This is the third, and last, scenario I'm gonna ask you to evaluate. (Yes, I know, it's dragging out but things happen. The good stuff is coming.)
Player X is tucked into an Aztec attempting to control a lane. An aggressive cross field move puts an opponent into a position to shoot Player X in the pack. One paintball breaks on a pod still in Player X's pack. Player X doesn't indicate in any way knowledge that he's been hit and continues to play--which includes periodic bursts of fire.
What does the ref do? A) signal the player eliminated. B) signal the player eliminated, throw the yellow flag, and assess a minor penalty. C) signal the player eliminated, throw the red flag, and assess a major penalty.
Next time I visit these scenarios I'm going to break each one down and use some of your contributions in the collective comments to illustrate the points I want to make about rules & officiating.
The game is not in service to the rules. Read that again. Too often rules are designed (and/or enforced) to address some specific "problem." The process confined to consider narrow issues or effect convenient changes. The potential problem with those practices is that the rules define the game as it is played but that isn't the game. (Stay with me.) Competitive paintball didn't begin as a set of rules. It began as a concept, an idea, like every other game and sport. And the rules are written, first and foremost, in order to construct a playable version of the concept. The game is not in service to the rules, the rules are (or should be) in service of the game.