I'd just like to make one thing absolutely clear. I am in favour of the 1-4-1 rule just not happy with current interpretation that is being advocated
Sam??
- Thread starter Nick Brockdorff
- Start date
People not agreeing with the rule seem to think its unfair to the players to expect them to feel themselves get shot and either go out or ask for a check. Thats just plain ridiculous. Players have to start to realise that kicking and screaming tantrums, and being able to blame the ref for everything when you suck ass is not normal behavior. Its not reasonable behavior either.
I want to see tougher and tougher rules at the top level. The dweebs in the local events can behave like 5 yr olds all they like, but the top level has to be crisp, and the players have to take responsibility for themseves and thier actions, because right now its a joke, and personally, I feel the 'players' on here squealing about this rule are a joke too, and part of the problem, not the solution.
I want to see tougher and tougher rules at the top level. The dweebs in the local events can behave like 5 yr olds all they like, but the top level has to be crisp, and the players have to take responsibility for themseves and thier actions, because right now its a joke, and personally, I feel the 'players' on here squealing about this rule are a joke too, and part of the problem, not the solution.
Ralph -
It sounds like your problem isn't with the rule as much as the referees. Your arguement seems to be that the referees can't make decisions or make the right decisions. The new rule reduces the number of decisions by reducing the grey zone so much of today's game takes place in.
Several specific examples were cited of how the new rule doesn't work. While I could go through and explain each one, frankly it's not worth the time as I don't think it would be convincing to the people who've already made up their minds to not like the rule.
I will grant you that no league has perfect reffing. Every sport has problems with reffing due to the fact that refs are human. A professional, full-time ref staff would improve things like consistency of decisions and application of the rules. However, there will always be the human factor that you have 6 - 8 referees watching 10 - 14 players. If someone would like to sponsor me to be a full-time, salaried referee, I could focus more on reffing and really make some improvements. Any volunteers?
(insert crickets chirping)
I'll use one quote from your posts as a specific example of the general arguement.
Unfortunately, that's what the game has come to with players routinely playing on, wiping and generally ignoring the rules. Watch a game or practice and see how many times players play on, spin when they get bunkered and stand around yelling about how "I shot him first". The "I'm not out" mindset of many (not all) players is the reason we need more and better trained referees and sticter rules.
If you play an honest game and check yourself when you get hit, you shouldn't be too concerned with the rule changes.
It sounds like your problem isn't with the rule as much as the referees. Your arguement seems to be that the referees can't make decisions or make the right decisions. The new rule reduces the number of decisions by reducing the grey zone so much of today's game takes place in.
Several specific examples were cited of how the new rule doesn't work. While I could go through and explain each one, frankly it's not worth the time as I don't think it would be convincing to the people who've already made up their minds to not like the rule.
I will grant you that no league has perfect reffing. Every sport has problems with reffing due to the fact that refs are human. A professional, full-time ref staff would improve things like consistency of decisions and application of the rules. However, there will always be the human factor that you have 6 - 8 referees watching 10 - 14 players. If someone would like to sponsor me to be a full-time, salaried referee, I could focus more on reffing and really make some improvements. Any volunteers?
(insert crickets chirping)
I'll use one quote from your posts as a specific example of the general arguement.
Ideally - yes, we shouldn't need an army of refs. The refs job shouldn't be to make sure players get off the field each time they're hit. The refs job should be to monitor the overall game and address difficult to resolve situations (bunkering, who shot who first, etc). The referees job shouldn't be to tell a player that he's been shot in the face/hand/chest/whatever.Originally posted by Ralph
In 99.9% of cases i would agree. No need for 99.9% of the Refs then ?
Unfortunately, that's what the game has come to with players routinely playing on, wiping and generally ignoring the rules. Watch a game or practice and see how many times players play on, spin when they get bunkered and stand around yelling about how "I shot him first". The "I'm not out" mindset of many (not all) players is the reason we need more and better trained referees and sticter rules.
If you play an honest game and check yourself when you get hit, you shouldn't be too concerned with the rule changes.
exactly! but its a big 'IF', its an IF so big you could put in the middle of the field and it would close down all the lanes. Its an IF you can see from space with the naked eye.
Ralph - I'll take this up with you in Fight Club, right now.
Ralph - I'll take this up with you in Fight Club, right now.
I remember Beaker and I had some discussions about this point years ago.
A player who suspects they may have been hit during the break or on a run between two props is allowed to run to the nearest prop for cover but must immediately check themself (if in an area a player can check themself) or immediately call for a paintcheck (if the area of possible impact is out of view). If it is very clear you're marked on the way then you better simply call yourself out because a good ref might call a penalty if it is that clear.
If the impact was in a self-check area then the first thing you better do is to check yourself BEFORE you post up. If you post up before checking yourself then a good ref will consider that you're playing on. Why? Because you're still in the game. It's not fair to the player that shot you. You don't have to shoot your gun to be playing on (a common urban paintball myth).
If the impact was in an area you can't view yourself (e.g. backpack or shoulder) then you're allowed to post defensively while EFFECTIVELY calling for a paintcheck. You must not, however, actively participate in the game in any way while trying to get a paintcheck performed. To do so is to roll the dice because if you turn out to be hit you should get penalized.
How fast to penalize playing on? There have been a few cases of refs being over-zealous and penalizing players before they humanly had a chance to react. That is wrong obviously.
There also those seasoned players who always stay frozen and silent when they're marked and who tell any ref who dares penalize them that it was their job to immediately see them and immediately call them out. Sure, we should call out players quickly but sometimes it takes a few seconds to get to the player or check everywhere. It is the players' responsibility.
All well and good.What if the same logic was applied to the chrono zone?
just had a quick read of the MS 05 rules and so if they've changed some what, you'll have forgive me. To sum up you can go to the chrono zone,pre game and have your marker tested if it fails and there's enough time you can rectify it prior to the start of the game.
Why not make that black and white issue? You go to the field and if the marker you present for play fails: That's it. tata bye bye thanks for turning up.