San Diego rumors--let's have 'em.

[Baca Loco]

Okay, I now know a bit more though not from "official" sources who remain mute--or as it used to be called in pre-PC days, dumb.

It seems that both Todd's and Ollie's guns were taken after the Bushwackers game but it was Todd's the scrutineer specifically requested. Both Todd and Ollie either turned the guns off or pressed buttons after being asked for the markers. When the markers went to the robot, both passed. (Which has no bearing at all on enforcement of the rule in question.)
Why wasn't rule 11.05a applied with Ollie and Todd receiving 6 game suspensions and Dynasty forced to play 2 men down on Sunday? Apparently it was argued that the rules committee hadn't gotten around to updating the rules about turning off markers. [Even though the rule is right there in black and white on the NPPL website under Rules for everyone to see and has been for many months...] So Dynasty received a zero for the game but couldn't be suspended. (How that works--part of the rule that doesn't apply is applied but not the other part?! What? Huh!?)
And just how does that interpretation square with the Joy and XSV suspensions in Tampa and Denver, respectively, for the same rule violation? Your guess is as good as mine.

I guess that means that any rule the Rules Committee adds over the course of the season doesn't really count until it's "officially" put in the rule book. So keep an eye on stuff like orange clothes, clear hoppers and all the other extra rules. Not in the official book--whatever that is--not enforceable. At least if you're Dynasty.

As to the shenanigans surrounding the Damage/VL game I can pretty much guarantee you will never hear a peep about it ever again. And if you wonder if that constitutes a conspiracy of silence no need to wonder any longer cause, yes, it does.

 

[paintballma]

Hey Baca,
a peep was heard about it at the NPPL meeting yesterday. The issue is not dead yet.
My thoughts on it, as I expressed to Dan would be the same punsihment that Amir suffered (but having not seen the game, I do not know first hand if the intent to injure was the same), that would be for them to judge.

 

[Baca Loco]

Thanks PBma. Good to know. Maybe that aspect will at least be dealt with but I'd be more confident if I thought Dan was the one making the final call.

The more time that passes the easier it is to just pretend it never happened and lots of people would prefer that for lots of interesting reasons.

 

[Intheno]

I say ban them retrospectively. The NPPL cannot afford to be selective about rule enforcement. Chuck was captain and founder of Dynasty, everyone knows this and therefore there will be people who believe that Dynasty get special treatment, I expect Baca is one of those people as it would suit him to believe this to be true. I half agree with him. Rules are rules and they should have been suspended in my opinion. The 'Rules not enforcable' excuse does not wash with me, abnd it never has.

I think the mistake is to allow people to make the conclusions they will make from not suspending those guys. Ban 'em, and live with the fact that they might not be too happy about it.

Turning this into a positive, I do believe that the NPPL has its house in order regarding rules for next year. This sort of thing should not happen again. Dan perez is a good guy. He cares about doing his job well and is very committed to doing it.

If the guys had turned off the guns in next years competition, would they have been fined $500? I am not clear on this. If so, I would love to see the money hungry Pro's get the odd fine. This game has an alarming lack of accountability. There is much talk about the accountability of the league, but none about the players. It is still 'cool' to cheat so long as they get away with it, and then the blame is put firmly at the feet of the NPPL and thier refs. A selfish and one-sided way to go about things in my opinion.

 

[paintballma]

The banning we were talking about was not Dynasty, it was the Damage game.

In regards to the turning off guns, a few things talked about were refs discretion (and the qualification of said ref), grabbing markers and the automatic reaction to pull away, especially immediately after a game when adrenaline is still running. I am not sure where that one ended up.

 

[shamu]

Rules lawyers

I once had someone (in all seriousness) argue how the placement of a comma changed the enforcement of the rule.

It seems some players are better rules lawyers than actual players. They look for any loophole or advantage they can get from the interpretation of the rules. It becomes a game - NPPL closes one hole, players find another one.

In trying to make the judging more consistent, the NPPL has focused on enforcement of the written rules. So when a player finds a loophole in the way the rule is written, it's sometimes tough to enforce (I'll let Baca speculate wildly on the why's and wherefore's ). It's a question of the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law and right now, the letter is winning.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Intheno
I say ban them retrospectively. The NPPL cannot afford to be selective about rule enforcement. Chuck was captain and founder of Dynasty, everyone knows this and therefore there will be people who believe that Dynasty get special treatment, I expect Baca is one of those people as it would suit him to believe this to be true. I half agree with him. Rules are rules and they should have been suspended in my opinion. The 'Rules not enforcable' excuse does not wash with me, abnd it never has.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda. Big deal.
In this instance I don't need a conspiracy, do I? It's really simple. Cut and dry. Black and white. The rule (11.05a) was enforced in other circumstances but wasn't in the situation with Dynasty at SD. So somebody got screwed. Chuck and Dan and everybody at PP can be surrounded by a choir of Angels and if there is selective rules enforcement it simply isn't kosher. And it is plain that this was an instance of selective rules enforcement no matter how it's dressed up.

 

[Intheno]

Baca, I was saying I agree with you. What problem do you have with that? Huh?
Look at the very first sentence poin-dexter....

woulda shoulda? What are you talking about?

 

[Baca Loco]

Forgive me for seeing your latest post as the latest spin in your repetoire and as such, not taking it seriously. Woulda, shoulda etc. implies it's easy well after the fact to say what should have happened but, oh well, maybe next time . . .
If you had said as much from Day 1 I mightn't have viewed your reply with such cynicism.

However, it's neither here nor there as you aren't official, just ITN. I'm really addressing my posts here to the NPPL who have yet to answer any of this, either privately or publicly to my knowledge. I've certainly been asking.

Look at it this way--the history of tourney ball is burdened with back room dealing and political manuevering--and the NPPL was reintroduced on a platform of ending the old way of doing business. Yet every time something like this happens--whether in error or on purpose--the determination of the league to pretend it doesn't exist and never to openly address stuff like this LOOKS like business as usual.
At a minimum it's bad PR and working up the scale it may in fact be business as usual. Whose to know?

 

[Intheno]

If I knew anything about the incident, I would tell you, but I honestly don't, and so can't help you. Your assumption that you have a right to know may be hindering your chances of finding out. Did you try calling and asking mano-a-mano, or did you send a snidey e-mail? Your methods are not always as subtle as the next guy, and face it, if they don't want to tell you then they don't have to.