Sam??

[Smally85]

Originally posted by sjt19
Hey Nick

Laurent said that the rule change would be implememtned when the Rules comittee finish updating and reviewing the rule book.

Laurent explained that the reasoning was that players with hits should not be in the game. Any hit should immediately end the participation of a player in a game. Even if he/she does not know, they are playing on and having a profound effect on the outcome of the game.

So what Laurent is saying is that if you get hit anywhere, including somewhere that you don't feel it ie. the pack or even your hopper if you aren't looking that way at the time you should immeadiatly know and call yourself out?
Sounds stupid to me, and like Bolter says if a marshall decides that he is going to let you play on so he can 1-4-1 you then you don't stand a chance.
Surely the whole point of the "unobvious" hits expection to the rule was to take into account that you don't have nerves on the front of your hopper or on your pots.
Having said that, if the marshalls aren't standing around scratching their asses you shouldn't have the chance to play on, you should immeadiatly be told you've been hit. How can the player then be punished for the marshall not spotting a hit that you didn't know about?

 

[Kevin]

I think as long as the rule is applied across the board it will be a good thing, it takes away the refs need to think and assess a penalty.
some people are going to get 1-4-1'd and have no idea they were hit, but as long as it is done to all teams its a minor price to pay for equality.

i think you can still get harsher penaltys for run throughs with shots in your face though so there is some flexibilty

 

[Beaker]

I think the only time I haven't felt a hit (not break, but a hit) was when I was getting shot multiple times and lost count after the first couple (I only have 2 fingers cut off so it's tough OK).

The only thing I can see wrong with this is that it gives the players licence to call a paint check on themselves 10x a game, which is something refs currently ignore mostly to avoid getting trapped looking the wrong way.

I can imagine the first game where a guy calls a check, gets told to play on then the ref walks round the other side and 1-4-1 him for a hit he never checked for even though he was asked.

 

[Gyroscope]

This is a good rule.

The important thing is to shoot the other guy, not to make sure he feels that he's been shot. It puts some of the onus of seeing to it that the game is fair on the player.

Also, it is rare that you don't have some idea you've been shot. I had a 141 pulled on me once when I was honestly ignorant of having been hit, but that was so rare that it sticks out in my mind a couple years later.

 

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Kevin
I think as long as the rule is applied across the board it will be a good thing, it takes away the refs need to think and assess a penalty. B]

So what is the ref there for ?

It means that all refs have carte blanche to pull anyone and bypass any commonsence.
if they are watching properly,lets say on a players right side and the player takes incoming from their left/front and the player then quickly gives themselves the onceover ;does not see anything,carries on playing, by which time the ref has got round to the left side and sees a hit, lets say on the pack he then 1-4-1's the player.That don't seem right to me.

There has got to be room for human error be it on the players or refs side

 

[shamu]

The point of the new rule isn't to punish you for being a naughty paintballer. It's to redress the benefit your team gets from you continuing to particpate in the game after you've been legitimately marked/shot.

Personally, I like the rule. I'm sure there will be a general "woe is me" upcry about how unfair it is, but realistically it does two things:
- reduce the "grey zone" of what is/isn't an infraction
- puts more responsibility on the player to be aware of when they get hit.

It's really not that hard to keep track of yourself when you're playing. I think the mindset has been "I'm in until someone makes me get out" for so long that most players (consciously or not) ignore anything that doesn't hit them in the face or from 2 inches away.

And Ralph - the refs are there to enforce the rules. If you feel hits in an area you can't see, ask for a paintcheck and don't go running down the field until you're called clean.

Human error? i'm sorry but players have been riding that bus for so long it's really time to come up with a new excuse.

If it's not the refs "human error" ("...and then the ref pulled me for bunker rub, boo-fricken-hoo"), it's their own "human error" ("gee, I didn't feel that shot to the center of my forehead. so sorry I kept shooting until I was blinded by the paint running into my eyes)"

 

[Gyroscope]

Exactly! The whole thing of including a provision for player awareness is stupid, given that it favors ignorance and does not reward fairplay. This rule makes perfect sense. You are supposed to be out once you're shot, whether or not you know it. Ignorance is no excuse, and paintball has been one of teh few places where such excuses have been accepted.

 

[Ralph]

Originally posted by shamu
And Ralph - the refs are there to enforce the rules. If you feel hits in an area you can't see, ask for a paintcheck and don't go running down the field until you're called clean.

In my scenario the player did not go running off down the field and was observed by the ref checking themselves before returned fire and before the ref could get to confirm/deny any hits. I know were talking about seconds here but if as i described and the ref is comfortable that the player did everything reasonable to ensure that they were clean. It should be the refs desision as to a 1-4-1 or not. I'm not disputing that call. what i'm disputing that the rule be enforced in every scene, regardless.

To add to the scene, the player carries on and returns fire and takes more in-coming on the same side but from a different player, before the ref can get to the left/front side.He was clean before ??? but now he's not. the ref cannot be certain but now has no option but to 1-4-1 the player. He cannot make a 'decision' he has to enforce the 'rule'.
That's what i have a concern with

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Ralph

It doesn't really matter if the player "intended" to cheat or was "unaware"

You play football and clumsily fall to bring down an opponent in the penalty box, and it is a penalty... doesn't matter if you intended it or not.

Same applies here - the rules are there to ensure the game is fair - irrespective of any "intent"

So, you play with a hit - no matter if you felt it or not, your team will get penalised, because it gave you an unfair advantage.

Nick

 

[Beaker]

Plus, the ref then has to asses whether a play looked properly, or just a cursory glance, plus with goggles it's easy to argue that you couldn't see something.

If you got hit, tried to check didn't see anything and carried on playing, then shot a mugger going to kill your key tape guy - you've had an impact on the game you shouldn't have had.

As long as it is applied consistantly, having a hit and playing on without a ref checking is a very black and white rule with little grey area - and I like it.

B