Sunday, March 6, 2011

PSP Rules Questions

I noticed over at PBN some peeps were inquiring about the possibility of being placed in separate prelim brackets ostensibly because they were "sister" teams (which their names suggested was likely the truth.) It was explained to them that the rules specify how the seeding is worked out and the result is what it is. It was further suggested to them they should read the rules in advance and figure this stuff out. (Though it may have been to the PSP's benefit they didn't, otherwise they might not have bothered to come.) Be that as it may what the rules didn't address--so far as I can tell (though I confess I haven't read every single word)--is how to handle the potential for collusion when sister or otherwise related teams meet during the competition. This strikes me as an oversight particularly as the issue and situation is nothing new in tourney paintball. I am not suggesting that in such circumstances teams will necessarily cheat but shouldn't the rules address the possibility and have a method in place for handling such situations?

Anyway, that got me wondering about a couple other items. One is a rules question and one is more of a procedural question, I suppose. On the procedural front I'm curious about the order teams play one another. Is there a standardized formula in place depending on the bracket size etc. that comes into play automatically or is the playing order for matches somehow determined randomly?

Regarding the rules I am curious about 3.1.2 which states, "At no time during any team points or matches, may anyone communicate from the designated staging area to any Active Players."
What I'd like to have clarified is the word "communicate." (Yes, I have a very specific reason in mind.) And since the term 'Active Players' was used specifically and active player denotes a very specific status in the rules, does that mean communication with anyone who isn't an Active Player is okay? And perhaps how the determination will be made between an intent to 'communicate' to someone outside the staging area as opposed to someone within the staging area? Or to someone other than an 'Active Player'? "No person appearing on the roster of a team may employ an electronic or mechanical device to communicate with any other person during any of their team’s points or matches."
I understand this particular rule but I wonder why there is no rule to address the loophole scenario--particularly as it has occurred in the past. A person using such equipment proximate to the team or rostered players who then communicates information gathered in violation of the rules to a team or players.

Hey, when I get really bored I'll start in the NPPL rule book.


crusty said...

Throwing a game has become an unappreciated and lost art, much, like shooting fast in semi, field walking, and the ability to rapidly change your 12gram.

Kids these days take their paintball too seriously that they forget how many good stories they are missing out on of people going on the field with bananas instead of guns or the players on each team switching sides in the middle of a game and playing again from the their opponents end of the field.
{hippy-voice rant}
You're all so obsessed with your rules man, that you forget the most important part is to have fun. Stop conforming to the rules dictated by the man and take the game into your own hands.

Baca Loco said...

Stop drinking your bong water. I hate to be the one to break this to you but what you remember of the good old days and what they were really like are two different things.

Otherwise I'm with you about having fun. And to paraphrase Charlie Sheen, "Winning is fun."

Dan said...

There is a specific formulaic way that teams are seeded. I'm not sure how new teams are seeded though. I'm not sure what you would do to avoid collusion. At some point if both of those teams win, they will see each other. Those teams have the power to throw a game. But what stops this from two teams who know each other who don't share a name? I know players playing on 14 teams in D3, not including my own. Whats to stop me from helping a friend out if were guaranteed to move on? Its something that would be very hard to police. (watch the sumo section of 'Freakonomics')

ScotchMonster said...

Have you heard about the Winnipeg high school hockey coach being 'cut', following the decision to pull their goalie while winning 3-2 in the final period and losing the game! He claimed it left the team in a better playoff rank for finals. Crusty I think you're right, but so is Baca. Older folks play by the rules. always have always will. Younger players say so what and move on-most conventions for them last a gnat's lifetime, not very long to what older people appreciate or have reference to. At the end of the day, prizes are defined by the explicit rule, pride is defined by the unwritten rule. This is where we decide as players, coaches and ambassadors to the sport, just how professional we are as a community. Time for a peaty malt, the season is about to begin.

Joe R said...

I believe 8.1.11 might cover your collusion question Baca.

"Every player on any team that intentionally gives up points to an opponent or plots to set
scores with opponents will be assessed a major suspension."

Baca Loco said...

Seeding doesn't appear to have anything to do with order of play--which is what my question addresses. For example, in a 5-team bracket does each seed play the other seeds in that bracket in the same sequence every time?

Thanks, but it doesn't. It's one thing to have scary penalties--please see NPPL rule book--for assorted violations and another to actually have enforceable rules. (Or rules, in this case, that minimize the potential for such violations.) It's interesting because this isn't new, nor are the basic procedures for minimizing the likelihood--and yet, they haven't made it into any modern rule book.

And, as per the PBN thread, it's a pure raehl-ism to defend his established order and be oblivious to a legit issue. :)

raehl said...

There is a difference between being oblivious and accepting that the present solution is the best available.

The teams are seeded by their seed points. If you have an alternative that more fairly determines who goes in which bracket and in what order their games are played, I'm curious as to why that wasn't mentioned in your blog post. I suspect it may be that anyone can blog about what isn't perfect, but coming up with better solutions is a slightly larger challenge.

raehl said...

Oh, forgot to address your question to Dan. The answer is, if you were actually interested in the answer, it would be readily apparent to you if you spent a scant few minutes looking at the schedule. Of course, spending a few minutes figuring out the entirely non-sensational answer before making the blog post may not make for very interesting reading.

Dan said...

Baca, in a five team bracket the 1 seed plays the following games :4352. the 2:5431, the 3:5123, the 4:1253, and the 5:2341. that order does not change.

Baca Loco said...

Thanks. I appreciate the effort and you are NOT a lazy slacker. I am not suprised that there is an order, I am mostly curious as to the determinative factor in creating that order. (There's a clerical error in the 3 seed's order of play.)

You continue to be a endless source of amusement. Do you really want to take that particular shot when there's a nearly ten year public written record of all the fixes I've suggested? Be my guest.
1. You haven't suggested or included a "solution" to the collusion concern.
2. I remain aware of how seeds are determined but even Dan's pointing out the 5-team bracket order doesn't answer my simple question. How was the order of play determined in the first place?
3. You also missed some other questions. :)

Baca Loco said...

In my reply to Joe I was mistaken. (ouch!) It seems the NPPL rule book does in fact deal with the "sister" team issue in 26.07