WORLD CUP news! Avalanche caught cheating!

[Robbo]

Agree

Originally posted by TJ Lambini
You can set out an anti-wiping mandate, anti-playing on is trickier...bring in fines maybe...although half of tha team still survive on pocket money from their parents and Ledz needs every penny of his personal fortune for ribs and pizza, so this could be tricky.

Have you had to sign a contract with RP, Dye, Planet or PGI which includes any behavorial clauses?

The RP contract is being sent to me next week which I have to sign and return, as to what clauses there are, I have no idea till it arrrives, as for the others ?
Nah, not needed, I think it would be implicit in any agreement albeit verbal !

Pete

 

[manike]

Hey I think with so many of the PGI sponsors here trumpeting good behaviour as being the correct and long termist approach that the PGI sponsorship should have a behavioural clause stating only but the best behaviour and no offences at all being allowed. Not even 1-4-1's...

Rancid you so nicely point out we have a high profile coach in this 'press conference' and we also have a high profile sponsor...

How about it PGI, Rancid, TJ, et all... willing to put your money where your mouth is and help herald in this brave new era of responsible sponsors? and cut Nexus if there is bad behaviour? How about we have public (on this board) equiries into any issues that arise? and accountablility... it could be the first team to lead the way...

Or do you just want to help them kick ass all over the world I'd rather see them kick ass, than be held subject to a very stringent sponsorship clause.














I'm only kidding guys At this point in time I don't want to see such a sponsorship clause. But maybe in the future.

Pete, I never meant to imply your reply was evasive, ambiguous or vague. I seriously thought it was a good reply to a difficult question. Please take the above post in the light hearted jibe it was meant also. Oh and TJ how come you don't know about the PGI sponsorship deal... you're so well informed on everything else...

manike

edited because in rereading I could have mis interpreted things I wrote myself.

 

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Robbo
...Playing on however is in a lot of cases, more the result of a heightened adrenaline level and inertia than a deliberate attempt to cheat though I do concede that in the hands of some players, this mitigation is somewhat stretched.
Robbo

3-strikes-you're out, required reffing, required training, independent head-field-judges, new commitment to enforcement without respect to who the player/team is, in other words...

behavior modification, get caught = you'll pay.

(I won't just disappear. I believe we can make a change.)

Steve

 

[TJ Lambini]

There is often a value in questions

even when you know tha ansa...

From PGI's point of view, I would have thought that what Robo said regarding a wipe would be all they were looking for...we'd be ****ing hypcrites if we expected the ****s not to swear on the field, right?

 

[Buddha 3]

**** yeah!

 

[manike]

**** that!



Well someone had to disagree

 

[Furby]

****in' A, Bubba

 

[raehl]

Well...

I was talking about cheating, you made the comparison to fouls, which wasn't a good comparison. Turns out you wern't talking about cheating.

Wiping, playing on with hits you know you have, that's cheating.

Getting shot in the middle of a bunker run (assuming you can't see the hit) and finishing it off anyway, I consider that a foul. Maybe it bounced, in which case you're good, but if it broke, you get the one-for-one. Most of the time it's better to just call yourself out, but if you're the last guy on the field or something, penalty be damed, you're going to take as many with you as you can. Unfortunately you need refs that are o their toes to sort this out, which has historically been a problem.


And just to say it again,I wasn't all that serious about "taking the pros money", as I already pointed out, it works a lot better if everyone is successful. But I also think it's still a toss-up as to who can break into the major sponsorship arena first. The deciding factor isn't who is the best, but what you can sell the most advertising for during the commercial breaks.

Regardless, cheating has to stop, both because the sonsors decide to not tolerate it and because the officiating gets better to handle it. We can't be taken seriously as a sport if big games are usually won by the equivalent of pass interference or having an extra player on the field because the officials/sponsors are apparently powerless to do anything about it.


- Chris

 

[Gyroscope]

Robbo,

I have thought about it. I believe that the lack of adequate toilet facilities and spectator seating is a greater long term problem than cheating in any form.

Just in case we are wrong, however, I have contacted Coca-Cola's sponsorship Department. I asked if unbiased officiating and an atmosphere of fair play or adroit management of spectator logistics weighs more heavily in decisions regarding sponsorship. As I framed the question, I felt I already knew the answer- we want both. I imagine that drama wil matter more in the long run, however. Hopefully a dialogue will develope that can inform our choices in the future.

A thought, though... could it be that too much specific skill is required to watch paintball and be entertained? That was the main problem with the ESPN coverage, wasn't it? too hard to figure out what the hell's happening through the TV?

I will report on Coke's response when I hear back from them.

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by gyroscope
Robbo,
I have thought about it. I believe that the lack of adequate toilet facilities and spectator seating is a greater long term problem than cheating in any form.
Just in case we are wrong, however, I have contacted Coca-Cola's sponsorship Department. I asked if unbiased officiating and an atmosphere of fair play or adroit management of spectator logistics weighs more heavily in decisions regarding sponsorship. As I framed the question, I felt I already knew the answer- we want both. I imagine that drama wil matter more in the long run, however. Hopefully a dialogue will develope that can inform our choices in the future.
A thought, though... could it be that too much specific skill is required to watch paintball and be entertained? That was the main problem with the ESPN coverage, wasn't it? too hard to figure out what the hell's happening through the TV?
I will report on Coke's response when I hear back from them.

Gyro, I think these are two, very different problems.
One is dealing with cheating which will take a long time, involve players embracing different ideals and a whole host of other probelsm attached to it.

The other can be done in a heartbeat, it's common sense, it's allocating some of that huge wad of money that was made, it's quick, it's courteous and it was ignored !!!!

Everybody knows what the problem is with this one but the former is a much harder one to crack.

Robbo

PS It might not have been such a great an idea to approach Coke on this subject for a problem that really didn't take Sherlock Holmes to work out but your motives were obviously benign if a little over-reactive