The rules

[Micah]

That doesn't make any sense ...

I thought the point of paintball was to mark your opponent with a paint splat the size of a quarter or larger. I think we need to ask the people who wrote the rule.

-Micah

 

[TheRo0sTer]

Funny at the 10 man I shot myself out when my marker went off and the ball bounced back off my bunker and broke on my leg! Angry cause I was called out YES. But at the Marshall no since it was so called "Friendly Fire!"

 

[goose]

Sorry Nick...

... for once , you are wrong.

What that section you are quoting deals with is - how you determine what is an obvious hit - not whether someone is eliminated.

What actully constitutes an elimination is covered in 10.2.

peace

goose

 

[Buddha 3]

Nick, I see what you mean. Everybody understands what is meant, but it can be twisted to mean something else. So what you're saying is that for the rule to work as it should, it should read: 'Or those that break and the impact of which is felt by the player', or something along those lines anyway...
This is where it gets a bit 'lawyerlike' isn't it...

 

[goose]

Yes it does...

In the absolutely clear Millennium rules (ya - right), the section you are refering to 10.01 only defines what an obvious hit is - not what an elimination is. Nowhere in 10.01 or anything until 10.2 does it say that you are eliminated from that "obvious hit"

10.2 is where they actually state what criteria should be used for judging whether or not someone is eliminated.

The rules are right, but possibly in the wrong order (this wouldn't be a big surprise). The obvious hit section should be after the section that describes what an constitiutes an elimination. This obvious hit B.S. describes what should be called the "self check zone" and for the life of me I don't understand how the F*ck a shot to the back of the head - while obvious - can be my responsibility to check, sure I can call a ref over - and should, but I haven't got eyes in the back of my head (I'm not that deformed).

I know 10.02 states "Players who are hit in an obvious location are expected to immediately signal their elimination by raising their hand.", but I believe that this is only in reference to whether or not you are eliminated - see section 10.2 for what constitutes an elimination.

I think the whole mess could be fixed by having section 10.2 first followed by 10 & 10.1 (and these 2 need to be re-written - no argument there)

goose

 

[goose]

Brock...

... I love ya bro but sometime you are so hardheaded (like you never heard that before).

What I am saying is - section 10.01 defines what an obvious hit is:
10.01. Obvious hits are those which impact and break on easily observable places on the body or equipment being carried or those that have been felt by the player. A judge will determine whether a player felt a hit by where that paintball impacted his body and whether he reacted upon being hit.

This section does not define what an elimination is - again see rule 10.2 - we are dealing with a 2 step definition here. The point of rule 10.01 is to make clear to players what an obvious hit - when used in lets say a 1-4-1 situation - constitutes.

I will give you an example:
2 players are left on 1 in a corner beercan - one goes to shoot him out (keeping himself way out in the open I might add) and in the process is hit on the upper thigh area. He then continues to shoot, not even attempting to check himself. This then leads to a 1-4-1 because the hit was OBVIOUS - he may not have seen it hit but he sure as sh!t must have felt it.

Again, for the monday morning mentally challeged - 10.01 does not define what an elimination is, 10.2 does - 10.01 defines what an obvious hit is. I know it seems strange but they are actually 2 different - but related - things.

goose

 

[Beaker]

Nick

You quote

10.01 states: "Obvious hits are those which impact and break on easily observable places on the body or equipment being
carried or those that have been felt by the player. A judge will determine whether a player felt a hit by where that
paintball impacted his body and whether he reacted upon being hit."

Now it's regardless of Goose's point (which is valid to me) about this being a rules purely to determine what's obvious/nonobivous hits it's more a matter of punctuation/inference.

I read it like this:

Obvious hits are those which impact and break on easily observable places on the body or equipment being
carried or those (obvious hits) that have been felt by the player. A judge will determine whether a player felt a hit by where that paintball impacted his body and whether he reacted upon being hit

An obvious hit is defined as "those which impact and break" above

I don't think it's entirely wrong and I can perfectly see how you can read into it your arguement, but I also feel it can be "read" correctly.

But I do agree 100% that the rulesbook needs to be re-written in less ambiguous language.

 

[RePete]

The NZPPA rules which have come into being over the past year or so are a bit of an amalgamation of rules from the Millennium series, NPPL rules and the APPL (Australia). In the real early days of this rule set we HAD a rule, which last I knew was still current in the APPL rules, and that was something like:

"Blah blah, paint breaking, blah blah...And a direct hit which bounces when witnessed by a referee".

Man that one sucked. The rule lasted for one tournament...Still. It's very nice to have a unified rule set. Now without a consistently organised tourney series, the only hard part is getting tournament organisers to execute the rules correctly.

Cheers,
Peter 'RePete' Hamilton

 

[goose]

Actually Beaker...

... although I think we are "of the same mind" I think that you have actually read it wrong.

I think the correct way to look at it should be:

I read it like this:
Obvious hits are those which impact and break on easily observable places on the body or equipment being
carried or (obvious hits are) those that have been felt by the player. A judge will determine whether a player felt a hit by where that paintball impacted his body and whether he reacted upon being hit

Again, it's a matter of interpretation but, my interpretation of the second "those" is the actual hit not the breaking of the paint.

Gotta, love these clear rules descriptions huh??

goose

 

[Beaker]

Agreed on the clarity thing

I can read that sentence about 4 or 5 different ways and could use each to justify a certain decision (like Nick's calling players out for bounces).

I actually agree with you, but included the breaking paint bit as Nick was using this rule as the criteria for elimination - which obviously must include the paint breaking.

And if you are being really picky it says "A judge will determine whether a player felt a hit by where that paintball impacted his body" so in theory a player can get shot in his battle pack 20 times but if he doesn't flinch it's not obvious as it's neither easily observable nor on his body.

You do have a BIG task on your hands .............