Baca's Mailbag: Reffing & Playing the Game

Mark said...
Minimizing the impact of that "third" team on the field would be a good start. I gotta say it is still pretty intolerable at times to watch a game where no one makes moves, and the only "excitement potential" is whether a penalty will be thrown. This can "appear" to open up the action as the opposing team wants to capitalize as well as save the penalty time for the next point, but it's at best artificially induced, and at worst arbitrary and on a whole makes the game look like the amateur-production it wishes to aspire beyond. 

Someone inevitably brings up the real pro sports in discussions such as these, and I'm the first to cringe when they do, but where they swallow their whistles and let the players play (dirty or not) in big moments, at least paintball has the advantage where the officials can (or used to) actively enter the fray and signal/pull eliminated players. 

And just how does a major on the Dallas layout equal a major on the MAO layout? If a paintball referee uses the same criteria for a major penalty how can a league abide by an average 3 point swing at one event and a 1 point swing at another? How does it look for a team to come up from the challengers bracket, then blow through their prelims in champions, then be suddenly plagued with penalties in the final game? No fanboy here, just how does it look (big picture-wise) as an aspiring serious sport?

I wanted to respond to Mark's comments and questions more comprehensively than "comments" allows so here we are. Partly because his remarks appear be directed at the PSP--though he doesn't say so directly--and is something I can discuss with some authority and partly because his remarks also reflect, or so it seems to me, a frustration common in tournament paintball wherever it is played and likely to be of general interest to this audience. I will respond to the first two paragraphs broadly in responding paragraphs and then answer the specific questions by order of appearance in Mark's remarks. Hope that's clear.

First I want to agree whole-heartedly with the spirit of Mark's first paragraph. I have seen my fair share of cringe-worthy calls and at times they had nothing to do with the accuracy of those calls according to the rules. But here is where I would diverge from Mark's position. Suggesting that calls made are "artificially induced" and/or "arbitrary" may simply be rhetorical devices but they're also unfair and unproductive. Artificially induced suggests 'made up' or nonexistent implying refs are making calls that don't exist and arbitrary implies randomness. I will agree there is, and must be, some degree of randomness but only because the refs aren't going to see everything and not because they're picking and choosing what to call or not call. If Mark's larger point is that he would like to see more consistency and less game-changing calls made I think everyone would agree including the refs. But it's important to understand for our part we have to assume good faith at a minimum or what's the point of making any effort to improve? And beyond that it isn't simply the refs, it's also the rules and how we understand and apply them. And in paintball it's also the fact that we don't have a lot of options in what the impact of a called penalty is so we're sometimes left with what seems like overkill and other times leniency. But on the plus side these are all issues that are being addressed. Nobody likes hearing that it's going to take time but at least in the PSP a comprehensive effort to improve is underway.

Given the first paragraph this one seems a little schizophrenic but whatever. It describes, whether intentionally or not, the tension that is a constant part of officiating. How non-subjective do we really want our refs to be? And do we write our rules accordingly? Or do we write them in black and white but give the refs some leeway in their interpretation? One school of thought says black and white across the board. Rules are cut and dry and enforcement ought to be as simple as implementing the rules 'cus we don't want our referees doing anything except enforcing the rules. Another school of thought might be called educated subjectivity which relies on straightforward rules but gives the refs some leeway in calling a game based on standardized training and an official interpretation of the rules in-house. On one side of that coin you get the calls by the book in each and every instance regardless and in the other you (hopefully) get a regulated game that takes more account of the game play than simple rules enforcement. The problem is you can't have both when one or the other suits.

Because the penalty remains the same.

The potential impact of a penalty may vary but that is a function of the teams playing and the layout they are playing on. One unintended consequence of "fast" field design is that it can produce an impact variance from penalties called.

While that particular situation hasn't occurred this season the implication is, if it had happened, or when something similar happened, "they was robbed!" Of course this assumes the only variable is the refs and also assumes either incompetence or some sorta conspiracy. None of which is true although granted refs sometimes make mistakes and sometimes see calls differently than you or I might see them.
As to the Big Picture implication nobody--especially the league--wants important matches to either swing on penalties or appear to have been decided by other than the play of the game on the field. But as I've tried to demonstrate it's a more complicated problem than do something about the referees. And if the reference is to the Heat-Impact match in Chicago that was both a little bad luck and self-inflicted. One of the Heat's majors was for tossing a hit pod (which should have been a gross major) and another was for a shoe hit--and given the brittleness of the paint in Chicago--could have easily happened with the player none the wiser.