NPPL..OC....live...and scores

[Freddie Brockdorff]

BC was jumping from one side to the other. As soon as the crowd starts shouting BC was looking snake side. Because the Joy guys back was to me, I don't know if he was hit, but BC was definitely shooting that way.

BTW: I may be wrong (don´t remember the exact field layout! ), but wheren´t BC in that big triangle-looking 50 bunker you see on the left in this pic?

http://www.paintballstar.com/pn/modules/pnGallery2/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=68972

If so - how was he shooting snakeside when Fraige got bunkered?

 

[Beaker]

If they pulled a 3-4-1 on Joy it doesn't make any difference if BC ran round the field twice and wiped all his hits and then hung the flag. He could be dead and have his armband pulled. If there aren't live Joy players to asses the penalty the game goes to Dynasty, regardless of whether there is anyone on Dynasty "alive"

I still don't see where the key call came from though...

 

[Chicago]

If they pulled a 3-4-1 on Joy it doesn't make any difference if BC ran round the field twice and wiped all his hits and then hung the flag. He could be dead and have his armband pulled. If there aren't live Joy players to asses the penalty the game goes to Dynasty, regardless of whether there is anyone on Dynasty "alive"

I still don't see where the key call came from though...

Actually... it makes a huge difference, but you probably wouldn't know it unless you're a rules nazi like me.

Regardless of whether the calls by the refs o the field were the 'right' calls and led to the 'right' outcome, the calls were what the calls were, and based on the calls made on the field, the game should have proceeded to a one-for-one, and I shall prove it.

- BC's armband was pulled. He's out, even if the band was pulled in error. (Rules 10.6.3, 19.2.4, 19.2.9 sorta)
- The penalty assessed was a 3-for-1, and not for wiping. (No evidence any occured, Ultimate says penalty was for malicious playing on or whatever.)
- The win is ONLY awarded in the event that the last player has a penalty called on him (true if you acept that Sabban was hit by a live Fraige or BC, false if otherwise as he was still live at the end) *AND* if that penalty is for PLAYING ON or WIPING (not true in either case). (Rule 20.02)

So, Dynasty should not have won without playing the 1-on-1. Period. Who shot who first does not matter; all that matters is there were no Dynasty players left with armbands on and the last player didn't play on or wipe.


Where's my cookie?

 

[Beaker]

I'll get you your damn cookie

Always thought ANY 1/2/3 - 4 - 1 needed live players otherwise a swing.

If that's not the case Dave is wrong along with Dan.

 

[manike]

Actually... it makes a huge difference, but you probably wouldn't know it unless you're a rules nazi like me.

Regardless of whether the calls by the refs o the field were the 'right' calls and led to the 'right' outcome, the calls were what the calls were, and based on the calls made on the field, the game should have proceeded to a one-for-one, and I shall prove it.

- BC's armband was pulled. He's out, even if the band was pulled in error. (Rules 10.6.3, 19.2.4, 19.2.9 sorta)
- The penalty assessed was a 3-for-1, and not for wiping. (No evidence any occured, Ultimate says penalty was for malicious playing on or whatever.)
- The win is ONLY awarded in the event that the last player has a penalty called on him (true if you acept that Sabban was hit by a live Fraige or BC, false if otherwise as he was still live at the end) *AND* if that penalty is for PLAYING ON or WIPING (not true in either case). (Rule 20.02)

So, Dynasty should not have won without playing the 1-on-1. Period. Who shot who first does not matter; all that matters is there were no Dynasty players left with armbands on and the last player didn't play on or wipe.


Where's my cookie?

How about you get a cookie and Dan's resignation for not knowing the rules...?

 

[Bngi]

How about you get a cookie and Dan's resignation for not knowing the rules...?

Isnt it quite funny that neither Dave Zinkham or Dan Perez knew nothing about that rule? Id say they are both to blame.

Quite remarkable that a NPPL Pro Ref Ultimate dont know their ****..

 

[Chicago]

Isnt it quite funny that neither Dave Zinkham or Dan Perez knew nothing about that rule? Id say they are both to blame.

And so is Joy, as they apparently didn't know it either.

 

[Robbo]

And so is Joy, as they apparently didn't know it either.

Not many people would, but it is incumbent upon Zinkham and Perez to know them since they are being paid to enforce them.

For teams to not know rules is negligent, for judges not to is unforgivable.

 

[MissyQ]

Isnt it quite funny that neither Dave Zinkham or Dan Perez knew nothing about that rule? Id say they are both to blame.

Quite remarkable that a NPPL Pro Ref Ultimate dont know their ****..

if by 'funny', you mean 'tragic', then yes. I can tell you that no-one thought it was very 'funny' at the time...

 

[shamu]

I wasn't going to get back into this discussion but I want to point out one little thing...

I heard 2 penalties were assessed - a 3-for-1 and 6 game suspension.

the penalty for overshooting is elimination of the player and a 6 game suspension.

a 3-for-1 is either wiping or shooting after being eliminated (armband removed or player acknowledges elimination). This is the more significant of the three types of playing on penalties (1 for 1, 2 for 1, 3 for 1). In this case the swing rule would apply.

You can decide for yourself whether the shooting after elimination call was right or not, but the rule application for the penalties was correct.