have to run across the field to check something that looks like but is not a hit (my eyesight is going as I face the autumn of my life).
I'm split about the question of spelling out in a few thousand words the definitions of colors and the compressed and uncompressed thicknesses of players' uniforms compared with having rules that are clear enough for anyone using a modicum of reason.
Steve
If I have my way about it (and I may not) we won't keep rules that aren't enforced.
I don't see anything ambiguous about the padding rule myself. I can see very easily if a top has padding in the wrong places. I can also see the difference between a sweat-shirt (not allowed) and a jersey (allowed if it doesn't have padding in the wrong places). It's not rocket science.
There should no longer be the compromise solution of asking players to disrobe to prove they don't have two layers in any one place.
Then the color thing: that rule was put there (like the clear hopper thing) so's I won't have to run across the field to check something that looks like but is not a hit (my eyesight is going as I face the autumn of my life).
I'm split about the question of spelling out in a few thousand words the definitions of colors and the compressed and uncompressed thicknesses of players' uniforms compared with having rules that are clear enough for anyone using a modicum of reason.
Steve