What are the real rules?

[shamu]

First, I agree completely that the rule book needs to be revised. I think one of the problems with the current NPPL/PSP rulebooks is that they're based in legal-speak, which can be difficult to read.

The rules aren't as precise as they could be. Rules on obvious hits, playing on, boundaries, start procedures... I could go on but you get the idea. While the current rules are better than in the past, they need to be kept up to date. As an example, at the start of this year the PSP rules still referred to wooded fields. The last time PSP had a woods field was Nashville 2000 (or was it 2001? regardless, you get the idea). As the game evolves and changes, the rules need to be updated in a similar way.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
1--IMO the rule about a player who feels a hit on his back being allowed to continue to play IS already simple, concise but has been "interpreted".

2--Being allowed to continue to play is pretty clear if you ask me. If something different is meant then the rules should simply add: "but not discharge her/his marker".

2--that circumstance is a result of the "unspoken" or "unwritten" rules that have developed because your example is anything but simple and concise--

1--when it bases anything the ref is supposed to do or call based on what a player feels or doesn't feel. Who's kidding who? Unless I get ripped I promise you, as a ref or spectator or another player, you will not know if I am aware of taking a hit. And I'm hardly unique--it's a long standing "skill" and one many have perfected in the concept field era.

Even the NXL refs were modifying their calls on penalties for unobvious minors. If a player took a hit, didn't react to it, kept playing their prop the refs simply pulled them most of the time. Same situation, the player advances, 9 out of 10 times he was assessed the penalty. My interpretation is refs didn't want to penalize players who could legitimately be unaware of a hit and whether it's been agreed on or not most of them apparently have decided, take the hit, get up and move, means you know you took the hit--hence the penalty.
Fair, unfair? Ok or not okay? That instance works for me but if I've assessed correctly how the refs made their decisions then players can take advantage and those are the kind of situations that need to be reduced to a bare minimum.

 

[Red_Merkin]

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Red_Merkin
,
but they can pressure the series
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How?

Simple,
Andy, Goose, and whoever else is involved calls el Presedente, (keeping in mind this is how every problem was handled last year) and asks for the Millenium Series rules to be totally overhauled.
There's been enough complaints about the rules this season to demand that the rules be sorted out properly. If enough pressure (ie phone calls and emails) are applied then the Millenium board has to at least acknowledge the problem, and make a decision about how it's going to be tackled.
(i'm going to start another thread about this in the EPA board)

 

[DonLKSAB]

(i'm going to start another thread about this in the EPA board)

Were can i find that?

/DonLKSAB

 

[Mark]

Originally posted by DonLKSAB
Were can i find that?

/DonLKSAB

Here, http://www.p8ntballer-forums.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=17

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
2--that circumstance is a result of the "unspoken" or "unwritten" rules that have developed because your example is anything but simple and concise--

1--when it bases anything the ref is supposed to do or call based on what a player feels or doesn't feel. Who's kidding who? Unless I get ripped I promise you, as a ref or spectator or another player, you will not know if I am aware of taking a hit. And I'm hardly unique--it's a long standing "skill" and one many have perfected in the concept field era.

Even the NXL refs were modifying their calls on penalties for unobvious minors. If a player took a hit, didn't react to it, kept playing their prop the refs simply pulled them most of the time. Same situation, the player advances, 9 out of 10 times he was assessed the penalty. My interpretation is refs didn't want to penalize players who could legitimately be unaware of a hit and whether it's been agreed on or not most of them apparently have decided, take the hit, get up and move, means you know you took the hit--hence the penalty.
Fair, unfair? Ok or not okay? That instance works for me but if I've assessed correctly how the refs made their decisions then players can take advantage and those are the kind of situations that need to be reduced to a bare minimum.

2. If a player is hit on his back and continually and sincerely calls for a paintcheck I think a player should be allowed to continue to play which means continue to play. IF the Strange player was really calling for a paintcheck then he should not have been penalized. The question of crowd noise and the refs not hearing is another matter.

1. As for obvious hits, I don't think it is difficult to determine if a player knows about a hit based on where the impact is. Any benefit of the doubt should go to the shooter IMO. If the player stays in the game without even looking then I would usually take a penalty. I could have but didn't during the two days I reffed the NXL playoffs because I had to do it their way. But I don't think it is fair to the shooter for an opponent to still be on the field after being shot and I don't think it is in accordance with the basic concept of paintball: you get shot, you're out. (Maybe contradictory to point 2 but in that case the player doesn't know if it is valid hit.)

Steve

 

[Baca Loco]

The only point I was trying to make, Steve, is that even the most professional refs currently have lots of areas of the game wherein a multitude of different judgements can be made given the general state of the rules and the ways interpretations have developed over time.
And this is, generally, not a good thing and should be avoided whenever and wherever possible. There is, I think, only so much that can be done and some parts of the refs job will remain subjective. The most important thing to consider when re-writing or expanding on the rules is the play of the game.
I would be inclined to perhaps do away altogether with obvious unobvious distinctions and assign penalties based exclusively on actions.

 

[Wadidiz]

Steve

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
I think we should stop talking individual rules - as it is really the whole concept of the way the rules are written that is wrong !

Nick

Nick,

What do you suggest as an alternative?

Baca,

Actually there are three main types of hits:

1. Hits normal humans not pumped up on novocaine would feel, hear or see.

2. Hits that a player usually would not be aware of.

3. Hits like number 1 that a player can't check themself.

I'm not sure what you mean by actions. Do you mean how a player behaves? I don't think you would suggest that. Do you mean the circumstances around the hit or what a player does after receiving a hit?

There are definitely times judges should make judgements (such as when a player gets a hit on a tank or on a feed tube) but I think we should strive for simply sticking to the explicit rules and making the rules more explicit.

Steve

 

[Baca Loco]

Re: Steve

Originally posted by Wadidiz
Baca,

Actually there are three main types of hits:

1. Hits normal humans not pumped up on novocaine would feel, hear or see.

2. Hits that a player usually would not be aware of.

3. Hits like number 1 that a player can't check themself.

I'm not sure what you mean by actions. Do you mean how a player behaves? I don't think you would suggest that. Do you mean the circumstances around the hit or what a player does after receiving a hit?

There are definitely times judges should make judgements (such as when a player gets a hit on a tank or on a feed tube) but I think we should strive for simply sticking to the explicit rules and making the rules more explicit.

Steve

I'm just wondering (in type) if there isn't an approach that isn't some variant of what's done now that might not be preferable, is all. Mental noodling, if you will. (Very mental, perhaps )
The problem with your types of hits is nobody but the player in question can know which of the three a particular hit might be under various circumstances and I'm just wondering if it matters.
Seems to me the evolution of the current rules structure is predicated on trying to codify the old honor system of play and at a minimum X-Ball is leading away from that perception of the game and maybe the rules ought to follow.

 

[organized_chaos]

I would also like to see a bit of uniformity from ref. to ref. Lets take overshooting as an example, ref A may think more than 3 is overshooting, whereas ref B may think 5 is too much. Technically, they are both right. But how is a player supposed to know the limit? Lets say if the rules said 3 or more is unacceptable, then players would be more carefull. But players cant know that, so maybe they get ref B one game and get shot 4 times and the next game get ref A and shot someone else 4 times and gets pulled. If I was that player, I would be pissed off and rightly so. Just my 2 cents.