tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post3484917886804357239..comments2024-01-19T00:21:36.058-05:00Comments on View from the Deadbox: The Problem with Referees is PenaltiesBaca Locohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13014510414015288907noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-57021037666638269022014-04-04T20:10:57.117-04:002014-04-04T20:10:57.117-04:00They are in that room doing everything but concern...They are in that room doing everything but concerning themselves with the referees. They are only discussing how much more money they can charge the non pro teams for entry. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-18273231746680728152014-03-31T12:41:47.090-04:002014-03-31T12:41:47.090-04:00True... except for moves off the break, that can h...True... except for moves off the break, that can have large impact on the game quickly.<br /><br />Ans as long as the refs understand the game well enough, to not give good moves away too soon :)Nick Brockdorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058065730404049908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-33569269065354869772014-03-31T09:16:40.913-04:002014-03-31T09:16:40.913-04:001 ref per player. Problem solved.1 ref per player. Problem solved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-60855886568541540332014-03-31T02:19:12.214-04:002014-03-31T02:19:12.214-04:00I agree deterrence is important.
However, I canno...I agree deterrence is important.<br /><br />However, I cannot agree that an unobvious hit is equal to lack of knowledge. In fact, I believe that in most instances, players know they have received a hit, they just don't know if it broke :)<br /><br />That being the case, it does not make sense we are differentiating penalties, based on where there hit is situated.<br /><br />In the MS rules, they do it like this:<br /><br />If you receive a hit in a place you can check yourself (obvious), you are obligated to call yourself out instantly, or you will incur a penalty.<br /><br />If you receive a hit in a place you cannot check yourself (unobvious), you are obligated to call for a check, before you proceed with actively playing the game, otherwise you incur a penalty.<br /><br />In both cases, if you break the rule, the penalty is the same.<br /><br />The guiding philosophy is that the players impact on the game is the same, irrespective of where he is hit..... so the penalty is also the same.<br /><br />In terms of deterrence, I agree the penalty has to be stern enough to avoid players making the choice to play on after receiving a hit.<br /><br />But, I do not subscribe to the view that playing with an obvious hit should be punished harder than an unobvious one, simply because in most cases the knowledge that you received a hit is there.<br /><br />And yes, players will then occasionally be punished equally hard for playing with a hit they truly never felt they received..... but is that really so bad? ;)Nick Brockdorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058065730404049908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-59672255543803781562014-03-30T20:42:26.881-04:002014-03-30T20:42:26.881-04:00@Nick:
Your problem is you're thinking about ...@Nick:<br /><br />Your problem is you're thinking about it after the damage is done, instead of thinking about preventing the damage in the first place.<br /><br />A player who knows they are hit is usually going to have a much greater impact on the game than a player who doesn't know they are hit, because KNOWLEDGE CHANGES THE WAY THE PLAYER PLAYS.<br /><br />We've all seen players get a hit then get up and run down the field seeing how many people they can take with them. A player with an unobvious hit is unlikely to do that because they don't know they're already out and have nothing to lose.<br /><br /><br />And, a player with an unobvious hit can't choose to call themselves out. A player with an obvious hit *CAN* choose to call themselves out. So if they have an obvious hit, and they CHOOSE not to call themselves out, that's because THEY THINK continuing to play is worth more than the penalty.<br /><br />So on an obvious hit, the player will call themselves out if they don't think continuing to play is worth it, and will not call themselves out if they think continuing to play is worth the risk of the penalty.<br /><br />On an unobvious hit, the player isn't going to call themselves out no matter what.<br /><br /><br />So, by making an obvious hit a major, you make it more likely that players will decide to just call themselves out, so NO DAMAGE IS DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. If you make the penalty weaker, there are more circumstances where players who know they are hit are going to think it is worth continuing to play.<br /><br /><br />There isn't a penalty strong enough to get a player with an unobvious hit to call themselves out. In that case, you try and make the penalty about equal to what the average damage a player with an obvious hit can cause.<br /><br /><br />Put another way, you never make the penalty for intentional behavior equal to the damage because then it ALWAYS makes sense to do the illegal behavior: If you get caught, you come out even, and if you don't, you come out ahead. Who is going to call themselves out when the worst that could happen is they come out event, and they might come out ahead?<br /><br /><br />You're right that penalties are not about intent or punishing wrongdoing. Penalties are about allowing the best team to win, both by redressing the negative affect of rule violations that happen, but ALSO by making it in the players' best interest to try to play by the rules in the first place.<br /><br /><br />This isn't about player intention, it's about where the player is hit, which is a pretty easy thing to figure out. But even if it was, the idea that refs shouldn't determine player intention is preposterous. Virtually every sport on the planet has rules that have different penalties based on a referee's determination of whether the action was intentional or not. FIFA has "deliberate handball". MLB penalizes differently for a pitch hitting a batter and a pitch intentionally hitting a batter.<br /><br /><br /><br />All that said, that doesn't mean our current penalty for playing on with an obvious hit is the right one. Yes, you want to deter players from choosing to play on after being hit. But referees aren't perfect, so you have to balance that with the damage done when a ref calls a major on a non-hit. The better the reffing the less of a concern that is, but I'm sure I'm not the only player who has lost two teammates because the ref who hasn't been cleaning the bunkers thought rub was a hit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-58150882087840559252014-03-30T05:02:51.721-04:002014-03-30T05:02:51.721-04:00@Anonymous you say it's overkill if they don&#...@Anonymous you say it's overkill if they don't know about a hit and they get a major, but if they happen to take a 50 spot or whatever and put a huge amount of pressure on the opposing team, the other team should just accept that guy getting a minor because he didn't know about it? As has been mentioned a few times the focus should be on keeping things fair rather than just punishing players. <br />@Nick i agree on the point you raise that the circumstances dictate the penalty and not the players intention etc.<br />I've got to say, it is interesting that in millenniums where there is no distinction between obvious and unobvious hits, people are all of a sudden able to 'feel' pack hits when they know they'll get a 141. fancy that :)Liamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-14342405998289074332014-03-29T20:47:24.277-04:002014-03-29T20:47:24.277-04:00So, you subscribe to the view that 2 situations, w...So, you subscribe to the view that 2 situations, with the same impact on the game, should have different penalties, because one player intended to cheat and the other did not?<br /><br />I beg to differ, because that philosophy means refs are there to "punish wrongdoers" (which is an entirely wrong mindset to have for a ref), instead of being there to "level the playing field" (which is how refs ought to view their job).<br /><br />Another thing is, the way most rulebooks are written today, the difference between an obvious and an unobvious hit, is purely based on where the hit is situated (usually if it is within the self check zone or not).<br /><br />Problem just is, that in the vast majority of situations a player knows he has been hit, irrespective of where he is hit.<br /><br />So, unless you want the rulebook to require refs to guess on whether a player knows he is hit or not, irrespective of where the hit is situated, you are actually allowing for a whole lot of playing on - on purpose - simply because you want there to be a difference in the penalty based on where someone is hit. <br /><br />I on the other hand - think the system should change, so that minors are called in a specific set of circumstances where the impact on the game is minor, and majors in a specific set of circumstances that has major game impact.Nick Brockdorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058065730404049908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-37167927814337294102014-03-29T20:44:11.539-04:002014-03-29T20:44:11.539-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nick Brockdorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058065730404049908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-12287093567225340352014-03-29T16:36:58.225-04:002014-03-29T16:36:58.225-04:00Of course it should matter if you know you're ...Of course it should matter if you know you're hit, because a player knowing they are hit gives them information they can use to affect the game.<br /><br />You need a strong penalty to prevent players that know they are hit from acting in a way that ultimately creates chaos.<br /><br />A strong penalty when players don't know they are hit is overkill.<br /><br /><br />If the penalty for playing on with an obvious hit were only a minor, lots of players would often choose to keep playing because the benefits of continuing to do so (eliminating another player and possibly not getting called on the hit at all) exceed the risks (having a live player pulled for 60 seconds or less).<br /><br />But if the penalty for an unobvious hit were a major, they we're pulling a player out of the game for 2 full minutes just because a player happened to get hit in a spot where he had no idea it happened and the refs missed it.<br /><br /><br />A player who knows they are hit continuing to play is an entirely different situation than a player who doesn't know they are hit continuing to do so and necessitates a different penalty.<br /><br /><br />And no, deciding if a hit is obvious or not is NOT "making things open to interpretation." Determining the difference between an obvious and unobvious hit is no more a "judgement call" than determining whether a player false started, or left the box early, or stepped out of bounds, or any other number of other things a judge has to determine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-14747944856482855412014-03-29T13:16:01.921-04:002014-03-29T13:16:01.921-04:00Okay i only have a limited experience of millenniu...Okay i only have a limited experience of millennium refs, with one european event under my belt using PSP rules (CPS Rome), but still with euro refs. <br />However i think that the jurisprudence behind the rules exists to protect the offended player, rather than the offended.<br />Its rare that i'll play a tournament and not have somebody in the team get pulled for a penalty they genuinely had no clue was there. However the rules (in my eyes) exist so that shooting a player results in the proper reward for the player that shot them. If that player plays on, unintentionally or not,it isn't fair to take the kill away from the other team which they earned fairly.<br />I agree with the comment of risk and reward when pushing these positions, and even something seemingly innocent like just crawling up the snake to then get pulled can change a game, if guns start turning to that spot. <br />If you change the game when you weren't meant to, then the majors should be applied.Liamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-56573743799394501952014-03-28T13:45:51.899-04:002014-03-28T13:45:51.899-04:00My only issue is the inconsistency of penalties es...My only issue is the inconsistency of penalties especially on the divisional fields..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-61344228425110726302014-03-28T10:18:13.035-04:002014-03-28T10:18:13.035-04:00Under the current rules, all 4 scenarios are major...Under the current rules, all 4 scenarios are major penalties. #2 is the only one where there isn't willful intent to continue playing on, but the net affect on the game is the same.<br /><br />Silly proposal - half way in between the current rules and the penalty system that PSP divisional teams use: no more majors. Everything on the Pro field is a 1-minute minor, and any pulled bodies go to the box. Scenario #1-#4 - 2 guys to the box for 1 minute each. <br />Scenario 5 - Same as scenario #2, except the player doesn't shoot anyone - pull that player, send them to the box for 1 minute, no additional bodies. Grosses and suspensions can still be assessed on top of the on-field penalties, but won't take affect until after the point in which the penalty occurred.<br /><br />From the above I draw the following two conclusions:<br /><br />1.) The way penalties are done this year is less intelligent than years past.<br /><br />2.) The truly better system for penalties is the divisional system, where bodies get pulled, go off the field for that point, and you start over the next point. Keeping the penalty box around for spectator excitement or enjoyment is just stupid - it doesn't work for the current RaceTo format, so let's stop trying to come up with a band-aid solution to make the boxes work and just adopt what the rest of the divisions use.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-37935733956349742862014-03-28T03:43:07.388-04:002014-03-28T03:43:07.388-04:00Anon 4.48:
I know, but I want to get rid of the w...Anon 4.48:<br /><br />I know, but I want to get rid of the word "obvious", as I believe it to be completely irrelevant.<br /><br />People keep being stuck on the notion that the penalty should be different, if the hit is not "obvious".<br /><br />I think the rules should not differentiate between whether you know you are hit or not, as it opens the door for blatant and willful cheating, where there is no logical reason for not shutting that door firmly in the rules.<br /><br />It shouldn't matter if you know you are hit, only that you are.Nick Brockdorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058065730404049908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-77526831151423452092014-03-27T21:11:42.883-04:002014-03-27T21:11:42.883-04:00@NewPro: One should absolutely be a major and the ...@NewPro: One should absolutely be a major and the other should be a minor.<br /><br />If a player with an unobvious hit manages to eliminate 4 opponents, that's a reffing error.<br /><br />If a player with an obvious hit manages to eliminate 4 opponents, that's because the player is taking advantage of his 'nothing to lose' situation.<br /><br />Basically, a guy with an unobvious pack hit isn't going to suddenly jump up and run down the field. A guy with a hit he knows about, with nothing to lose, very well may choose to do so - thus why the penalty is greater to prevent players from willfully making that decision because the rewards for not calling themselves out are greater than the penalty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-58916582490164465982014-03-27T18:21:28.327-04:002014-03-27T18:21:28.327-04:00Whether there is intent or not is not the issue. A...Whether there is intent or not is not the issue. A player with an un-obvious hit, plays on , shoots 4 guys wins point. A player who knows he/she is hit,obvious hit, proceeds in the same manner and the results are the same. Both have upset the flow of the game. One is a minor and one is a major, ummm no. This requires a Balanced outlook as result is the same whether there was intent or not. If you want to penalize the individual player as well for the "intent" part, issue the team a penalty concurrently.NewPronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-88759472502434922552014-03-27T16:48:14.360-04:002014-03-27T16:48:14.360-04:00Nick, there is a rule for #2.
6.8.7 Basically st...Nick, there is a rule for #2. <br /><br />6.8.7 Basically states a player that receives a obvious hit they can't verify while moving may continue to the nearest cover to check themselves. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-23498097507603534382014-03-27T13:23:53.655-04:002014-03-27T13:23:53.655-04:00Raehl:
No, I do not think the refs are able to de...Raehl:<br /><br />No, I do not think the refs are able to determine the impact on the game, just as I don't believe they are able to determine intent (in a very general way, you can always find scenarios where they can).<br /><br />So, as a logical consequence, I want the rules (and by default the refs) to not take impact on the game or intent of the player into account at all.<br /><br />The current set of rules, are to a degree a question of trying to discern intent and impact, which is why some calls are minors and others majors.<br /><br />I think that is a mistake, because to me, it doesn't matter if the guy felt the hit or not - what matters is that he is playing, after he should be taking the walk to the pit.<br /><br />So, I want simple rules, which will many times favor the team not being in breach of the rules (after all, they DID shoot the guy, and he didn't leave the field).<br /><br />In reality we need "playing on rules" for very few scenarios:<br /><br />1. Playing a bunker with a hit on you<br />2. Moving with a hit on you (we still need rules that allow players to complete moves, as long as they stop doing damage after receiving the hit)<br />3. Receiving a hit in your bunker, then movingNick Brockdorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058065730404049908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-53954684104266801372014-03-27T13:19:55.015-04:002014-03-27T13:19:55.015-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nick Brockdorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08058065730404049908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-62085812516718627442014-03-27T09:47:43.844-04:002014-03-27T09:47:43.844-04:00#2 is the only item that I think could have been a...#2 is the only item that I think could have been a judgement call because the way its written, its the only scenario where the ref didn't see the hit. <br /><br />If the player was taking heat in a way that would have hit their pack, forcing them into some sort of desperation run, ring them up. <br /><br />If the offensive player was catching heat on the way to the stabbing, but not from the player who gets stabbed, ring them up.<br /><br />If the player makes a clean move with no heat, and I catch the hit after the move is completed, yellowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-87838107145782541952014-03-26T23:25:38.362-04:002014-03-26T23:25:38.362-04:00X-guy: Eh. Because he was still shooting I would s...X-guy: Eh. Because he was still shooting I would say a major is deserved. If he dropped his gun as soon as he felt it, but continued running to the A where he called a ref to check him then he should be called out without penalty. Because he was purposefully changing the game with the knowledge he might be hit, yes the major is deserved.<br /><br />D-guy: Depends, if he was hit in the belt, a major might be deserved, depending on the level of play. I would think that pros would know they are hit, I'm not a pro so I can't say for sure, so a major would be deserved. In the lower levels a major would probably be too drastic, maybe a nice minor. But if a guy is hit on a pod or a flap, come on. Players have better things to do than randomly check themselves to make sure they didn't take a pack hit, and only super humans would actually feel that. If a player takes a hit on a pod then it is the responsibility of the refs to pull him out. If he makes a move before the refs notice the hit than thats on the refs, not the player. Because this might appear very prejudiced (which it might be, but I think I'm objective), I have both reffed and played tourneys, though admittedly I have done more playing than reffing. <br /><br />Snake wiper: Major all day.<br /><br />Snake spinner: Major, although the ref should throw it with less malicious intent than he did for the wiper, and be nicer when pulling his teammates off the field. In my mind spinning is no where near the same level of cheating as wiping, but you are still shooting live players as a dead player with obvious hits so a major is deserved.<br /><br />To all the reminder questions at the beginning, yes. The basis for pulling people on a penalty is to level the playing field, but if it was just that you would pull out the cheating player and reinsert any players he shot, but that gets complicated. So by pulling some of the penalized players teammates you are not only re-levelling the playing field, but convincing the player it is in his best interest to just leave once he gets hit.<br />To me, majors are deserved when the player basically says, I may be shot but crew the rules and the refs, I wanna keep playing paintball. Minors are more to correct honest mistakes players make. The trouble is, of course, distinguishing.Joshua W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05748464670309636010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-50074014689295215812014-03-26T19:05:49.491-04:002014-03-26T19:05:49.491-04:00"X player = Did he shoot someone? No?"
..."X player = Did he shoot someone? No?"<br /><br />What if the answer is (as it almost always is) "Maybe?" Then what?<br /><br /><br /><br />"Did he get hit where he could feel it and keep playing? Yes? Major. No? Minor."<br /><br />What is so hard about that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-19403050193401115342014-03-26T18:54:10.901-04:002014-03-26T18:54:10.901-04:00i think all 4 do warrant a major. the d wire is ha...i think all 4 do warrant a major. the d wire is hard but if the refs where doing their job that should never happenAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13782794313256698498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-82549230856231417752014-03-26T18:36:38.474-04:002014-03-26T18:36:38.474-04:00X player = Did he shoot someone? No?
Minor penalty...X player = Did he shoot someone? No?<br />Minor penalty<br />D wire player = Put elimanated opponent back in game. Major penalty.<br />Snake player OTB = Major penalty.<br />Spining player = Major penalty,suspend rest of match.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-89429111159846063632014-03-26T18:28:41.125-04:002014-03-26T18:28:41.125-04:00A properly balanced system has deterrence built in...A properly balanced system has deterrence built in - even if not every aspect of it is deterrence based. A deterrence based system rapidly gets too complicated to officiate, while a balance based system which ignores intent but rather only considers *potential* game impact (since impact is also a subjective judgement) will minimise ref load while still deterring from the things that need to be deterred.<br /><br />So, in any situation other than blatant wiping there should be one kind of penalty, which I'd suggest be a points penalty (make a pull and hang worth say 2 combined to compensate for a 1 point penalty, as stated by others). Perhaps a blatant wipe could forfeit two points as a concession to deterrence.borschtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3804718502406028481.post-53940569674975848232014-03-26T16:56:45.225-04:002014-03-26T16:56:45.225-04:00Balance and deterrence are not mutually exclusive....Balance and deterrence are not mutually exclusive.<br /><br />You want to deter players from playing illegally - I doubt anyone wants to watch a game of paintball where everytime someone gets hit they just get up and run down the field and see how many people they can take with them because the worst thing that happens is the refs try and 'balance it out' later.<br /><br />But no rule is going to deter a player from playing with an unobvious pack hit they don't know they have. You'd like to balance out the effect that eliminated player had on the game, but you don't want to throw a deterrence-level penalty (a major) at someone just because they got hit in a spot they couldn't feel.<br /><br />So you do deterrence AND game balance - deterrence for situations where the player's decision can be effected, and balance where it can't.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com