After just coming from the World Cup where David Oshel and I ran the 5 & 10 and helped with Division X Ball and where I helped ref a couple of days of NXL, and after having started the season reffing at Huntington Beach and having reffed a lot of Millennium games as well as having run Nations Cup X Ball, I must say the rules are confusiing.
1. The rules are not worded very well in any major league set of rules.
I have already commented here on the need to improve the English of the Millennium rules (rewritten by a German who is very good at English but who nevertheless has limitations). But the PSP, NXL and NPPL S7 rules aren't much better.
2. The rules should be basically uniform with as little variation as possible.
If the rules were standardized between the major leagues then it would making it easy for qualified refs to jump into reffing at any event without having to get comfused by a new set of rules.
3. The rules are not applied consistently as they are written; there are "understood" intepretations of the written rules.
The solution to 1 and 2 is simple: the rules just need to be rewritten in a clearer way (don't ask me to do it because it is virtually impossible for me to write anything consisely) and an effort needs to be made to get the basic form of those rules accepted by all the majors. Simple but not necessarily easy to get done because of the politics and general lack of interest on the part of the powers-that-be.
Number 3 is what I'd like to discuss.
Examples:
1. Rule 10.1.16 of the NXL rules states: "Players with obvious hits in areas that are not easily verifiable, such as the back, may continue to play, but must immediately call [for a paintcheck]...
The same for Mill rule 26.4, 10.06 of PSP 5 & 10 and 12.36 of NPPL Super 7.
What does "continue to play" mean? May a player continue to shoot while calling for a paintcheck? If I read it just like it's writtten then I would say yes, but I was told the player would be playing on by people running the collegiate X Ball games and was not given a clear answer by a PSP rules expert.
2. From the NPPL rulebook: 12.32 Players who are hit in an obvious location are expected to immediately signal their elimination by announcing “HIT” or “OUT” at the time of said elimination. 12.33 Said players must then remove their armbands, install barrel sock and exit the field immediately by the most direct routes or upon the instructions of a field judge, if given. Ditto PSP, NXL and Millennium.
I found out while reffing NXL that a player wasn't playing on until she/he shot their gun. Not the way I read the above rules. To me "immediately" is pretty clear, not hanging around on the field.
Also, a great number of players throw down their barrel socks behind the flag station thus ignoring the part of the rule that says to put the barrel bag on before exiting the field.
(While we're here I'm starting to believe that players should be required to hold their guns up until they are off the field because bonus-balling is becoming more of an issue. Warning then penalty I say. Then it will become a habit.)
I also had some discussions about how to interpret rules such as boundary/out-of-bounds rules. Some think that if a player steps a little out of bounds, especially during an important game, then a judge shouldn't be so nit-picking as to remove that player. Or if the player unseats an obstacle, etc. The argument was that we should focus more on the playing and not the enforcement of rules.
I believe we need to have clear rules that are easily transferrable in concept. Not have to train judges in the interpretation on most written rules. I don't believe in having robot-judges who can't make any real judgements (I think, for example, that a judge should judge whether or not a hopper hit was known about by a player and penalize or not accordingly) but the rules should be straightforward and easy to relate to anyone willing and able to judge.
I know that I tend to be nit-picking but does anybody else think there is something here that needs addressing? Reffing is already difficult enough as it is. Simple rules with consistent interpretations would make it easier IMHO.
Steve Morris
1. The rules are not worded very well in any major league set of rules.
I have already commented here on the need to improve the English of the Millennium rules (rewritten by a German who is very good at English but who nevertheless has limitations). But the PSP, NXL and NPPL S7 rules aren't much better.
2. The rules should be basically uniform with as little variation as possible.
If the rules were standardized between the major leagues then it would making it easy for qualified refs to jump into reffing at any event without having to get comfused by a new set of rules.
3. The rules are not applied consistently as they are written; there are "understood" intepretations of the written rules.
The solution to 1 and 2 is simple: the rules just need to be rewritten in a clearer way (don't ask me to do it because it is virtually impossible for me to write anything consisely) and an effort needs to be made to get the basic form of those rules accepted by all the majors. Simple but not necessarily easy to get done because of the politics and general lack of interest on the part of the powers-that-be.
Number 3 is what I'd like to discuss.
Examples:
1. Rule 10.1.16 of the NXL rules states: "Players with obvious hits in areas that are not easily verifiable, such as the back, may continue to play, but must immediately call [for a paintcheck]...
The same for Mill rule 26.4, 10.06 of PSP 5 & 10 and 12.36 of NPPL Super 7.
What does "continue to play" mean? May a player continue to shoot while calling for a paintcheck? If I read it just like it's writtten then I would say yes, but I was told the player would be playing on by people running the collegiate X Ball games and was not given a clear answer by a PSP rules expert.
2. From the NPPL rulebook: 12.32 Players who are hit in an obvious location are expected to immediately signal their elimination by announcing “HIT” or “OUT” at the time of said elimination. 12.33 Said players must then remove their armbands, install barrel sock and exit the field immediately by the most direct routes or upon the instructions of a field judge, if given. Ditto PSP, NXL and Millennium.
I found out while reffing NXL that a player wasn't playing on until she/he shot their gun. Not the way I read the above rules. To me "immediately" is pretty clear, not hanging around on the field.
Also, a great number of players throw down their barrel socks behind the flag station thus ignoring the part of the rule that says to put the barrel bag on before exiting the field.
(While we're here I'm starting to believe that players should be required to hold their guns up until they are off the field because bonus-balling is becoming more of an issue. Warning then penalty I say. Then it will become a habit.)
I also had some discussions about how to interpret rules such as boundary/out-of-bounds rules. Some think that if a player steps a little out of bounds, especially during an important game, then a judge shouldn't be so nit-picking as to remove that player. Or if the player unseats an obstacle, etc. The argument was that we should focus more on the playing and not the enforcement of rules.
I believe we need to have clear rules that are easily transferrable in concept. Not have to train judges in the interpretation on most written rules. I don't believe in having robot-judges who can't make any real judgements (I think, for example, that a judge should judge whether or not a hopper hit was known about by a player and penalize or not accordingly) but the rules should be straightforward and easy to relate to anyone willing and able to judge.
I know that I tend to be nit-picking but does anybody else think there is something here that needs addressing? Reffing is already difficult enough as it is. Simple rules with consistent interpretations would make it easier IMHO.
Steve Morris
