Robbo - Rage incident

[raehl]

I don't have a problem with a coach being on the rules committee in and of itself, but if that coach is going to want to go on the field during/after matches, then the coach should not be on the rules committee.

This is really just another instance of a common paintball problem: People wearing too many hats. (Well, in addition to the penalties-are-too-lax-for-the-crime problem.)


- Chris

 

[raehl]

In paintball, there is very little difference between going on the field during a game and after the game. Take Pete's considerable protest against the whole Rage scoring issue in Chicago for example - the game may have been over, but the score was undecided for quite some time. You missed the point - in ANY sport - you won't see anyone from the league but the officials on the field until the game is done - and that means there's no way in hell the score is going to change done. And at the professional and top amateur levels, you don't see coaches running the league either.


And yes, ideally, Robbo would stop writing articles, Goose would either not play or turn the EPA over to someone else, Ant would be an editor or a player but not both, and Laurent wouldn't be with the TonTons. The Strange one is reaching a bit. I realize this is not practical for our "young" sport, but it should be avoided whenever practicable.

- Chris

 

[ThunderCat]

Originally posted by raehl
We need people on rules committees (and PSP needs a rules committee period) who can lay down the law with an iron fist, and that's tough to do fresh off an incident like this one.

They need to lay down the law with an Iron fist but they aren't allowed to speak to refs after a game in which bad calls were made?

Originally posted by raehl

And yes, ideally, Robbo would stop writing articles, Goose would either not play or turn the EPA over to someone else, Ant would be an editor or a player but not both, and Laurent wouldn't be with the TonTons. The Strange one is reaching a bit. I realize this is not practical for our "young" sport, but it should be avoided whenever practicable.

Ok, now its getting silly, who should write the articles? Jamie Oliver?? I'm sure they'd be unbiased, whoopey!

 

[raehl]

Originally posted by ThunderCat
They need to lay down the law with an Iron fist but they aren't allowed to speak to refs after a game in which bad calls were made?

You're ALMOST there - now think about this a little longer, and tell us why it is thus bad for a team coach to be on the rules committee.

Ok, now its getting silly, who should write the articles?

I'll take a wild guess here and say.... journalists? Maybe even sports journalists?

- Chris

 

[raehl]

I'm not quite so ignorant....

I'm not saying other sports are in Utopia, but they're at least in West Utopia, while we're over on south-side Chicago.

- Chris

 

[raehl]

Raehl Ball

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
Anyone with more than one brain cell is disallowed from playing or reffing the format.

So are you going to ref or play?



- Chris

 

[bluelite]

Just a minor comment on an issue of the thread. If they are going to allow coaches and coaching, then a system has to be devised to allow for those people to talk to the refs or headref. In this instance, I read that Robbo asked permission. I don't see how you can fault the guy for doing what he received permission to do. I disagree with the blanket statement that this does not occur in other, seemingly more legitimate, sports leagues. In baseball, the managers are constantly running to the umpires to question calls. In football, the head coach almost always has a discussion with the head ref after controversial calls and they have a red flag to throw to challenge on-field rulings in certain instances. So this type of behavior does occur in other sports as does the fisticuffs end of it as well. What we seem to need is a better way for the coaches or team-captains to question calls made on the field after the game. In this instance, it sounds like video was available that would have told the tale and allowed the head ref to make appropriate judgements as to who was responsible for what and what the points awarded should be. Under no circumstances should anyone have tried to physically attack anyone else and those that did should have been tossed immediately from the event. I would be willing to pay a little more in registration fees if that meant buying possible point saving replay footage.

 

[raehl]

But coaches are not allowed - they're no different than other players, and players that don't play don't belong on the field.

Breaking that rule in-and-of itself isn't all that notable, except that in this case we have a Rules Committee member entering the field of play when his team is one of the teams on the field, and nothing good can come of that situation.

- Chris

 

[knobbs]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
It's been swell to see the let's hate on raehl crowd get all worked up once again--just like old times and certainly good for the forum but are you peeps just plain stupid? Or merely mindlessly loyal? Every argument raehl has made regarding this issue has been, more or less, right on and it's completely irrelevant who was involved.

It's nice to see you using the same scapegoat argument again. This has nothing to do with Raehl, and everything to do with what is being said.

]Originally posted by Baca Loco

1--and yet, over and over again refs end up over the heads in one sort of situation or another and everyone runs for cover instead of figuring out how to deal with these repeated messes that diminish the league, the sport and the participants.

So which is it? Are the refs doing their job or not? Because if they are, then the rules committee has nothing to do but make rules. If they are not doing the job and it's on the rules committee, then why shouldn't Robbo have gotten involved?

]Originally posted by Baca Loco

2--was Pete being a coach? Do coaches belong on the field regardless of receiving or not receiving "permission"? While arguing his case as coach are the refs being confronted going to completely discount Pete's role as a Rules Committee member? And what does his expertise as a Rules Committee member have to do with acting as a coach? See, the problem is when he is both, he can't act independently no matter how scrupulously he tries. No slam aimed at Pete--he's my boy--it's simple fact 'cus it relies, in large measure, on the perceptions of others.

Coaches in other sports talk to the officials after a game (or even just a play) all the time. This is no different. Being on the rules committee doesn't change that.

]Originally posted by Baca Loco

3--that is perhaps the most naive statement I've read here in recent memory.

Why, because you disaggree? How does someone who helps in developing rules that EVERYONE has to abide by, and does not enforce them, have any conflict of interest as a coach and/or player? They can't change the rules for just their team. They can't punish the refs if they don't enforce them correctly. They still have to follow the rules. A union steward still gets to work at the company he negotiates with to set the rules for his co-workers. I don't think that's a conflict of interest.

]Originally posted by Baca Loco

4--Sorry, wrong-o. The ruling doesn't conform to the rules as written--they were contorted to fit the situation and help it go away without causing too much trouble. Rage got off easy, as did, IMO, Pete.

Here is what is written in the rules, other than 1-for-1s and such:

Section 13 lists several infractions and at the end states:

13.06 Any team that fails to adhere to the rules and regulations contained in this Section
shall be subject to and pay a $250.00 fine to the promoter, and said team will be
prohibited from competing in any future NPPL event until said fine has been fully paid.

Then section 14 states:

EXTREME UN-SPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
14.0 A Player will be eliminated from play and subject to possible suspension of play for
a period no less than one game and no more than one year. The Ultimate Judge will
assign suspensions for Extreme Un-sportsmanlike conduct cases listed herein:
i. Over shooting another player with intent to injure.
ii. Physical contact
iii. Firing onto a playing field from outside boarders or from dead box.
iv. Abusive language and physical threats directed at an opponent or field judge.

Hmmm....lets see. A $500 fine and being barred from the tournament for the rest of the day. That pretty much falls directly into the rules. So tell me how this judgement was outside the rules laid out by the league?

 

[Buddha 3]

Originally posted by raehl
Goose would either not play or turn the EPA over to someone else

- Chris

Okay.....this is the best evidence of you not thinking straight all the time....or perhaps Nick has suckered you into making you look like a fool.
The EPA is the European PLAYERS organisation. Meaning it's for and by the players. Would be kinda silly if Goose didn't play, wouldn't it? Kinda like saying that people that run a consumer's rights organisation should not be allowed to consume.

And since I'm too lazy to look it up myself, where does it say in the rules that coaches/whatevers should not be allowed on teh field after a game? And where does it say that the person that can argue the calls on behalf of a team should have played the game in question?