What are the real rules?

[Wadidiz]

Re: Re: Steve

Originally posted by Baca Loco
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.

Maybe I'm still worn out from running 100 miles at WC and wacky from getting shot to pieces by NXL players. I just don't get it.

If not restrained I will penalize a player for getting hit on the thigh and not getting off the field immediately (unless the hit came from an eliminated player). I don't think honor even figures in here, I expect a great number of players to keep playing unless said player believes he is being adequately watched and most likely will get a penalty if he cheats.

If a player gets hit on her back and keeps playing while sincerely (according to my judgement) trying to get a paintcheck, I will not penalize said player (unless those who pay me say I have to).

If practical application of the above should be different then write them in the rules!

I'm just sticking to the two examples I brought up; there are many more.

Concerning organized_chaos' point about overshooting: this is definitely an observation and judgement call but the guidelines for such judgements can definitely be transferred to field judges and to players. Maybe the thick rulebook Nick Brockdorff refers to is necessary.

I say that if a player doesn't exercise due restraint of trigger finger and shoots a few balls after a player signals his elimination, within a second or two, then I think the player doing the excessive shooting should be eliminated.

If a player shoots a clearly eliminated player who is signalling elimination or walking out of bounds and it is clear to the judge(s) that the intention is malicious then it should be regarded as hostile conduct tantamount to unprovoked fist fighting and punished by suspension.

(I also think we ought to start enforcing the rule that says a player must hold their gun up and quickly leave the field.)

Back to the point of this thread: I think we need a simple and concise rulebook for the players and a more in-depth one for the judges. Then we need professional, highly-trained head field judges...the whole schmeerkaas that I have suggested many times.

Steve

 

[organized_chaos]

I agree with you, but it is just as much of a judgement call as overshooting. I think I read somewhere that dynasty was penalized for playing on because of hopper hits. Personally, I would say hopper hits are preety much unnoticeable. Certainly some other officials wouldn't call that, and that whats need to be changed. Each ref should call the same things as another ref, I dislike judgement calls differing from ref. to ref.

 

[Liz]

I think Nick's massively thick rule book is the only safe way to go, as most of the current judgement calls by refs need to be specified more clearly. An example below:
Player gets a hit on the head armour part of his goggle system just above and behind the ear while moving. Thinks he's felt something so gets into the nearest cover (rather than the bunker he was originally aiming for) and calls for the ref to check it. Ref comes over & stands next to player, looks at him for 15-20 secs and says nothing. Player then assumes he's clean & lifts his marker to continue shooting - ref promptly pulls him & one-for-ones him for playing on with an obvious hit.
So you have here a couple of these grey "judgement call" areas currently in the rules; what constitutes an "obvious" hit, and continuing to play while asking for a paintcheck. It was argued that the player should have been able to check the side of his head, but then again I've seen people penalised for wiping because they've touched an area they thought they might have had a hit on but couldn't see, to check whether they could feel any paint there.
I know one player who is so paranoid about playing on that she will now turn aside & leave the field in the middle of a mugging run if she feels any hits at all, rather than get into cover to check whether any have broken.
There are too many interpretive rules now, and with the current amount of pushing these rules or out and out cheating going on in paintball the tendency will be for refs to always assume the worst, which only penalises the clean players out there.

 

[FMS]

Originally posted by shamu
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.

As I see it that is the main problem. Marshalls get confused by the level of abstraction these rules imply. But that is the case with any rulebook in any sport. Try to explain offside in football for example.

What we really need are professional marshalls with professional training.

 

[Red_Merkin]

What we really need are professional marshalls with professional training.

Which brings us back to the question,
are you prepared to pay for it?

 

[Wadidiz]

Liz,

The rules are pretty clear about the situation you describe IMO. If a player is hit in an area that she should normally be aware of (such as the back or somewhere on a mask around the ears) then it is her obligation to immediately call for a paintcheck. If a ref does a bad job and doesn't thoroughly check such player then it just has to be written off to a reffing mistake. (On the other hand I instruct players at captains' meetings to point and tell the ref where the suspected hit impacted.) It won't help that game much but the captain should tell the head field judge about the incident so that the ref in question can learn not to repeat the mistake.

I really don't think this issue is so difficult and don't see why refs can't be consistent on such points.

At Joy Masters 2002 I watched a player (who is now a friend) on break get hit on his mask alongside his ear and then post without calling for a paintcheck. I went out and pulled him and another player. He might not have felt it but I judged that he most likely did and that the shooter should get the benefit of the doubt. He said at the players' party that it was a hard call, but I'm sure it was the correct one. I don't think it is hard to train other refs in the proper way of observing the rules in that case.

On the one hand I agree with Nick about the exhaustive explanations needed but on the other hand we have enough problems already getting players (and refs!) to read the rules.

As FMS points out, there is too much legal-speak. We need to polish and refine the wording and try to keep them concise. Then we need to get busy training refs in all the fill-in details.

Steve

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by organized_chaos
I agree with you, but it is just as much of a judgement call as overshooting. I think I read somewhere that dynasty was penalized for playing on because of hopper hits. Personally, I would say hopper hits are preety much unnoticeable. Certainly some other officials wouldn't call that, and that whats need to be changed. Each ref should call the same things as another ref, I dislike judgement calls differing from ref. to ref.

As I've stated many times on this forum and probably on this thread hopper, gun and tank hits are an area for judges to make judgement calls.

If a hit is on the front of the hopper, on the feed tube, on the barrel or on the bottom of the tank then I think it is possible that the player isn't aware of it. If there is a noticeable whack then I judge that the player should look on his gun or hopper and will penalize accordingly. All of this is a question of degrees including time, sound, who the player is, presence or absence of spray, etc. And I don't think the rules are so unclear about this point; perhaps the wording should be improved.

The main thing is that we teach judges to use reasonable judgement in such cases.

Steve

 

[jotajotaZ]

All of this is a question of degrees including time, sound, who the player is, presence or absence of spray, etc.

Who the player is??

On the subject of very big rulebooks the answer is more or less simple: divide them. As a player or ref I probably don't need to know what the field dimensions should be, or how many bunkers should be on it... Also, a player can live with a general rule while the ref will need examples to help her make the calls. It's rather difficult (for a reason that escapes me) to have a player read the rules now that are 25 pages long, it will be impossible in case the rulebook grows to 200+ (which is something that we probably need to happen).

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by jotajotaZ
Who the player is??

On the subject of very big rulebooks the answer is more or less simple: divide them. As a player or ref I probably don't need to know what the field dimensions should be, or how many bunkers should be on it... Also, a player can live with a general rule while the ref will need examples to help her make the calls. It's rather difficult (for a reason that escapes me) to have a player read the rules now that are 25 pages long, it will be impossible in case the rulebook grows to 200+ (which is something that we probably need to happen).

Yep, who the player is. I observe and collect in my memory behavior of certain players. Certain top level players will pretend not to know or hear a hit or in any way react to it. Therefore I feel like I can hold certain players to a higher standard about taking a peep at the front of their hoppers, for example. I don't want to make too much of this. Let it suffice to say that I have confidence in my ability to judge a situation fairly although I certain can and do make some mistakes.

I think you're right about having the rulebook divided into two sections; one for playing stuff and another for everything else. The "condensed" version should be for the players. Then, perhaps, there should be an expanded version for field ultimates to master and refer to. Then there may be a need for a reffing manual replete with illustrations, explanations, examples and elaboration.

Steve

 

[Salocin]

It shouldn't matter......

.... who the player is or whether he felt the hit.

Other sports don't make a distinction on "intention" - why should we ?

If you come late into a tackle in football, you get a yellow vard - no matter whether you intended to be late or not.

The point is you are changing the game by being on the field when you should not, and the 141 penality is there to compensate the other team - not to penalise players for having a certain set of moral standards.

S