NSPL 19.03.06 - The STUPID new 141 Rule

[KOHI]

It was not the rules that were **** just the marshal that imposed them i was there and saw a lot off **** calls, saw whole teams being taken out by one over zealous git.
One of my players pushed to the ground whilst he’s screaming one 4 one, player did not have his gun back that is not a one4one now is it. Whos team were we playing? His team, I could go on with a list as long as my arm but do not want to start flaming just stating facts that it’s not the rules but the marshal.

 

[ShelleyHicky]

And I have to admit I also think that accusing the London Tigers of abusing their status as a team is absolutely ridiculous. Its not as if the Tigers basically just collared the other team and blackmailed them into a rematch, it was obviously the decision of the marshalls!

- Thanks Magic_8ball

Just to clear up any misunderstandings. The game against Riptide was made void because our player was shot on the goggles by another field at the start of our game whilst waiting for the whistle (after the 10 second call). Our player hand jested the shot to a ref, who seemed to understand, the game started and sure enough we were 1-4-1'd by another marshall across the field for the shot. After the game the issue was addressed and resulted in the marshall apologising for a bad call, and Riptide for admitting having different colour paint.

As always in paintball, you are either lucky or unlucky on calls, this decision was lucky for us BUT fair

It's not about penalising the player - it's about compensating the team that shot the player in the first place.
Is it "fair" on the other team that a player legitimately marked is still playing - regardless of whether he/she was "aware" of the hit or not?

This is why I agree in the 1-4-1 rule. However, there were some dodgy calls made yesterday on a few teams.

Hope that clears up any queries for those not on our OR Riptides team. And BIG respect to Riptide for being very honest, looking forward to playing you again at the next leg.

Thanks for a great day for all players and marhsals involved.

 

[HERMITT]

Before i start i better make it nice and clear that these ar my own views and in no way reflect the team or my sponsors!!!!

I thik that Syd and the NSPL have taken some massive steps in progressing UK paintball and deserve a great deal of praise. Throughout last season the tournaments were awesome and were easily some of the best i have ecer played. This is both for organisation and the standard of marshalling.

The new year has bought in a new rule and with it a huge amount of aggro. I think it was a brave decision to implement this, especially as it was viewed with such unpopularity. But having played an event with the rule enforced, i hae to say it is a great idea. As Beaker has always argued (oh god help me for agreeing with him, i can already taste the vomit in my mouth!!) The rule is there to take out the advantage of having a player on the field who has no right to be there. And it works.

But, and here is the crux of the argument. The marshall have to be well versed and consistent. Neither of which was the case at the event i played. There may be a huge volume of paint in the air in the modern game, but that simply isnt an excuse to marshal from the sidelines. The game dictates that marshalls must be proactive and decisive. They must be watching players all the time and not just chilling up against the netting. There should be no case where a marshall from the other end of the field should be making calls to a marshall who's sole job is to look after his area.

I have always interpreted this rule as enforceable when a player continues to play after he has been hit. But this is based on there being a marshall there to call him out straight away. This stops the player continuing and ensures that the eleminated player is given the opportunity to leave the field. The onus is no longer on the player in my eyes and instead lies with the marshall to get in and make the call. It is simply impossible to for a player to be active in making this decision if he cannot know he has been hit. Therefore the marshall should make that decision for him. If he then does not eave he field immediately or challenges the marshall a 1 4 1 should be used.

All of this means that we must have maore marshalls per field (four is a travesty o the paying customer) and these marshall must have experience. Irt is not good enough, if we are to have this rule, for marshalls with no experience to be on the field making these calls. Its one or the other. The rule and the marshalls or no rule and lesser marshalls.

I like the rule and want it to stay. I like the nspl and will continue to play it. But things must change. The rule is harsh but to make it fair we have to have the marshalls.

 

[Marc0]

Before I start I was NOT at Bristol yesterday, even though some of my guys were.

Being a marshall is a very hard job, you can only make a call from what you see.

You cannot be swayed by who the player is or the team he/she plays for.

You have to be consistent through all the calls you make that day.

And for those who moan about the quality of marshall after every call goes against them some day........try it for yourself, if you have the balls.

Only people who have been a judge at a tournament can understand that its is a **** job, not done for the money or the "powertrip". its because you love our sport and go that little bit further than the guy moning at you about that hit that wasn't a hit.

I can name dozens of teams in the UK who have the capability of judging at tournaments but never will, they are quite happy though to complain when there are only 4 or 5 marshalls on a 7 man field, 2 of whom have never judged at that level before.

Put up or shut up guys, not happy with the judging at a tourney series, try getting your team to judge a leg instaed of play one !

LAters

 

[HERMITT]

In which case i will qualify my post with the fact that i have marshalled tournaments for over 10 years and that as a team we have marshalled a large number of high profile and local tournies.

Does this make what i have said a little more valid Marc O???

 

[Marc0]

Hermitt

The comments were not aimed at you or anyone else who has actually judged a tourney but at those who will bitch and moan all season long about such issues but never put themselves or their team forward to judge.

You and I can think of many many teams who have the capability to judge but will never do so because of the effort involved in doing so.

Laters

 

[Smally85]

I'm not going to refer to any of the calls made yesterday on the field I was marshalling on as I have no idea which team Jabberwocky were as I've never marshalled in the South West before and didn't recognise about 90% of the teams there yesterday. I will however say this:

I personally marshalled consistantly ALL day, I called 1-4-1s on the Tigers, HPG, Riptide and any other team that broke a rule that results in a 1-4-1 as "punishment". I'm not the most experienced marshal in the world, or at the event yesterday, but I DO know how to play paintball and I DO know how to marshal at a certain level. I don't care about getting shot to bits, I'm used to it, I play for Quake, they shoot me all the time.

The problem is that at 8:30 on the day of the event Syd calls for the marshals he has for the day to turn up for a meeting. What he gets before him is a mixture of players like me there to marshal, players who have never marshalled before and players who have only ever played one leg of a KOTH series somewhere. What is he supposed to do with that?

What he does is makes the best out of a bad situation, there may never be an excuse for bad marshalling, but when you only have 11 people to spread over 2 fields (yes thats right, Syd had to be ultimate on one to make it up to 6 on that field) you have to deal with it. This isn't the Milleniums , so you don't get a huge marshalling team for each field and you also don't pay the same as you pay for a Millenium event. This isn't an excuse, its a fact. I know for a fact that at least one marshal on the field I was on had so little experience that I had to keep looking over to make sure he was standing in the right place. BUT he was THERE he wasn't on the sidelines shouting at the marshals to do a better job, or writing on a forum after the event complaining that his team lost, he was there doing it.

Now I'll address the people "influencing" the result of games from the deadbox, until the ultimate marshal calls "Game Over" the game is still in play? am I correct? Which means that the players in the dead box who are DEAD cannot talk:

Eliminated players may not communicate with live players within the arena once they have signified their elimination. Any players found signaling, verbally, visually or otherwise will incur the one-for-one rule upon they player(s) he / she communicates with.

Eliminated players may not communicate with spectators or marshals whilst the game is still in play.

So why were ANY of the teams talking to ANYONE at ANYTIME whilst in the dead box? If it was whilst the flag was being hung the game was still in progress, you were breaking the rules, if it was as the flag hanger was being checked, the game was in progress, you were breaking the rules, if it was before the Ultimate called "Game Over", you were breaking the rules. Now you might think that as your entire team was already in the dead box you couldn't be 1-4-1'd? Whats to stop the marshals calling for the other team to have extra points added for your breaking the rules, or for you to have more points taken off for you breaking the rules?
No one should be talking from within the deadbox, its unprofessional, your captain should be able to control his team well enough to tell you all to shut up and let him deal with it. The Ultimate always asks for the team captains to see him after a game, which is when you can air any grievances.

What everyone needs to remember is that each team is marshalled by the same people, its not like the experienced marshals were hiding until the Tigers came on and they all stood at their end of the field making sure they got proper marshalling. Each and every team had to deal with the same circumstances. Some got on and did it, some cried like babies on the field, but after came up and shook our hands, and some came on here and posted up.

I know I'll be at the next event marshalling, but I also know that if any of the marshals at the event today read this thread I'd be surprised if ANY of them were willing to do it all again. Great way to improve a marshal.
See you all at the next event, if you really want to get personal, I'll be the one with the pink bandana around my neck. I'm not afraid to argue a point with any of you, if you are right I'll agree with you, but if you are wrong don't expect me to roll over just because your team has lost a few games. (this isn't directed at anyone at all)
See you all at Reading

P.S.

Case number one: The very first game. Four of us live after a good game with XM7, Dave went to hang the flag and after some calls from the dead box that he’d gone on one of his pots, two marshals came over to check it out. The first couldn’t decide. The second was a little less decisive. The ultimate, after some deliberation, decided it was a break and therefore the flag was dead and had to be re-hung. Of course, now there were only two live players left in the game as Dave had been 1-4-1’d, taking me out with him. Would the first marshal have called him live if XM7 weren’t trying to influence him?

I was there, I didn't need XM7 to show me his pots, I'd spotted it. I wasn't sure so I called the Ultimate over, thats what the Ultimate is for, to deal with difficult decisions. In hindsight I should have just 1-4-1'd him as there was no way that paint could get there off a bunker so it had to be a hit therefore a 1-4-1. But it was one of the first games of the day, I didn't want to start off on a bad foot. Shame on me for getting my Ultimate to help me decide.

 

[HERMITT]

The only way for marshalls to get experience is by getting out there and doing the job. But its unfortunate that they get dropped in at the dep end and are left to find their own way without being supervised by an adequate number of experienced marshalls.

I understand why this happens but it doesnt take away from the criticisms. My point is not aimed at the level of marshalling generally because last year was fine. The point i feel is important is that with this new rule comes a greater degree of pressure that it is unfair to drop on the shoulders of new marshalls.

People do the best they can most of the time, but i myself had major issues in Ashford with sideline marshalling by people who could not read the game and failed to get involved, while at the same time attemtping to enforce a 141 rule they clearly didnt understand the purpose of.

I know that by and large it is only when marshalls make mistakes that we talk about them. But we must get rid of the crappy ones so that the entire marshalling staff arent tarnished by the same brush!

 

[Syd (NSPL)]

Originally posted by Nick G
Now when this post first formulated in my head I was fired-up and ready to shout, just like when you get bonus balled by a guy you didn’t even realise was halfway up the snake.

Now I’ve had time to chew. A leisurely drive home, a long bath and good food have calmed me. However, there’re still issues that need to be resolved:

NickG - if this is you "calmed down", I would hate to meet you in a dark alley when your angry! Some harsh comments there and some obvious bad feelings - I'll do my best to reply in a fair and level manner as always.

Before I get fair and level though; to all those who have jumped on this thread as an excuse to slate the NSPL due to loyalties to other leagues, thank you very much. With the player base in the UK always demanding co-operation and unity between the domestic leagues, you are really helping the situation there aren't you. It has been my objective for years to work with other leagues and I have made massive efforts to do so (see the UKPL, my desire to support and align to the PA, the numerous times I have sat around the table with other organisers, the current attempt to nationalise the KotH series', and more). Spreading malicious rumours and making petty attempts to undermine my series is an absolute shambles and shows that some of the problem, at least, with unifying British paintball lies with these types of players and not the organisers who work so damn hard to make this happen.

Now, back to your comments Nick.

Anyone who played in the NSPL today will have noticed the one-for-one ruling if you’re hit, even if you don’t spot it. This is a retarded rule in itself, but I’ll get on to that later. I don’t know which aspect of the new “rule” peeved us off the most - the actual rule or the way it was implemented. The unbelievable inconsistency with which the marshals floundered around the field, tapping entire teams on their shoulders, whispering “one for one mate, you’re eliminated” was absolutely astounding.

I believe that it is not a retarded rule, and actually its a good one. But as others have pointed out, it does need to be implemented correctly. The rule is one part of unifying all UK tournaments under the European Paintball Federation's new, upcoming, rule book and has been adopted by all the UK domestic leagues. The NSPL is simply doing its bit. I think you are looking at the rule from the wrong perspective and I also think some posts in this thread have pointed that out, so I will not go over it again.

As for its implementation. Well it is going to take a couple of events to get this perfect, but the refs both yesterday at Bristol and last week at Ashford did a good job. There may be the odd bad decision, as with all reffing calls, but overall they did well. If you take a look at our own forums, then you'll see that this is the general opinion of the majority of players at yesterday's event. From your account of your experiences at Round 2, I can see that your team was on the receiving end of this rule a lot yesterday, and that is bound to be a hard pill to swallow. I can understand that.

The interesting thing about all of this is that we had very few complaints at Ashford and then, in comparison, a lot of complaints at Bristol (even though some of the teams who had played both events commented on how the implementation of the rule was more consistent at Bristol)! This may be due to the way the teams coming from the original SWPL are used to playing and being judged and could, therefore, be considered a sideffect of my continuing desire to improve and profesionalise the sport in the region. Does this make introducing a unified rule and pushing playing standards ever forward wrong? I think not.

Case number one:

I think Smally has cleared this one up.

Case number two (which made me want to vomit in my own hopper): Burty gets taken on the opposite side of his hopper (the side he can’t see) and because of the way he plays, he wouldn’t be able to spot the spray if he was clipped anyway (he’s a bit of a contortionist), and he gets 1-4-1’d within seconds of being drilled. Fair call? Maybe it is, but you’ve got to think about the rule. It’s to stop people CHEATING. It’s to stop the little sh1ts who are obviously hit and keep on playing. So Burty, hit on an inanimate object, unaware of being marked, plays on for two/three more seconds before being called - and subsequently 1-4-1’d. Isn’t it the marshal’s job to call hits? Especially if a player can’t see he‘s been hit? Otherwise, what is the actual purpose of the marshal, apart from to keep score and call “game on”? This new rule calls their purpose into question, particularly in the NSPL being one of the more friendly communities. Anyway, now the marshal has decided our left side should be completely exposed so he takes our back left player out too (due to Burty breaking the new law).

Insult to injury, Dave gets called again on the pot, and I get pulled out with him because of it. Surely the marshals should be doing their job and pulling players out who haven’t noticed they’ve been shot ASAP, not punishing them for not being able to defy physics and constantly monitor their pots/gun/hopper, and any other part of their body/kit they might not be able to instantly notice that they’ve been hit on. If it’s an obvious hit, goggles, hand, chest etc, then go for it! 1-4-1 is a fair way to punish cheating teams. But to simply pull two players out because one didn’t spot it, (and the marshal didn’t spot it either, otherwise he would’ve surely called it), is utterly insane.

As mentioned above, I think you are looking at the rule from the wrong perspective. This game was on my field. I made one of those calls and do not consider myself a bad ref after 10 years of (very) regular experience. I can't vouch for the other call, but they happened at pretty much the same time and this is going to hurt any team, piss you off and therefore make it very easy for you to blame the loss on bad reffing.

The thing I would like to point out here is that we had 13 refs on duty yesterday, including myself. 7 on one field and 6 on the other. The 14th ref couldn't make the event due to family illness. All the refs were well versed on the new rule and were given the opportunity to ask questions on it. As well as some fairly inexperienced refs, we also had many very-experienced refs on each field to achieve a balance between maintaining an overall good standard of judging whilst trying to bring more new judges along and give them the experience they need. The only way to train refs is to give them field experience. Training days help, but its experience that counts at the end of the day. A natural result of this necessary process is the occasional bad judgment. At domestic level, there's only so much organisers (including myself) can do and achieving a overall good balance in judging standard is always my objective with ref selection and placement on field.

That said, I can see the penalties applied had a dramatic effect on the game is question and that is going to be difficult for the team on the receiving end.

Case number three:

This sounds like a bad call, but without hearing both sides of the argument first hand, I will never know for sure. If it was a bad call, I apologies but refer you to my points above and would also like to point out that a judge should call what he/she feels is a hit, as a hit regardless of the colour of paint. Teams do shoot different colours of paint and the ref is not required to check everyones hoppers and pots prior to a game in order to determine what colour(s) of paint to look for. A little bit of common sense here is obviously required, but a hit is a hit. Another possibility is that the hit was from a previous game - remember, the onus is on the player to ensure they have no hits from previous games before entering the field. The point here is that there are many possibilities as to where the hit could have come from and a ref can only call a hit as a hit, using common sense and their experience of determining exactly what constitutes a hit at the same time.

Case numero quattro (my personal favourite): Bob gets taken on the break and before he even has a chance to fire his marker he stops, checks himself, calls himself out and walks back to the dead zone. While he’s walking off a marshal trots over… calls Bob out, THEN ONE FOR ONES HIM BECAUSE HE “PLAYED ON”! Utterly amazing! He didn’t even get one ball out his gun and yet the marshal 1-4-1’s him!

This absolutely sounds like bad implementation of the rule. The player should be allowed to make cover before being required to check himself and should not be penalised if he called himself out. Thank you for the feedback and I will ensure this is clarified 100% at my next event.

Case number five: Our final game, It’s three against one, I take out the guy on the snake. It’s obviously on his forearm (Syd, come on, it was obvious. Two clear patches of paint with shell on his sleeve). But this guy in the snake is apparently clean so he pops up and drills the other three of us. He wanders over and hangs the flag. The marshal checks him after we point out the paint all over his forearm (bear in mind our game with XM7 earlier in the day where they did the same to us), and he’s called out. Dead flag situation. He obviously argues. Five minutes later, Syd says he’s live! The marshal that called him out was apparently under “too much pressure” from us so he called him out. Too much pressure? Surely this means he can’t do his job properly! Why was he paid when he obviously can’t work to a good enough standard, screwing our points?! So we lose that game too.

On this one, I can give you an accurate answer to your queries, as I was the ref involved and the Ultimate on the field. And you are in the wrong Nick.

The player in question received the paint off of a bunker on his forearm whilst playing in the centre bunkers before moving to the snake. I saw this first hand. You moved on him and he saw you, shooting you out before you started shooting. My refs removed you from the game after you shot just a few shots, doing their job quickly and correctly. You then proceed to protest that the player in question was hit on his arm and repeatedly call a check on him, even though you were eliminated. I ignored you, because I knew exactly where the paint had come from and you were lucky I did not further penalise you for the aggressive manner in which you protested on the field and in the dead box.

When the player hung the flag, your continued protest did influence the ref checking him for hits and he called him eliminated. The player did not protest at that point and started walking back to his dead zone as my ref began to run the flag back. I immediately followed them both up field and over-ruled the call as any good Ultimate should have. The paint on the players forearm was checked over again by myself and the player was then checked for other paint marks, called clean and therefore his team won and game over was called. You continued to protest and it was only at this point that the player rightly pointed out that the paint had come off a bunker. I then immediately explained the call to your team captain in the game debrief. There's no FIVE MINUTES LATER in any of that.

My feeling on this one is that by this point in the day you were frustrated, but I'm sorry; you were in the wrong and the right call was made.

And now I come to London Tigers AM.
Who claimed a stray ball took out one of their players.
Against Bournemouth Riptide.
Who started with only six anyway.
So the game was called void and Riptide were told they had to have a rematch.
Why the fukc should they? They won!

This is a completely separate issue and you know nothing about how it was delt with. It seems that you are just throwing this in to back up the rest of your complaints and that is not justified. I will happily explain the situation and the reasons behind my decision to anyone who wants to know, but not here as I would like to focus on your own experiences and complaints. Let me just say that asking for a replay is not an easy thing to decide, but in this instance absolutely seemed the right thing to do from a neutral organisers point of view. Don't slate me because I have the balls to stand by my convictions.

I think that answers your complaints, but if you require more explanation then please do get back to me, either here or in private. Those of you who know me or my events firsthand will know that I am a fair person, trying to do my damn best for this sport and I am always available to discuss any matter with players from my events, 24-hours a day, 365 days a year.

 

[MrPink]

Originally posted by Nick G

And now I come to London Tigers AM.
Who claimed a stray ball took out one of their players.
Against Bournemouth Riptide.
Who started with only six anyway.
So the game was called void and Riptide were told they had to have a rematch.
Why the fukc should they? They won!

Coming soon to a training field near you:

London Tigers Am - the Jedi Mind trick technique!
Confuse your foes, Influence the Refs, bend your paint around bunkers and dismantle killer robots with just a flick of your wrist!

Book your place and start using the power of your mind!
Followers of the Sith, mention this ad for a 10% discount.

*Disclaimer: You may turn to the dark side and start talking like James Earl Jones.