Does it exist? I'm not sure to be honest. How does one go about determining the existence of something unwritten. Is there a secret handshake involved or maybe a secret decoder ring? Could be I'm making a mountain out of a molehill too. It could even be that the unwritten rules--whatever they are--are in fact written down somewhere but if they are it isn't in some obvious place like the MS website or even the EPBF website--or even the old existing rulebook. Copies of the rules and updated rules exist in both places of course--just none of the so far discovered unwritten rules. Now see if I'd known about this before it would have spared a lot of confusion and misunderstandings. Frankly I'm a little disappointed in Ulrich for not explaining up front that there were enumerated rules and then there were those other rules--but that's all water under the bridge. VFTD's purpose today is to bring as many of the unwritten rules together as possible and create a written record that can be referred to until the MS's new rulebook is released (or written) (or whatever.) Did you know UFO sightings are more common than new Millennium rulebook sightings?
Anyway, the first unwritten rule supercedes the current written rules regarding leaving/abandoning equipment on the field during play. You may, according to unwritten rule, leave anything other than enumerated safety related gear, goggles & barrel sock. In contrast the written rule eliminates players who leave any gear other than pods and squeegees behind. [This came up on the recent webcast during the finals when a player left the front piece of his barrel behind.] So you see how confusing it might be for players outta the unwritten loop.
And there's this one from the first event of 2013. No cameras mounted on markers will be allowed (anymore.) No explanation for why. Only that it is now in the (unwritten) rules.
There's two and I'm thinking there must be a few more. So if you are a Mills regular and know an unwritten rule or two please send it to Baca's mailbag so I can add it to the list.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
No American teams are allowed to take first place?
Sour grapes? :)
- Dynasty has won plenty of MS events btw.... they even won Bitburg last year, against a german team, so the notion of biassed reffing is largely a poor excuse.
Spare a thought for the manufacturers that have to develop products that comply with unwritten rules.... and then change those products at their own expense when the new unwritten rules are not released!
The MS leagues illusion of power would disintigrate if the Eclipse-loyal European fan-boys couldn't play because their equipment did not meet new unwritten rules. Watch the house of cards fall at that stage.
I say don't change a product until a copy of the formalised rule has been received and added to the 'rule-book'. Obviously they aren't going to professionalise on their own, so perhaps they need a reminder of how little power they really hold? Pandering to their unprofessionalism does not help.
Details, Flash. For the unofficial record. ;)
http://www.facebook.com/cpspaintball/posts/458324350916413?comment_id=74031094&reply_comment_id=74033274&offset=0&total_comments=31
The camera stuff is because the Millennium has exclusive video rights that only they and diamond sponsors are allowed to use.
357 Anon
Sure it is. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?
Actually I think that's pretty accurate regarding the camera rules.
You may suggest ulterior motivation to cover up reffing flaws, etc. But the Millennium makes still photographers sign a form that prevents them from capturing video. Any video captured by a stills photographer who is not with a diamond sponsor is subject to a 5000€ fine.
If players were running around with barrel/goggle, etc. cameras then there would be no point to the exclusive diamond sponsorship video rights. Any company could just ask a player to put a camera on his gear and get the footage that way.
Not saying any of these policies are good or even stand up to the slightest scrutiny that doesn't rely on "Step 1 make rule, Step 2 -?-?- Step 3, Profit!" style reasoning. But I doubt it's anything nefarious.
Post a Comment