The 2005 Penalty Point versus 1:4:1 debate.
- Thread starter stongle
- Start date
Russel
Thanks for finding my posting so useful in your reply but you seemed to have missed the point of what I was saying. As the HEad Judge on the field it is part of my job to ensure that the satndard of judging on my field is the same as other fields and therefore I want to ensure that penalties are assessed the same.
With good clear rules all players and judges know what a 1-4-1, 2-4-1 and 3-4-1 offenses are and judges know when to pull them. I am just there to ensure that the judges do that (and help team captains find their dummies after the game).
Russell, you seem to be implying that you can see no way to use 1-4-1 penalties becuase your judges are not strong enough yet you have fully independant judges that you train and test, thats more than the Millennium has all season. If you cant get your guys to be strong enough then I think you need a little berating of your own!
Finally, Since Russel brought it up, I am happy to expand this into the Ultimate vs Head Field judge arguement as, along with post-game penalties, I think the role of the Ultimate should've dissappeared with the dianosuars. Why we ever gave final say to anyone who never even saw the game, never saw the part of action being argued about, never sees the judges working etc etc etc is way beyond me. Strong Head Field judges are the only way forward, as far as I am concerned it worked wonders for the Millennium in 2004 (although I conceed that I may be a little biased in that point!!)
Thanks for finding my posting so useful in your reply but you seemed to have missed the point of what I was saying. As the HEad Judge on the field it is part of my job to ensure that the satndard of judging on my field is the same as other fields and therefore I want to ensure that penalties are assessed the same.
With good clear rules all players and judges know what a 1-4-1, 2-4-1 and 3-4-1 offenses are and judges know when to pull them. I am just there to ensure that the judges do that (and help team captains find their dummies after the game).
Russell, you seem to be implying that you can see no way to use 1-4-1 penalties becuase your judges are not strong enough yet you have fully independant judges that you train and test, thats more than the Millennium has all season. If you cant get your guys to be strong enough then I think you need a little berating of your own!
Finally, Since Russel brought it up, I am happy to expand this into the Ultimate vs Head Field judge arguement as, along with post-game penalties, I think the role of the Ultimate should've dissappeared with the dianosuars. Why we ever gave final say to anyone who never even saw the game, never saw the part of action being argued about, never sees the judges working etc etc etc is way beyond me. Strong Head Field judges are the only way forward, as far as I am concerned it worked wonders for the Millennium in 2004 (although I conceed that I may be a little biased in that point!!)
Russel
Andy my point is that your Refs missed a call thats why you had to give them some stick.
If it was penalty points you could at the end of the game have sorted it out.
No point in saying the refs are not strong enough we all use the same guys, Oh hang on you dont do you, you have teams doing it, the ones who played the last event and may even play the next one.
Dont tell me that this year you are going to have a lot of none playing refs, I know and well done on that.
It happens to be something we did from the start.
.
But we like you have some very good refs and also like everyone else we have some weak ones, some I would be happy to do 141s all day long, and some who at this point I want to be sure someone is checking their calls for penaltys.
And as for Pro head ref checking the teams who are reffing your events, great Idea, And I mean that, who proposed it ! .
As for getting rid of the Ultimate.
Lets leave that alone shall we, these tea drinking skills have taken years to make it look this easy.
Russ
For you infomation !
http://67.19.5.132/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6171
Andy my point is that your Refs missed a call thats why you had to give them some stick.
If it was penalty points you could at the end of the game have sorted it out.
No point in saying the refs are not strong enough we all use the same guys, Oh hang on you dont do you, you have teams doing it, the ones who played the last event and may even play the next one.
Dont tell me that this year you are going to have a lot of none playing refs, I know and well done on that.
It happens to be something we did from the start.
.But we like you have some very good refs and also like everyone else we have some weak ones, some I would be happy to do 141s all day long, and some who at this point I want to be sure someone is checking their calls for penaltys.
And as for Pro head ref checking the teams who are reffing your events, great Idea, And I mean that, who proposed it !
.As for getting rid of the Ultimate.
Lets leave that alone shall we, these tea drinking skills have taken years to make it look this easy.
Russ
For you infomation !
http://67.19.5.132/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6171
Using Penalty points after the game is the worst way to deal with the situation. You're compensating as a head ref for the fact that the judges don't have the balls to pull a penalty.
Seriously, changing the outcome of the game after the game sucks. If you can't get your judges to deal with it right then and there, what's the point in trying to figure it out after the game. If the judges saw the crime (to tell you about it after the game to give penalty points) why don't they just give the penalty.
I think your comment about the team judges in the Millennium Series is way off. The promoters turn down a lot of teams because they arn't good enough, and the motivation to get full refing points encourages good judging.
The addition of a head field judge ensures that the rules are properly followed.
The tournament ultimate only compounds the problem, allowing the players to argue the result at another level.
If you can't get judges that can enforce the rules, you should't be running the event. That's my opinion, and i firmly believe it.
We show up to play paintball: to shoot your opponants and have them leave the field. We don't show up to argue the result after the game.
I've had the displeasure of reffing events with the silly bollocks penalty points rules, and it's not easy to work with, you have tons more players trying to argue with, and you spend all day wondering why you arn't just using the Millennium Rule book instead!
Seriously, changing the outcome of the game after the game sucks. If you can't get your judges to deal with it right then and there, what's the point in trying to figure it out after the game. If the judges saw the crime (to tell you about it after the game to give penalty points) why don't they just give the penalty.
I think your comment about the team judges in the Millennium Series is way off. The promoters turn down a lot of teams because they arn't good enough, and the motivation to get full refing points encourages good judging.
The addition of a head field judge ensures that the rules are properly followed.
The tournament ultimate only compounds the problem, allowing the players to argue the result at another level.
If you can't get judges that can enforce the rules, you should't be running the event. That's my opinion, and i firmly believe it.
We show up to play paintball: to shoot your opponants and have them leave the field. We don't show up to argue the result after the game.
I've had the displeasure of reffing events with the silly bollocks penalty points rules, and it's not easy to work with, you have tons more players trying to argue with, and you spend all day wondering why you arn't just using the Millennium Rule book instead!
One thing I've found the ultimate to be good for is addressing issues at the tournament level - things that go beyond one field. Examples of this would be suspensions, rules change (or "re-interpretations"), monitoring the schedule and consistency among fields.... and for teams to whine about how this or that ref is biased
I agreee the ultimate shouldn't review/overturn calls made on the field. Final arbiter of all decisions on a field should be the head judge for that field. (yes, I'm a little biased on that)
I agreee the ultimate shouldn't review/overturn calls made on the field. Final arbiter of all decisions on a field should be the head judge for that field. (yes, I'm a little biased on that)
Re: Hmm, wrong
I can say, however wrongly someone may take it, that there is sometimes a good feeling associated with justice being handed out when you finally catch and penalize a certain team or player that is notorious for cheating and/or intimidating refs.
To the point of the thread, after-game penalties should only be applied for those situations that can't be handled with live-game penalties such as end-of-game bonus balling, etc. In such cases there must be suspensions of various sorts and some kind of restitution needs to be made to teams that were victims of rules infractions.
As I've said many times X Ball as a format does a much better job of handing out both in-game and post-game penalties that make doing the crime not worth the time. Especially since the 90-second rule was added. Unfortunately the antiquated 7-player format leaves the door wide open for making a cheating power-play (in many situations) that rewards cheating. I've seen that too many times. Am I wrong about this?
I admit that sometimes even the best refs fall for the temptation to "brag" about some penalty taken. That is politically incorrect but also a part of human nature. (Police officers will also brag about criminals they have caught, etc.) The biggest thing here is that refs should obviously avoid seeing the number of penalties taken as a measure of competency or as a competition and it certainly can sound like that if talked about. I know that at one point at the WC I encouraged the UK Refs (Russell's guys) to "Pull some penalties guys!" which probably sounded wrong. What I should have said was "Don't hesitate to hand out penalties when deserved!" which was more than what was needed because they do take penalties when they catch them. After I heard that some of the guys I recruited were rumored to be "pulling players for nothing" I had a chat with them to encourage them to be sure they weren't overzealous. (I don't think they were; I believe it is just that they're not used to refs actually following the rules about penalties over there--many still think they can just stand behind their props with a valid hit on them and that it's not playing on unless you shoot.)
I can say, however wrongly someone may take it, that there is sometimes a good feeling associated with justice being handed out when you finally catch and penalize a certain team or player that is notorious for cheating and/or intimidating refs.
To the point of the thread, after-game penalties should only be applied for those situations that can't be handled with live-game penalties such as end-of-game bonus balling, etc. In such cases there must be suspensions of various sorts and some kind of restitution needs to be made to teams that were victims of rules infractions.
As I've said many times X Ball as a format does a much better job of handing out both in-game and post-game penalties that make doing the crime not worth the time. Especially since the 90-second rule was added. Unfortunately the antiquated 7-player format leaves the door wide open for making a cheating power-play (in many situations) that rewards cheating. I've seen that too many times. Am I wrong about this?
Re: Re: Hmm, wrong
The sooner paintball at large adopts some kind of format of this nature (maybe X-ball, maybe not) the sooner these kind of problems will disappear (and you can all look forward to new ones)
I think this hits the nail on the head, it's only such a major deal (with either penalty system) in so many instances because the winning and losing can depend upon the reffing. A fixed game length (multiple point) format allows a more realstic reflection of a teams skill by its very nature; to be able to come back from a bad call and win the next point(s).
The sooner paintball at large adopts some kind of format of this nature (maybe X-ball, maybe not) the sooner these kind of problems will disappear (and you can all look forward to new ones
)