Monday, September 19, 2011

Behind the scene at DC

Before I begin an item or two from yesterday's post can be cleared up, sorta. First, it seems there wasn't any actual webcast. There were only uploads to YouTube and from the posts in the NPPL forum on PBN there were issues with timeliness and sound, as in (apparently) there wasn't any much of the time for many of the viewers. I mention it now because I made some comments yesterday that assumed a webcast had occurred. And with regards the All*Star rosters that information was available on Pev's Facebook page. D'oh! Where else? And as to the format used during the All*Star event apparently the players (the All*Star participants) were informed of the new elements 10 minutes before they started. Make of that what you will, it's unimportant in the greater scheme of things compared to the subject of today's post.
Some of you will recall I had some issues with the officiating and the institutional control of the officiating in Chicago. For a refresher see the post in question here. Just to be clear when I say 'institutional control' I mean the person or persons in charge of oversight and the league rules for how that oversight should occur. As was plain in Chicago very little, if any, institutional control existed then--and it would seem even less exists after DC.

The first incident I want to recount occurred in one of our games on Friday because it has ties back to Chicago. There is considerably more to the story than I am going to make public in this post. The reasons are simple; I didn't personally hear what some of the participants are reputed to have said and because it is my intent to demonstrate a larger problem and not indulge in a whinefest. A player (for our opponent) attempted to run down one of our players. Another of our players was posted on the gap between the opponent and our player. (The announcer on the webcast, er, download stated his opinion that the opponent appeared to have been shot first.) The opponent dove forward, went out of bounds and the refs jumped in. One ref eventually threw a flag. The player the opponent attempted to bunker was wiped off. (Though he was pulled seconds later when he was shot from across the field.) We assumed the penalty was on the bunkering player for playing on given that our player was wiped clean and left in the game. But it wasn't. It was on our player who was defending the player our opponent attempted to bunker and the call was a 3 game suspension for overshooting with the intent to injure. (This penalty does not exist in the current rule book, btw. Overshooting with the intent to injure is a 6 game suspension.) If you looked you will note that I stated in the linked post (from Chicago) "the league rep chose to use his authority over the refs to target another pro team" and in fact, that league rep mentioned a specific player by name. Curiously, the player given the suspension was that player and the team we were playing is owned & captained by the league rep who oversees the referees. Coincidence? You decide.
That however is not my principle problem with that situation. My problem is a) the penalty assessed doesn't exist, and b) must be assessed by the Head Ref, and c) we were later told by (Commissioner? Ultimate Ref? Head Ref?) Tom Cole that if our player had lied or played dumb he wouldn't have upheld the suspension. (For the record my guy freely admitted that he continued to shoot the opponent until a ref pulled him out and he stopped shooting at his teammate. Which is, of course, what anyone would and does do when in a similar situation.) If you find this hard to believe it's gonna get better and there are numerous witnesses who heard what I heard.
As for the rules themselves--overshooting with intent to injure first appears under 21.06 Unsportsmanlike Conduct as definition (2). 21.06 refers to 23.04 & 23.05 for clarification as 23.04 provide details on 1 game suspensions and 23.05 on 3 game suspensions. However this specific infraction isn't mentioned under either 23.04 or 23.05. Only 23.06; 6 game suspensions.
23.03 offers a general description of suspensions but ALL the clarifying rules ( 23.04, 23.05, 23.06) contradict the general terms given in 23.03. 23.03 suggests players may be suspended without teams being additionally penalized however .04, .05 & .06 all state player suspensions are accompanied by the affected team playing short. So which is it? As written .04, .05 & .06 ought to supersede 23.03 given they are the specific rules that clarify the general.

Which leads me to the Infamous situation in which Infamous was DQ'ed for allowing LJ to play when he was (apparently) suspended as a carry over from the Chicago event. There are a number of "facts" which appear to be either unclear or in dispute as well so I won't pick and choose among those. What seems to be the case though is that no responsible NPPL representative was initially aware of the situation. That Infamous was given conflicting info about what to do and was allowed to play two games before it was decided they were DQ'ed. The disqualification is, surprisingly and ironically, the correct call, by rule. (23.09) There is however reason to believe the calls made in Chicago were not made in accordance with the rules and the same applies to LJ's suspension. Was the suspension handed out by the Head Ref? (Who is the Head Ref?) And as has already been demonstrated the controlling rules contradict each other but suggest Avalanche should have had to play short for the duration of LJ's suspension and further that, given a team change, Infamous's only obligation was to not play LJ for the term of the suspension. Additionally in 23.01 not only is any suspension to be determined by the Head Ref the Commissioner is to record and keep track of all suspensions & hand out all DQ's. (Who exactly is the Head Ref? Or the Commissioner for that matter? Are they one in the same?) So did a Head Ref make the original suspension call? Did the Commissioner keep track and was he aware that LJ was still under suspension? Who suggested Infamous play short one game? If the league was aware of a prohibited player playing why did they let it happen? And if they weren't, why weren't they?

Here's a situation you haven't heard about. After the games were played in the pro bracket on Friday Impact was one of the top four teams and through to Sunday. Except by Saturday morning they weren't. It seems that sometime during the evening on Friday one team lobbied for a video review in order to amend a game result. Someone--the unnamed Head Ref?--or the mysterious Commissioner?--decided to actually look at the video record and then overturned the game result changing the scores of the two teams involved and consequently changing the finishing order of the Friday prelim round. Word was that Impact had no idea until the next day they were out based on a changed result though I can't confirm that. What I will say is there is absolutely no rule in the rule book that allows for game reversals after the fact. The only rule that can even be used to try and justify what the league did is 22.07 (The Finality of Calls) which states 'Referees calls during a game will stand and cannot be changed after the game except in extreme circumstances when the Head Ref becomes involved.' The rules on Scoring (27) suggest otherwise and further clarify that the only changes allowed are to correct mathematical errors. In fact 27.02 (8) states that only mathematical errors may be corrected after the score has been posted on the scoreboard. And 27.02 (5) describes what occurs when one team captain objects to the final score as determined by the officials on the field and how the Head Ref is involved in resolving the situation and no where does it allow for post play video review.
By rule it doesn't matter what the video showed. For starters there were only two cameras on the field so the complete action wasn't covered. Without a complete record whatever is on the tape is irrelevant. And if you are going to allow one team to try and overturn the on field score with the webcast video I am certain every team has one or more games they'd like reviewed as well. As a one off decision it is absolutely contrary to the rules. As a practical matter it opens every game and every decision up to later arbitration and sets a ridiculous precedent. I frankly didn't think the league could screw up the officiating any worse but this is a new low.

At a minimum we have unclear rules that may or may not be known to those responsible for enforcing them while at the same time there are numerous examples of an egregious lack of 'institutional control' that is more than simple incompetence. And the NPPL seems to be incapable of even recognizing the fact there is an enormous conflict of interest built into their system and the individuals the league is relying on to maintain the integrity of the league aren't up to the challenge. If they are serious about improving the officiating it starts at the top with a commitment to the rules and the impartial enforcement thereof. Whoever is (nominally) in charge needs to go--go now and stay gone. And the league needs to separate oversight of the officials from the teams and players as the present situation is ripe for abuse and corruption in addition to the general incompetence demonstrated over and over this past weekend.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

So what you're saying is, NPPL reffing sucks?

Anonymous said...

which is pretty much old news. But Baca is explainin how the NPPL has out done themselves and reached new lows.

Vic said...

Baca, why do you keep playing NPPL ? a lot of good teams stopped.

TJ said...

Vic said exactly what I was thinking. Why waste your resources on such a petty league?

Anonymous said...

Can't wait for Vegas. Let's go up top for a booth review. All scoring plays must be reviewed right? Oh, only if Mutiny/Avalanche/XSV play, er lose?

Props to Legend

Anonymous said...

Still hating on the NPPL. Here is an idea, why don't you put your money where your mouth is - either get involved to help fix these issues, or STFU and stop playing that league.

Kevin said...

As Vic and TJ question, what is it that keeps you playing the NPPL circuit? Or perhaps the better question: what would it take for you to stop playing NPPL? Where do you draw the line and say "I realize that this is a national series that we have historically performed well in, but I refuse to participate in an event where off-field events supersede the on-field result."

Missy Q said...

I don't enjoy the NPPL-bashing either, but this sounds particularly fxxked up. The video-evidence thing blows my mind. I think back to the Joy/Dynasty final in OC (09?) where the NPPL refused to consider overwhelming video evidence because the calls had to stand as they were made on the field. That was f'ed up too, but at least they stuck to the ruling...

sdawg said...

Doesn't the NPPL have a long history of off-the-field and not-in-the-rule-book "shens" (as the kids call it)? I remember from one of those paintball docs that Dynasty won their first pro event from some decision made after the final game was over? Heck, there's that video of the All Americans v. Iron Men back in the woods on ESPN circa 1996 where the announcer has to interview both captains and the referees to help decide who actually won the match.

I would expect to hear about bush-league corruption/incompetence from my local three-man league, not the Pro division of a national league.

The NPPL league just seems like a wank-fest for independently wealthy wankers who have no life outside of the paintball teams that they own, are buying their children spots on pro teams, and behind the scenes are probably threaten to sue the league if on-field decisions are not overturned.

My question would be: given that a lot of the same teams/players are in That Other League, why do we not hear about similar "shens" ?

Anonymous said...

Can we just be frank and post names please? It's hard to read with "this player did this" and "that player did that".

It's almost as hard to read and follow as some legal documents. :)

If people are abusing their positions they should be named and shamed.

I wish all leagues were independent of team owners and industry influence, but right now that's just a dream.

It does seem that the people making decisions don't even know their own rules and that always just results in a mess.

I've always been a fan of clean and simple rules, and less of them. :)

Mark said...

Sounds to me like the good old days some have harken for. A league owned by players (I won't include the laughable: "for the players" part) where the good ol' boy network is alive and well.
Seems to me that the 2 issues of conflict of interest and incompetence could be easily cleaned up with a return to the Pro's taking turns reffing. That way the conflicts of interest would look so much more competent.
I'd also add that a return to the woods surely would "camoflage" the former while giving plausible deniability to the latter, but I won't. Even though I did. ;-)

Baca said...

It isn't old news, it new news. And for those of you who don't like the "NPPL bashing" do you prefer seeing a league and a format you believe in turned into a corrupt laughing stock instead? It clearly isn't going to get better on its own.

Not my call on playing the NPPL. The original thinking was that "owning" a part of a league had merit particularly given the investment cost. There are however other "costs" involved but then there's still the possibility of a merger on the horizon although the first order of business will be for the NPPL to formally structure itself (in writing) in a way that identifies the current ownership. But that's another post.

Naming names. My apologies for the difficult reading in a couple places but my purpose wasn't (and isn't) to embarrass or shame anybody however deserving I may think they are but to continue making the case that things need to change from the top down if the league is to ever be more than a few rich guys toy.

And last and most certainly least--to Anon #4--still dumber than a door stop. If you actually knew anything--I'd be shocked. Have a nice day!

Anonymous said...

You all act like this is a problem that should be fixed. Don't you realize it's set up this way on purpose?

When you read a rule book and it says "The game result won't change unless somebody feels like changing it", you know what you're going to get.

Anonymous said...

If some team reps are using their position to screw over other teams, how does that affect any chances for a merger? Do these people seamlessly go from screwing each other at the event to working together to figuring out who owns the league?

If NPPL can't even figure out what their rules are, it doesn't bode well for their ability to execute a merger even if some of them want to.

Missy Q said...

As I was the one that mentioned 'nppl bashing' I'll just say that I draw a distinction between brain-dead 'bandwagoneers' knocking every deed the league has done since it's original inception (because they know nothing, and feel encouraged to show it), and clear examples of incompetence from the current incarnation of the league. I don't see this post as bashing for bashing's sake, or bashing because 'all the cool kids are bashing'. That's the difference.

It's obvious that this stinks. and that heads should roll. If they don't, it stinks even worse.

Also want to draw attention to the irony of making an anonymous post begging that people be named and shamed.

Don Saavedra said...

I love how any criticism is labeled as "hating" and a "shut up or quit" is the only response they can imagine.

Anonymous said...

This Bad reffing happens at the PSP as well.... This is why i am so confused on the all the nppl bashing

Mr Q said...

R.I P. NPPL

Its over and as for a merger that was just a pipe dream never going to happen, and please do not forget half of the NPPL did not want a merger hence the DC mess!!

Bacca; I really hope you are not going to Vegas as I hope others now realise the end has come lets move on..

Anonymous said...

Did someone just compare this to PSP reffing? Are you kidding? I'm sure there's plenty of cases in PSP where people think the refs got the on-field call wrong, but to suggest there's ever anything close to this at a PSP event is just ignorant. And worse, this crap isn't some isolated incident at NPPL events, it happens every event they run.

NPPL isn't a paintball league. It's a joke. Who cares if "semi-auto" is a skill if all that really matters is whether Frank likes you or not?

Baca said...

Missy
Wasn't directing my NPPL bashing remarks your direction. I only wanted to make a point for those who rely on attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message.

Anonymous said...

Baca,

This article is about as spot on as it gets. Someone called this 'bashing'? . . truth hurts huh?

The history of this league is repleat with shady decisions and bias.

Suggesting Baca help fix it or dont go? Well the NPPL had 50 teams outside the 'locked in' Pro teams. The end for this league is coming whether a Pro team plays Vegas or not.

As far as who this involves, anyone who plays NPPL knows who Baca is talking about. This league is such a scam, its embarrassing.

Mike said...

It's obvious to me that the merger would be best for paintball nationally for all the reasons discussed on this blog and at other places over the last couple of months. What's holding it up it seems are those owners in the NPPL that don't want to give up the control they have within the NPPL. The behind the scenes manipulation of the rule book happening because of influential owners takes away from the legitimacy of the NPPL.The only way to stop this is to boycott the NPPL so that the league folds.It does seem the the problems within the NPPL aren't going away any time soon...

Anonymous said...

And people think the NCAA is running a shady business. Dear god.

CadeX said...

Why would anyone want to merge with this?

If this is the NPPL's attempt to put their best foot forward, I would hate to see their books. If this is the way the company is being run (more focused on marketing than substance) you don’t merge you get the hell out of the way of the impending crash.

Marcus said...

Baca, ever thought of entering the Millennium series instead?

Anonymous said...

Flying to Europe is expensive.

Mark said...

"It isn't old news, it new news."
Yes but I was saying it can be made to look just like the olden days. I did forget to mention the part about pulling the plug on this whole world wide web thing, and of course resurrecting the dead tree media who reported nothing but shiny happy paintball stuff.