Put simply game philosophy is a unified cohesive conception of what the game is and how it is to be played.
Officiating is the practical adjudication of the game philosophy. The referees, applying the rules (which define the game's elements & actions) oversee the play of the game to assure it reflects the game philosophy as accurately as possible.
Um, maybe so, but what's the point of all this jibber-jabber? I mean we've got a game already, right?
Right, sorta. Yes, we have a game already but if you take a moment to think about how we got the game we have maybe you'll see a value in trying to think about the game divorced from the baggage of our history. (Okay, maybe that's not completely possible but there is a virtue in not having the past overly influence or color one's thinking.) So far competitive paintball is largely composed of remnants of the earliest paintball played, a few fresh ideas and the momentum produced by technology & industry profit. Not exactly Frankenstein's Monster but there is a parallel. We have failed to take control of our sport by creating a foundation for its future development based on a shared philosophy of the game. As a consequence the game has had a kind of life of its own with changes being made piecemeal as a response to changing circumstances.
Not sure? Why do we shoot ramped and/or capped guns? Because rules were changed when the industry produced such guns and the hoppers capable of feeding them--and because they were popular. Why do we play the Race 2 variant of xball? (The most teams ever at WC featured 10-man play.) Why are the bulk of penalties based on removing players from the game? Why are field layouts mirrored halves or symmetrical?
At this stage competitive paintball probably won't end up as a game played from a clean slate conception so how does game philosophy make a useful difference today? New ideas breed new possibilities, new possibilities hold the promise of improving the game. Or making it worse. Or bringing about any number of unintended consequences. A shared game philosophy would mitigate the risk involved in making changes because every change would be considered against the standard provided by a game philosophy.
Showing posts with label officiating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label officiating. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The Constant Referee
I have made some comments recently that may not have been fully understood on the subject of officiating so I'm taking this moment to (hopefully) offer some clarification. (The voting pace on The Monday Poll(s) has dwindled considerably so don't think that saved you from another St. Tropez post, it didn't.)
Before getting into paintball officiating however I want to offer a neutral analogy that may help separate fact from friction. In baseball the umpire calls balls & strikes. While no penalties attach to the process it is integral to the play of the game and defined in the rules. Despite that the interpretation of the rules has changed over the years and the so-called "strike zone" is not what it once was. But whatever the purist may think of an evolving interpretation of the rules the game remains fair--at least within the context of called balls & strikes--as long as the umpire calls them the same for both teams. Imagine a game where one team plays with the current strike zone that includes the rubber and sometimes even proximity to the rubber if the other team is forced to play to the old smaller strike zone. There can be no fair or balanced or impartial game for the competitors unless the rules, whatever they are, are understood, interpreted and enforced the same way for everyone. When I refer to the consistency of the officiating this is what I'm talking about.
When the MS tries to remove subjective determinations from the officiating by, for example, largely eliminating the concept of the unobvious hit the intent is to produce greater uniformity (or consistency) in the calls by the refs as a group. Which is a) a proper goal and b) indicative of the league's attempt to continue improving the officiating. What it doesn't tell us is whether or not it's a good rule. (The guiding principle here must be what sort of game do we want to play.)
In the recent St. Tropez event post where I was critical of elements of the officiating that criticism was principally directed at the inconsistencies on display but not entirely. A lack of perfect consistency is a part of the game (of any refereed game or sport) as we will never have perfect refs. But striving toward that goal remains worthwhile and the burden falls to what I commonly call institutional control to oversee and regulate. (To be fair to the MS this is on their radar. In my conversation with Laurent he described a merit-based system in talking about the training and placement of refs. In follow up discussion with some other long time MS watchers it seems clear a purely merit-based approach may be a goal but isn't yet a reality. Nor was it clear beyond generalities just what mechanisms were in place to assure such outcomes. Even so it is a path to continued progress.)
Institutional control when it comes to officiating covers a number of things. Real institutional control means that a plan and goal(s) exist aimed at achieving a well defined standard. It means that personnel and a system are in place to implement the plan and oversee the process and make changes as necessary. But as with the playing of the game failure or success comes down to execution. The MS appears to have the pieces in place. That leaves only the question of whether or not the league has the will to make it happen. All things considered they haven't done badly. (And I would say the same about the PSP. The NPPL took steps in the off season to provide some institutional control but the jury remains out as to whether or not it will be implemented or effective.) I will detail the inconsistencies--at least as we experienced them--in the next St. Tropez post.
The other area I criticised is really an issue of game philosophy. (I know, I'm losing the few of you who are still with me. It's okay but somebody has to talk about this stuff.) All games & sports are defined by the limitations imposed by rules. They give it shape and describe how it works. They are tools. They are not the game or sport they define. That said my Big Picture criticism of the MS is nothing to do with the refs--it is to do with the rules and the impact some of the rules have on the play of the game. I will cover this aspect in greater detail in a separate post.
Before getting into paintball officiating however I want to offer a neutral analogy that may help separate fact from friction. In baseball the umpire calls balls & strikes. While no penalties attach to the process it is integral to the play of the game and defined in the rules. Despite that the interpretation of the rules has changed over the years and the so-called "strike zone" is not what it once was. But whatever the purist may think of an evolving interpretation of the rules the game remains fair--at least within the context of called balls & strikes--as long as the umpire calls them the same for both teams. Imagine a game where one team plays with the current strike zone that includes the rubber and sometimes even proximity to the rubber if the other team is forced to play to the old smaller strike zone. There can be no fair or balanced or impartial game for the competitors unless the rules, whatever they are, are understood, interpreted and enforced the same way for everyone. When I refer to the consistency of the officiating this is what I'm talking about.
When the MS tries to remove subjective determinations from the officiating by, for example, largely eliminating the concept of the unobvious hit the intent is to produce greater uniformity (or consistency) in the calls by the refs as a group. Which is a) a proper goal and b) indicative of the league's attempt to continue improving the officiating. What it doesn't tell us is whether or not it's a good rule. (The guiding principle here must be what sort of game do we want to play.)
In the recent St. Tropez event post where I was critical of elements of the officiating that criticism was principally directed at the inconsistencies on display but not entirely. A lack of perfect consistency is a part of the game (of any refereed game or sport) as we will never have perfect refs. But striving toward that goal remains worthwhile and the burden falls to what I commonly call institutional control to oversee and regulate. (To be fair to the MS this is on their radar. In my conversation with Laurent he described a merit-based system in talking about the training and placement of refs. In follow up discussion with some other long time MS watchers it seems clear a purely merit-based approach may be a goal but isn't yet a reality. Nor was it clear beyond generalities just what mechanisms were in place to assure such outcomes. Even so it is a path to continued progress.)
Institutional control when it comes to officiating covers a number of things. Real institutional control means that a plan and goal(s) exist aimed at achieving a well defined standard. It means that personnel and a system are in place to implement the plan and oversee the process and make changes as necessary. But as with the playing of the game failure or success comes down to execution. The MS appears to have the pieces in place. That leaves only the question of whether or not the league has the will to make it happen. All things considered they haven't done badly. (And I would say the same about the PSP. The NPPL took steps in the off season to provide some institutional control but the jury remains out as to whether or not it will be implemented or effective.) I will detail the inconsistencies--at least as we experienced them--in the next St. Tropez post.
The other area I criticised is really an issue of game philosophy. (I know, I'm losing the few of you who are still with me. It's okay but somebody has to talk about this stuff.) All games & sports are defined by the limitations imposed by rules. They give it shape and describe how it works. They are tools. They are not the game or sport they define. That said my Big Picture criticism of the MS is nothing to do with the refs--it is to do with the rules and the impact some of the rules have on the play of the game. I will cover this aspect in greater detail in a separate post.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
It's Official: Tony's & Dan's Big Adventure
The Catshack has the NPPL presser posted--even before the NPPL website or their (assorted) Facebook page(s). Link is down on the sidebar--see the kitty in the toilet. (Yes, it is so a link.) Is it because of the new Canadacentric thinking in the NPPL? (That was a joke. No, it wasn't.)
Anyway, there are only a few things to say about this move. First, it's an admission, despite the presser's jargon, that the officiating was broken before. Second, it's going to cause a major culture clash. Third, we don't know how many, if any, of the PSP pro refs they took with them.
If the PSP refs went with Tony then it is, at a minimum, a short term problem for the PSP that could become an endemic problem. If the core of the refs stayed then the PSP will carry on and decide how they want to replace Tony's role.
Bringing in Tony means, among other things, that the NPPL agrees to do things Tony's way--not the other way around. The only way that isn't true is if there's so much cash on the table Tony will acquiesce to league requirements. And if that's the case then the league has simply thrown a bunch of money around without fixing the core problem--their own inability to follow the rules. It will be interesting--and perhaps even entertaining--to see how the "owners" and the pro teams respond to the Mineo Regime. It will also be interesting to see if there's any noticeable improvement across the board over the course of the season.
At the end of the day bringing in Tony has the potential to actually solve their problems as well as appearing to solve their problems. Will the league let Tony do things his way when push comes to shove? Will that way produce more consistent officiating? Will pre-existing NPPL refs feel undervalued? How will the experiment in Millennium style Race 2 work out? What will the PSP do? Will refs demand more money across the board? And most importantly what choices will teams looking to play national events decide to do?
To the great unwashed it's a PR coup. To the knowledgeable it's still an open question: Can Tony overcome the institutional dysfunction or will it overcome him? Only time will tell and it will, at least, make for an interesting 2012 NPPL watching season.
Anyway, there are only a few things to say about this move. First, it's an admission, despite the presser's jargon, that the officiating was broken before. Second, it's going to cause a major culture clash. Third, we don't know how many, if any, of the PSP pro refs they took with them.
If the PSP refs went with Tony then it is, at a minimum, a short term problem for the PSP that could become an endemic problem. If the core of the refs stayed then the PSP will carry on and decide how they want to replace Tony's role.
Bringing in Tony means, among other things, that the NPPL agrees to do things Tony's way--not the other way around. The only way that isn't true is if there's so much cash on the table Tony will acquiesce to league requirements. And if that's the case then the league has simply thrown a bunch of money around without fixing the core problem--their own inability to follow the rules. It will be interesting--and perhaps even entertaining--to see how the "owners" and the pro teams respond to the Mineo Regime. It will also be interesting to see if there's any noticeable improvement across the board over the course of the season.
At the end of the day bringing in Tony has the potential to actually solve their problems as well as appearing to solve their problems. Will the league let Tony do things his way when push comes to shove? Will that way produce more consistent officiating? Will pre-existing NPPL refs feel undervalued? How will the experiment in Millennium style Race 2 work out? What will the PSP do? Will refs demand more money across the board? And most importantly what choices will teams looking to play national events decide to do?
To the great unwashed it's a PR coup. To the knowledgeable it's still an open question: Can Tony overcome the institutional dysfunction or will it overcome him? Only time will tell and it will, at least, make for an interesting 2012 NPPL watching season.
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.
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.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Mr. C & The HB Seven
Poor Mr. Curious. In another run of bad luck he's voluntarily committed himself for observation and rest. It seems he's having this recurring dream that's ruining his life. (Nothing to do with ESPN3.) Night after night it's the same thing. Over and over and over. In the dream he's an improvisational performer and member of a troupe in a post apocalyptic world being hunted down by both the remorseless machines (intent on crushing all life on Earth) and the remaining remnant of humanity that is highly critical of the troupe's sense of humor. It may seem an odd dream but it's really quite common. I've had that dream myself a few times.
Anyway, in the calming and subdued environment of the hospital Mr. C was able to gather his thoughts long enough to pass along a little nugget of information about some NPPL refs. Given that there has been some concern expressed in a few places over the extremely limited numbers and poor performances of the refs at the Chicago NPPL (not to mention restoring previously fired refs) Mr. C thought his story might help explain some of the league's present difficulties. Apparently a group of seven refs from the grandstand field at Huntington Beach were discovered using part of their lunch break for a medicinal smoke--if you get my drift. League officials were informed and requested the info be kept on the low down. The seven apparently finished the event and were then told their services would no longer be required--or something along those lines.
Which makes for an excellent behind-the-scenes story but doesn't really explain the league's struggle to provide 20 plus competent refs an event.
Anyway, in the calming and subdued environment of the hospital Mr. C was able to gather his thoughts long enough to pass along a little nugget of information about some NPPL refs. Given that there has been some concern expressed in a few places over the extremely limited numbers and poor performances of the refs at the Chicago NPPL (not to mention restoring previously fired refs) Mr. C thought his story might help explain some of the league's present difficulties. Apparently a group of seven refs from the grandstand field at Huntington Beach were discovered using part of their lunch break for a medicinal smoke--if you get my drift. League officials were informed and requested the info be kept on the low down. The seven apparently finished the event and were then told their services would no longer be required--or something along those lines.
Which makes for an excellent behind-the-scenes story but doesn't really explain the league's struggle to provide 20 plus competent refs an event.
Monday, April 4, 2011
HB Day 2: Tournament Interrupted
This post requires a short preface. I wasn't at HB on Sunday. I don't know who won. I don't care. I tuned in to ESPN3 but didn't watch even five seconds of the coverage. I am not a happy camper. (I am an enraged camper.) In part because we failed to go through on Saturday--as the defending series champions--which is a [expletive deleted] embarrassment of epic proportion but mostly because of the way we failed. (Warning: cliche imminent.) A team, any team, is only as strong as it's weakest link. [This is where everything I'd like to say, to get it off my chest if nothing else, would go except it's team business and that doesn't get aired out in a public forum.] Unfortunately we only had seven players for the event including guest Scott Kemp of the Ironmen otherwise we could have and would have made appropriate substitutions. On a positive note I'd like to thank Scott for filling in. He did everything asked of him like the pro he is. And I'd like to commend Jacob (Edwards the Younger) on stepping up and playing like a man in a totally unfamiliar role because somebody had to and he was chosen. [More stuff I shouldn't post. So, as wiser (calmer, anyway) heads prevail, I won't.]
The rest of this post will be about the scoring system, the refs and the rules. I'll cover the latest TV stuff in the Monday Poll in Review post.
Let's talk chips. Apparently one is enough (despite what the old commercials used to tell us.) Far as I know they worked as intended. Everybody had one and, as far as I know, they were installed in every gun that was used during a pro game. What was also clear was that some guns reached and maintained a higher BPS average with less effort than other guns. Were any of those guns exceeding the cap? Perhaps on occasion but I didn't hear anything that sounded either obviously or outrageously over the limit. It is less clear to me how effective the chip was in the role of policing guns for rules violations. The semi-auto rule to be specific. Some guns that may not have exceeded the BPS cap may have otherwise been ramping up to the cap.
Regarding the gun rules. There was, as I suspected, no real definition or even formula for action in place for the weekend. The intent was to notify teams of guns exceeding the limit and give them a warning--with the implicit (if not quite real) threat of actual penalties "next time" or "tomorrow." I have no idea how many teams, if any, received a warning--or were penalized on Sunday. I know we didn't receive any warnings. (And I sincerely doubt any of our guns ever got close to the BPS cap.) And if any team was penalized, and objected, I don't see how the league could justify assessing the penalty because the rules are simply insufficient as they currently stand. At best this may be a step in the right direction but it is far from a done deal.
Now for the referees. This is where I gain (no) friends and influence (no) body. The layout for HB should have been a referee's dream field. Few blocking obstructions. No confluence of props in the middle of the field. Clean lines of sight nearly everywhere and only a couple of areas on the field where the action might come fast and furious--and still the refs were only borderline competent. 95% of the calls were easy and most of those were probably made correctly. (I'ma giving them the benefit of the doubt.) But the remaining 5% reminded everyone--or should have--that problems, serious problems remain, in officiating competitive paintball and those problems can be divided into two camps. Inconsistency and a lack of a standardized routine. The inconsistency is most often seen in penalties called--and penalties not called. Guy dives into bunker, gets hit but doesn't check or call for check. Ref throws flag, penalty called. Guy runs through half the field gets blown to pieces shoots somebody with no penalty called regardless of how egregious (and obvious) the playing on might have been. Or vice versa. The point is the calling and assessing of penalties continues to be as diverse and unpredictable as the number of refs on the field. And in bunkering moves or run throughs the standard call is the simo because even with 5 refs standing around watching nobody wants to make a definitive call because nobody seems to know or want to know exactly what happened. But I can help.
Since NPPL mythology supports voluntary assistance I am volunteering to fix the reffing issues, free of charge. I will come a day early to the next event if the league will bring the refs in early as well and I will get everyone on the same page and teach them how to work together to make the instantaneous calls that are sometimes required. I will even work out the guidelines for making calls to improve consistency. Trust me, it ain't rocket science. The offer is on the table.
The new format; brackets, scoring, tie-breakers, etc. worked pretty much as predicted. It was a dreary mess that was nearly as incomprehensible to the players and teams as it must have been to the people trying to follow on ESPN3. (I explained what was happening and why to more than one team on Saturday.) Also, as predicted, 3 of the 4 prelim brackets went to tie-breakers as 3 teams in each bracket went 2-1 in their best of threes versus three opponents. The score page posted by the league was also woefully inadequate as it simply showed set wins and losses and never explained why one team or another either moved on or didn't. It may be possible to argue that the new format is an improvement or at least no worse than the old format but the results, and the way they were reported (or explained) (or not explained) (or posted) (or not posted) currently isn't serving the interests of the league or, it seems to me, outreach to a new TV market of potential fans who don't already know the game.
[For those who watched how did Matty do explaining the brackets and the results?]
Lastly, the boom camera. Snake side. Has got to go or the operator has to use some common sense or have some guidelines devised for its use. As it played out over the weekend it bird-dogged players all weekend long, frequently giving away positions in the snake to players otherwise unaware. Think sideline coaching. It was effectively the same thing, except worse. The operator could, if so inclined, tilt the game balance by pointing out some players in the snake and not others. Did that happen? Yes. Was it on purpose? I don't know.
In the small frame of competitive paintball HB was a marginal event; no better and probably no worse than lots of other events. In the Big Picture of the league's future with ESPN (or TV in general) the jury is still out.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Thoughts on Officiating
It's easy to find things to criticize when it comes to officiating--particularly as much of the routine complaints are generated by heat-of-the-moment reactions to disputed calls. VFTD tries to avoid discussing officiating in that context but it's impossible to be completely impartial. That's one reason to conduct these posts in the off season. Another reason is the timing would allow for change(s) prior to next season.
Since most officiating related posts are critical I thought it might be worthwhile to be reminded why reffing--and making improvements--continues to be problematic. This is about reffing at the MLP level but may apply (in parts) across the board. Even though league-certified refs have a day of special training that's really no more than a basic foundation, a framework within which to understand the role. There's nothing like experience. Additionally, being familiar with the rulebook is not the same thing as knowing the rulebook and too few refs know the rulebook. Then there is the issue of refs discretion that tends to creep into the process when either the original rule is poorly conceived or institutional control becomes lax--or both. Beyond that field design can play a role in making the officials job difficult as can some zone theories of coverage responsibility and just plain poor communications.
I know what you're thinking--if this is my idea of cutting the refs some slack you'd hate to be them when I'm giving them grief. Au contraire, mon slacker frere. My point is that there are lots of pieces to the puzzle and it's very easy for things to not go as planned--or, more to the point, it's hard to operate efficiently and consistently particularly when you take into account how little time these crews of officials work together. Even on the pro field when you consider what officials in other sports go through the actual preparation and development time is marginal at best.
I'm not suggesting they can't do a better job. I'm saying that we need to acknowledge the limitations that currently exist in our sport and focus on things we can do to improve the situation instead of focusing on the failures that do occur. If there are limits--and there are--perhaps the best that can be done in the near term is to focus on things that can be done to make the job easier. And if we can't instantly endow the refs with more experience or assure regular, consistent crews maybe the areas to focus on are the rulebook and consistent practices when implementing the rules.
Since most officiating related posts are critical I thought it might be worthwhile to be reminded why reffing--and making improvements--continues to be problematic. This is about reffing at the MLP level but may apply (in parts) across the board. Even though league-certified refs have a day of special training that's really no more than a basic foundation, a framework within which to understand the role. There's nothing like experience. Additionally, being familiar with the rulebook is not the same thing as knowing the rulebook and too few refs know the rulebook. Then there is the issue of refs discretion that tends to creep into the process when either the original rule is poorly conceived or institutional control becomes lax--or both. Beyond that field design can play a role in making the officials job difficult as can some zone theories of coverage responsibility and just plain poor communications.
I know what you're thinking--if this is my idea of cutting the refs some slack you'd hate to be them when I'm giving them grief. Au contraire, mon slacker frere. My point is that there are lots of pieces to the puzzle and it's very easy for things to not go as planned--or, more to the point, it's hard to operate efficiently and consistently particularly when you take into account how little time these crews of officials work together. Even on the pro field when you consider what officials in other sports go through the actual preparation and development time is marginal at best.
I'm not suggesting they can't do a better job. I'm saying that we need to acknowledge the limitations that currently exist in our sport and focus on things we can do to improve the situation instead of focusing on the failures that do occur. If there are limits--and there are--perhaps the best that can be done in the near term is to focus on things that can be done to make the job easier. And if we can't instantly endow the refs with more experience or assure regular, consistent crews maybe the areas to focus on are the rulebook and consistent practices when implementing the rules.
Next time a few suggestions.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Discretion has another name
And it's not Oscar Meyer.
I watched some opening night hoops the other day as the NBA season got underway. My interest didn't last very long. Just long enough to see that what passes for basketball in the NBA remains, sadly, an ugly, boring game to watch. That and the league in its definitely finite wisdom has seen fit to crack down on player expressions of frustration with the officiating by making any word or gesture that could be construed as an expression of frustration an offense punishable with a technical foul call. In the few minutes I watched there were 5 technical foul calls.
This was noteworthy on a couple of counts. As the latest move in the ongoing effort to spruce up the league's image and as exactly the wrong thing to do in the longer run because all it effectively does is add another dimension of discretion. Not too many years ago the NBA managed to (mostly) sweep under the rug a gambling scandal that saw one referee sent to prison along with the unproven allegations that others were also involved. This struck at the core of the league's legitimacy because if the officiating isn't fair and impartial the game stops being sport and morphs into spectacle or entertainment only. In response the league has largely tried to pretend there never was a problem and never will be. Which is probably the point of the new rule. Whatever residual lack of trust the public may have (or not have) in the officials is reinforced (or undermined) by public displays from the players. The practical result will be lots of silly technical foul calls for a few weeks which will slowly peter out until the calls are only made occasionally. This will happen because all those calls are annoying, break the flow of the game and continue to draw attention to the fact players sometimes think the refs missed a call (or three or ten.) The goal isn't to make the call, it's to reduce the incidence of player expressions. Eventually the technical fouls will be called purely at the ref's discretion (despite how the rule may read.)
I know what your thinking; when did VFTD drop paintball and switch to basketball? Have no fear, that ain't ever going to happen. It's just that the situation reminded me of a paintball counterpart and I thought it might help me make my point if I did it with an indirect example. Even though it's the 'Off Season' there's never a good time to talk about officiating or the referees it seems. (This is where your intrepid blogger--that would be me--throws caution to the wind and carries on regardless.)
Despite the league's intentions and efforts in recent seasons to standardize top to bottom there remain a few idiosyncrasies in the pro division when it comes to rules. The one I have in mind is the no talking, no gesturing rule. (Has a light gone on yet?) There have been rules against communicating after you're eliminated forever. That's not what I'm talking about--an neither is the rule in question. The rule addresses what was once a grey area. Sure, you can't communicate anything about the ongoing game after you're eliminated (and there's even an exception to that) but that never really considered things like questioning the call, expressions of frustrations or cursing under your breath as you walk off the field, etc. The league decided there was too much player expression going on after elimination so they made it an infraction punishable as a minor. Since the real purpose was to minimize the incidence of player outbursts enforcement was near universal initially and has since trickled down to referee's discretion.
Discretion sounds neutral. Even reasoned. Thoughtful perhaps. But it has synonyms, at least in a sports context. What do you call referee's discretion when the penalty is called one time in three infractions? Or twice as often against one team as another? Let's say you are a member of team A. If only members of your team are penalized for violating the no talking, no gesturing rule despite obvious infractions from the other team is that purely the referee's discretion? Or that some players don't get called for the same violations that others do? Are you likely to describe those calls as something other than discretion? Favoritism? Bias?
Part of the problem is the point of the rule was intended to control player behavior--not call every infraction despite how the rule reads--but when the officials don't call every infraction they are using discretion which may or may not be honestly intended but cannot be other than bias or favoritism in action. See how that works? (Or doesn't?)
I watched some opening night hoops the other day as the NBA season got underway. My interest didn't last very long. Just long enough to see that what passes for basketball in the NBA remains, sadly, an ugly, boring game to watch. That and the league in its definitely finite wisdom has seen fit to crack down on player expressions of frustration with the officiating by making any word or gesture that could be construed as an expression of frustration an offense punishable with a technical foul call. In the few minutes I watched there were 5 technical foul calls.
This was noteworthy on a couple of counts. As the latest move in the ongoing effort to spruce up the league's image and as exactly the wrong thing to do in the longer run because all it effectively does is add another dimension of discretion. Not too many years ago the NBA managed to (mostly) sweep under the rug a gambling scandal that saw one referee sent to prison along with the unproven allegations that others were also involved. This struck at the core of the league's legitimacy because if the officiating isn't fair and impartial the game stops being sport and morphs into spectacle or entertainment only. In response the league has largely tried to pretend there never was a problem and never will be. Which is probably the point of the new rule. Whatever residual lack of trust the public may have (or not have) in the officials is reinforced (or undermined) by public displays from the players. The practical result will be lots of silly technical foul calls for a few weeks which will slowly peter out until the calls are only made occasionally. This will happen because all those calls are annoying, break the flow of the game and continue to draw attention to the fact players sometimes think the refs missed a call (or three or ten.) The goal isn't to make the call, it's to reduce the incidence of player expressions. Eventually the technical fouls will be called purely at the ref's discretion (despite how the rule may read.)
I know what your thinking; when did VFTD drop paintball and switch to basketball? Have no fear, that ain't ever going to happen. It's just that the situation reminded me of a paintball counterpart and I thought it might help me make my point if I did it with an indirect example. Even though it's the 'Off Season' there's never a good time to talk about officiating or the referees it seems. (This is where your intrepid blogger--that would be me--throws caution to the wind and carries on regardless.)
Despite the league's intentions and efforts in recent seasons to standardize top to bottom there remain a few idiosyncrasies in the pro division when it comes to rules. The one I have in mind is the no talking, no gesturing rule. (Has a light gone on yet?) There have been rules against communicating after you're eliminated forever. That's not what I'm talking about--an neither is the rule in question. The rule addresses what was once a grey area. Sure, you can't communicate anything about the ongoing game after you're eliminated (and there's even an exception to that) but that never really considered things like questioning the call, expressions of frustrations or cursing under your breath as you walk off the field, etc. The league decided there was too much player expression going on after elimination so they made it an infraction punishable as a minor. Since the real purpose was to minimize the incidence of player outbursts enforcement was near universal initially and has since trickled down to referee's discretion.
Discretion sounds neutral. Even reasoned. Thoughtful perhaps. But it has synonyms, at least in a sports context. What do you call referee's discretion when the penalty is called one time in three infractions? Or twice as often against one team as another? Let's say you are a member of team A. If only members of your team are penalized for violating the no talking, no gesturing rule despite obvious infractions from the other team is that purely the referee's discretion? Or that some players don't get called for the same violations that others do? Are you likely to describe those calls as something other than discretion? Favoritism? Bias?
Part of the problem is the point of the rule was intended to control player behavior--not call every infraction despite how the rule reads--but when the officials don't call every infraction they are using discretion which may or may not be honestly intended but cannot be other than bias or favoritism in action. See how that works? (Or doesn't?)
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Throw in the Towel?
If you looked at yesterday's links (Throw in the Green Flag) here and here are the follow-up links. (And even if you didn't look at yesterday's links check these out.) They do a very good job of framing the Big Picture issue I want to raise today. And that's all I want to do--offer a perhaps different way of thinking about refereeing. Right now the conceptual framework underlying the rules is the law enforcement approach. You do the crime, you do the time--with built in deterrence to let the next guy know that crime doesn't pay. I understand the motives and the approach, I just don't think they result in the best game.
Rules are necessary. They give the game shape and substance. Violating those rules requires redress. So far, so good, right?
Here's where I have a couple of questions for you. What's more important, the play of the game or rules enforcement--or is there, should there be, some balance?
Which sort of basketball do you prefer; the game that is constantly being interrupted to send players to the free throw line or the sort that is fast and free flowing the majority of the time?
My gripe yesterday was the lack of consistency in officiating. That lack of consistency is exacerbated by the law enforcement attitude of the referees and the impact of any penalty call on the play of the game which I think is often disproportionate overkill. But current views of the game don't really have any other place to go so we are stuck with pulling bodies or doing nothing. There are no in-betweens, and the only result of official discretion is widely divergent outcomes. What I am advocating is taking a fresh approach to the game and re-prioritizing our goals. Ideally I would like to see the penalties more accurately reflect their impact on the game and focus on maintaining order and basic equity while allowing the game to be played and won (or lost) on the field by the players the majority of the time. (As we are unlikely to ever fully escape the officiated outcome.) We can do better. But first we have to want to improve the game instead of focusing the function of penalties on punishment; merited or otherwise.
Btw, there's no throwing in the towel. Tomorrow, a new system for regulating play of the game on the field by the officiating crew.
Rules are necessary. They give the game shape and substance. Violating those rules requires redress. So far, so good, right?
Here's where I have a couple of questions for you. What's more important, the play of the game or rules enforcement--or is there, should there be, some balance?
Which sort of basketball do you prefer; the game that is constantly being interrupted to send players to the free throw line or the sort that is fast and free flowing the majority of the time?
My gripe yesterday was the lack of consistency in officiating. That lack of consistency is exacerbated by the law enforcement attitude of the referees and the impact of any penalty call on the play of the game which I think is often disproportionate overkill. But current views of the game don't really have any other place to go so we are stuck with pulling bodies or doing nothing. There are no in-betweens, and the only result of official discretion is widely divergent outcomes. What I am advocating is taking a fresh approach to the game and re-prioritizing our goals. Ideally I would like to see the penalties more accurately reflect their impact on the game and focus on maintaining order and basic equity while allowing the game to be played and won (or lost) on the field by the players the majority of the time. (As we are unlikely to ever fully escape the officiated outcome.) We can do better. But first we have to want to improve the game instead of focusing the function of penalties on punishment; merited or otherwise.
Btw, there's no throwing in the towel. Tomorrow, a new system for regulating play of the game on the field by the officiating crew.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Throw in the Green Flag
I'm going to be talking about officiating--some more--and the first question that comes up when I do is you lazy slackers want to know what happened at the most recent event to put that bug up my donkey--again. The answer--again--is nothing out of the ordinary. (But you may be able to read something between the lines if you peer deeply.) Nothing other than what is the norm occurred at MAO. However, the immediacy of the events serve as active reminders that short-comings remain a part of the process. What better time to revisit a topic than when it's fresh in one's mind?
I mentioned to two or three people during the event that teams ought to be able to throw in the green flag once a match, like a challenge flag in pro football. (Green only because it's different from the yellow and red used now to signal penalties.) If you see a penalty called (or not called?) that seems an obvious and egregious violation of the rules as it currently stands there is no recourse. There isn't even much time to get clarifications on the actual penalties called. Frequently you have to use your timeout in order to argue a (non-) call. (Which is a complete waste of time and energy and effort.) Everybody I spoke to thought the green flag was an interesting, maybe even a good idea, but from the first time I said it I knew it wouldn't work. And it won't work because there is no non-subjective review possible at the present time. There is only the process we have now that oftentimes sees a clutch of refs huddle after a thrown flag and through the alchemy of proximity codify the call made. But if the green flag isn't a realistic possibility I do have a couple of other suggestions that might be helpful.
All the teams want is consistency. It could be harsh consistency or lenient consistency but the key to good officiating is consistency. Everybody knows it. No reasonable person can dispute it. The PSP commish acknowledges it and to his credit is trying to get the ref crew there. But it's not. They can't even call the no talking after elimination rule consistently. Are you kidding me?
To put a number on it I'd guesstimate that 95% of all calls made are straightforward and should be simple. There aren't multiple things happening with players converging on each other in hard to observe portions of the field, etc. And yet there isn't anything close to 95% consistency in the calls that are made. (Some time ago VFTD did a series of posts on officiating that speak to this particular issue. Check them out here, here & here. The comments are revealing as well.) I can't really explain the lack of consistency in the routine calls--well, yes I can, different refs call the same situations differently, even from incident to incident--but part of the problem is likely to be procedural and the physical act of officiating as it's currently done. Let me explain. On the break there are interior or backline officials and wire officials. If an interior or backline ref sees a player get hit he signals, via gesture or radio, to a wire side ref to pull the hit player. Seems sensible and on its face it is. It even works a goodly percentage of the time. But sometimes it doesn't. (And those sometimes aren't rare occasions.) For whatever reason wire corner refs are often deep in their respective corners somewhere out of the players line-of-sight. The call is made, the signal seen and the ref makes the appropriate hand gesture of elimination--that the player can't see. Not only does this sort of thing happen off the break but it also happens during points from positions all over the field. Refs gesturing a player eliminated from a place the player can't see. The time gap between the gesture and reaching the player often results in a by the rules violation that merits a penalty flag. Which becomes penalty roulette (including the non-call.) Would it be so hard for the refs to verbally call the player(s) out at the same time they are gesturing their eliminations? The players have numbers all over their jerseys. How 'bout the gesture plus "21, you are eliminated. Leave the field."
Next up the simultaneous wire elimination that usually sees bunkered and bunkerer removed from the field accompanied, at some phase in the proceeding, with assorted penalty calls part of the time. This single oft repeated event on the field of play is the most consistently poorly called element of the sport. Period. And the fact is it's not that hard to get right. Most of the time when the wire simo occurs it's predictable. The refs can see it coming and all they need is a second or two of advance notice. The other thing required to make the right call is two refs on the one wire. The ref nearest the player about to be bunkered watches the bunkering player and the ref closest to the bunkering player watches the player to be bunkered. The last requirement is a vocal call. The first ref to see a player hit verbally signals the hit. If both refs call it close together pull both players. If one ref called it with a noticeable gap between the other refs follow-up call eliminate the first one out and wipe off the other guy and keep playing. Is it perfect? No, but with practice it would be a vast improvement that would also see more consistent and appropriate penalties called during bunkering runs. As it stands now refs can't see all the action alone and are often out of position because they have the wrong responsibilities for the given situation and as a result they just pull bodies and sometimes throw flags as an afterthought without real clarity as to what exactly happened.
This last is merely a suggestion. And I'm telling y'all this 'cus nobody else will. When a flag is thrown and a penalty called why is it necessary to get most of the refs in a huddle? Sure, when there's been some moments of chaos on the field and nobody is 100% sure what happened I can see the value in trying to come to some consensus but only just. Even in those situations somebody threw a flag. Or flags. Is that penalty call going to be overruled? Go away? Is the new guy ever gonna say he thinks what three other refs are saying is mistaken? Isn't it all just theater? An opportunity to create a consensus of self-justification?
Look, I understand that reffing pro paintball is almost an impossible task but the refs don't do their cause any favors with all the huddles. If it's a simple call that one ref made why make it harder? If ref A throws a flag is anything more really necessary than that he signal that call to the ultimate who can communicate the appropriate details with the scorekeeper? Every time a routine call turns into a pow-wow it looks suspicious. It just does. Everybody knows calls don't get changed and don't get explained until after the pow-wow. What does that sound like to you? Yeah, me too.
I realize these sorts of posts don't garner me any friends amongst the officiating corps. Heck, for all I know, it results in some unspoken payback but I've been doing this for a long time now and things didn't begin to get better until people were willing to openly address the issues. (And two leagues began competing for customers.) There's another issue related to officiating, a Big Picture issue, given the acknowledged inconsistencies that I'll address tomorrow.
I mentioned to two or three people during the event that teams ought to be able to throw in the green flag once a match, like a challenge flag in pro football. (Green only because it's different from the yellow and red used now to signal penalties.) If you see a penalty called (or not called?) that seems an obvious and egregious violation of the rules as it currently stands there is no recourse. There isn't even much time to get clarifications on the actual penalties called. Frequently you have to use your timeout in order to argue a (non-) call. (Which is a complete waste of time and energy and effort.) Everybody I spoke to thought the green flag was an interesting, maybe even a good idea, but from the first time I said it I knew it wouldn't work. And it won't work because there is no non-subjective review possible at the present time. There is only the process we have now that oftentimes sees a clutch of refs huddle after a thrown flag and through the alchemy of proximity codify the call made. But if the green flag isn't a realistic possibility I do have a couple of other suggestions that might be helpful.
All the teams want is consistency. It could be harsh consistency or lenient consistency but the key to good officiating is consistency. Everybody knows it. No reasonable person can dispute it. The PSP commish acknowledges it and to his credit is trying to get the ref crew there. But it's not. They can't even call the no talking after elimination rule consistently. Are you kidding me?
To put a number on it I'd guesstimate that 95% of all calls made are straightforward and should be simple. There aren't multiple things happening with players converging on each other in hard to observe portions of the field, etc. And yet there isn't anything close to 95% consistency in the calls that are made. (Some time ago VFTD did a series of posts on officiating that speak to this particular issue. Check them out here, here & here. The comments are revealing as well.) I can't really explain the lack of consistency in the routine calls--well, yes I can, different refs call the same situations differently, even from incident to incident--but part of the problem is likely to be procedural and the physical act of officiating as it's currently done. Let me explain. On the break there are interior or backline officials and wire officials. If an interior or backline ref sees a player get hit he signals, via gesture or radio, to a wire side ref to pull the hit player. Seems sensible and on its face it is. It even works a goodly percentage of the time. But sometimes it doesn't. (And those sometimes aren't rare occasions.) For whatever reason wire corner refs are often deep in their respective corners somewhere out of the players line-of-sight. The call is made, the signal seen and the ref makes the appropriate hand gesture of elimination--that the player can't see. Not only does this sort of thing happen off the break but it also happens during points from positions all over the field. Refs gesturing a player eliminated from a place the player can't see. The time gap between the gesture and reaching the player often results in a by the rules violation that merits a penalty flag. Which becomes penalty roulette (including the non-call.) Would it be so hard for the refs to verbally call the player(s) out at the same time they are gesturing their eliminations? The players have numbers all over their jerseys. How 'bout the gesture plus "21, you are eliminated. Leave the field."
Next up the simultaneous wire elimination that usually sees bunkered and bunkerer removed from the field accompanied, at some phase in the proceeding, with assorted penalty calls part of the time. This single oft repeated event on the field of play is the most consistently poorly called element of the sport. Period. And the fact is it's not that hard to get right. Most of the time when the wire simo occurs it's predictable. The refs can see it coming and all they need is a second or two of advance notice. The other thing required to make the right call is two refs on the one wire. The ref nearest the player about to be bunkered watches the bunkering player and the ref closest to the bunkering player watches the player to be bunkered. The last requirement is a vocal call. The first ref to see a player hit verbally signals the hit. If both refs call it close together pull both players. If one ref called it with a noticeable gap between the other refs follow-up call eliminate the first one out and wipe off the other guy and keep playing. Is it perfect? No, but with practice it would be a vast improvement that would also see more consistent and appropriate penalties called during bunkering runs. As it stands now refs can't see all the action alone and are often out of position because they have the wrong responsibilities for the given situation and as a result they just pull bodies and sometimes throw flags as an afterthought without real clarity as to what exactly happened.
This last is merely a suggestion. And I'm telling y'all this 'cus nobody else will. When a flag is thrown and a penalty called why is it necessary to get most of the refs in a huddle? Sure, when there's been some moments of chaos on the field and nobody is 100% sure what happened I can see the value in trying to come to some consensus but only just. Even in those situations somebody threw a flag. Or flags. Is that penalty call going to be overruled? Go away? Is the new guy ever gonna say he thinks what three other refs are saying is mistaken? Isn't it all just theater? An opportunity to create a consensus of self-justification?
Look, I understand that reffing pro paintball is almost an impossible task but the refs don't do their cause any favors with all the huddles. If it's a simple call that one ref made why make it harder? If ref A throws a flag is anything more really necessary than that he signal that call to the ultimate who can communicate the appropriate details with the scorekeeper? Every time a routine call turns into a pow-wow it looks suspicious. It just does. Everybody knows calls don't get changed and don't get explained until after the pow-wow. What does that sound like to you? Yeah, me too.
I realize these sorts of posts don't garner me any friends amongst the officiating corps. Heck, for all I know, it results in some unspoken payback but I've been doing this for a long time now and things didn't begin to get better until people were willing to openly address the issues. (And two leagues began competing for customers.) There's another issue related to officiating, a Big Picture issue, given the acknowledged inconsistencies that I'll address tomorrow.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Off Topic Reffing (Sorta)
I used to be a huge basketball fan. Mostly pro hoops. Had season tickets for years when I lived in Phoenix and I still have a soft spot on my head for the Suns. And even then I had problems with the refs. But back in those days the game was more physical than it is today (not more athletic but more physical) and, as happens in paintball too, the refs favored the aggressor. Nowadays pro ball is too often star driven isolation offense and zone defense.And has, if possible, lousier officiating than ever. Case in point: Dwight Howard of the Orlando Magic. The NBA's star system extends to fouls called--can you say Micheal Jordan?--but Orlando's coach recently complained in print that not only did Howard not get any slack he routinely got called for all manner of ticky-tack fouls. I'm not a Magic fan but I've seen them play and Coach Van Gundy had a point. So what happened today? Fouls were called on Howard, early and often, as the refs made sure the Magic know who's in charge. That's why I don't watch much anymore. Even at the professional level with millions of dollars at stake the league seems less interested in consistent quality officiating than they are in covering up problems and selling their stars.
So what's the point? Only that no sport is immune from reffing issues but how you handle them is the measure of how seriously you take your sport. (And the NBA made the mistake of turning a team game into a showcase of stars a long time ago.) I was talking to a friend today after practice. He has been a PSP/NPPL ref for a few years but in some instances found it both political and hard to justify in terms of time off work, etc. In part I was sounding him out to see if he had any remaining interest in reffing major league paintball. (Besides being an old teammate he's also an excellent ref with the ideal temperament and personality for the job--and has never once cut me a break.)
That conversation and this post weren't just idle chat. I have an idea or two for improving the NPPL's reffing. (I'm not going to say it sucked, cause it didn't, but it needs to be better.) It needs to be better because it's one of the positive and proactive things the league (and owners) can do to prove they are a players league. I'll be passing my ideas along to Rich (Telford) and we'll see. I don't know if it's a realistic option or not--but it won't be hugely cost intensive. (And, hey, I've got a couple of ideas for the PSP too but the programs are in two different places.) Players don't need to be athletes or pros to appreciate and deserve the best officiating possible. I guess the real question is--in the current environment what really is possible.
So what's the point? Only that no sport is immune from reffing issues but how you handle them is the measure of how seriously you take your sport. (And the NBA made the mistake of turning a team game into a showcase of stars a long time ago.) I was talking to a friend today after practice. He has been a PSP/NPPL ref for a few years but in some instances found it both political and hard to justify in terms of time off work, etc. In part I was sounding him out to see if he had any remaining interest in reffing major league paintball. (Besides being an old teammate he's also an excellent ref with the ideal temperament and personality for the job--and has never once cut me a break.)
That conversation and this post weren't just idle chat. I have an idea or two for improving the NPPL's reffing. (I'm not going to say it sucked, cause it didn't, but it needs to be better.) It needs to be better because it's one of the positive and proactive things the league (and owners) can do to prove they are a players league. I'll be passing my ideas along to Rich (Telford) and we'll see. I don't know if it's a realistic option or not--but it won't be hugely cost intensive. (And, hey, I've got a couple of ideas for the PSP too but the programs are in two different places.) Players don't need to be athletes or pros to appreciate and deserve the best officiating possible. I guess the real question is--in the current environment what really is possible.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Rules & Officiating 2
Before I get started today let me clarify a bit of yesterday’s hyperbole. Yes, of course, penalties have a punitive impact–otherwise they wouldn’t be called penalties. And, yes, the intent, in part, is to have those penalties act as deterrents – but, there is a point where deterrence doesn’t work and a point where it becomes overkill. Where that place is can be debated endlessly (I'm sure) but I'm inclined to think that penalties that almost invariably result in a score change is a pretty severe penalty--particularly when it's the assigned penalty for nearly every possible infraction. But maybe that's just me.
Let’s talk football. More specifically the holding penalty. Holding, along with a number of other rules, address what is allowable contact and provide penalties for forms of contact that aren’t allowable. Holding in particular however is instructive because it is a rule that has been re-written a number of times and the current iteration of holding doesn’t come close to barring actual holding, it describes what sorts of holding aren’t a violation of the rules and what sorts are. My point here is this: holding is not an inviolate rule. It is a flexible rule and it is a flexible rule because the first concern is the play of the game. While it is necessary that football have rules that regulate physical contact the rule is rightfully understood to be a means to an end, not an end unto itself. And even under these conditions there is a football truism that says an official can call holding on every play if they chose to–but of course they don’t because it wouldn’t serve the game. (And the reason a holding penalty could be called on any and every play is because blocking and aggressive physical contact are elements of the game play–not because everybody is a compulsive cheater.) My larger point is that until competitive paintball writes a rule book based on what game we want to play the result will be a rule book that results in something less. And I would go further and argue the current rule book(s) are little more than band-aids on top of past band-aids that, each in their turn, simply addressed problems that arose over time but have never been considered as the foundational means of describing and defining the game we want to play.
Now this is necessarily a rather esoteric argument and one that might be difficult to grasp (or easy to ignore) but today’s game isn’t yesterday’s game and the rules (and the common interpretation of those rules) ought to reflect today’s game.
The other aspect of this I’d like to address is the very limited nature of the penalties paintball assesses and the potential for disparate impact of those penalties. Ever since the game was 15 on 15 (at least) bodies have been pulled as a form of penalty. But what made sense in a slow paced game with 15 or even 10 players strikes me as overkill in a lot of common penalty situations when playing the format formerly known as xball. The penalty needs to fit the infraction. Or else the penalty should only be assessed when it literally has a game altering effect and redress is required.
Player A makes a move from one dorito to the next upfield dorito and comes up shooting. In making the move Player A is hit. By rule Player A has committed (at least) a minor infraction that should result in pulling another body. But how often in the couple of seconds it takes the ref to signal the player out does it actually affect the other team one or two bodies worth? (And how often do real live refs actually make that call by the letter of the rules? They certainly don’t in the pro game.) But I can hear the sticklers beginning to whine that it isn’t fair. Player A broke the rules and must be penalized. To not penalize him encourages more of the same. (But then so does the nature of the game.) To which I respond of course it isn’t fair but the nature of our current rules and penalties means somebody pays an unfair price. One question that follows is how do we minimize that unfairness. The other question is what impact does any given rule have on the play of the game?
(For those who will argue a definition of "fairness" that, in practice, dramatically alters the outcome of scoring points – or even assigning points – that issue really comes down to what impacts the play of the game with the minimum impact. Sure, you can try to pummel violators into submission but as the NTP posts suggest that actually following the letter of the rules in every instance doesn’t make the game fair, it can make it unplayable. Remember that whole rules aren’t the ends, they ought to be the means? This is where the rubber meets the road.)
Am I trying to say the game is all screwed up? Not at all. (It does amazingly well sometimes considering.) What I am saying is that the playability of the game is dependent on the officiating and varying application of the rules results in wildly different experiences on the field of play. And if we want to create and provide as much consistency as possible it begins with rules designed with the gaming experience we want to promote in mind and with a unified interpretation for the referees to rely on when they are officiating actual game play. No big deal really.
Let’s talk football. More specifically the holding penalty. Holding, along with a number of other rules, address what is allowable contact and provide penalties for forms of contact that aren’t allowable. Holding in particular however is instructive because it is a rule that has been re-written a number of times and the current iteration of holding doesn’t come close to barring actual holding, it describes what sorts of holding aren’t a violation of the rules and what sorts are. My point here is this: holding is not an inviolate rule. It is a flexible rule and it is a flexible rule because the first concern is the play of the game. While it is necessary that football have rules that regulate physical contact the rule is rightfully understood to be a means to an end, not an end unto itself. And even under these conditions there is a football truism that says an official can call holding on every play if they chose to–but of course they don’t because it wouldn’t serve the game. (And the reason a holding penalty could be called on any and every play is because blocking and aggressive physical contact are elements of the game play–not because everybody is a compulsive cheater.) My larger point is that until competitive paintball writes a rule book based on what game we want to play the result will be a rule book that results in something less. And I would go further and argue the current rule book(s) are little more than band-aids on top of past band-aids that, each in their turn, simply addressed problems that arose over time but have never been considered as the foundational means of describing and defining the game we want to play.
Now this is necessarily a rather esoteric argument and one that might be difficult to grasp (or easy to ignore) but today’s game isn’t yesterday’s game and the rules (and the common interpretation of those rules) ought to reflect today’s game.
The other aspect of this I’d like to address is the very limited nature of the penalties paintball assesses and the potential for disparate impact of those penalties. Ever since the game was 15 on 15 (at least) bodies have been pulled as a form of penalty. But what made sense in a slow paced game with 15 or even 10 players strikes me as overkill in a lot of common penalty situations when playing the format formerly known as xball. The penalty needs to fit the infraction. Or else the penalty should only be assessed when it literally has a game altering effect and redress is required.
Player A makes a move from one dorito to the next upfield dorito and comes up shooting. In making the move Player A is hit. By rule Player A has committed (at least) a minor infraction that should result in pulling another body. But how often in the couple of seconds it takes the ref to signal the player out does it actually affect the other team one or two bodies worth? (And how often do real live refs actually make that call by the letter of the rules? They certainly don’t in the pro game.) But I can hear the sticklers beginning to whine that it isn’t fair. Player A broke the rules and must be penalized. To not penalize him encourages more of the same. (But then so does the nature of the game.) To which I respond of course it isn’t fair but the nature of our current rules and penalties means somebody pays an unfair price. One question that follows is how do we minimize that unfairness. The other question is what impact does any given rule have on the play of the game?
(For those who will argue a definition of "fairness" that, in practice, dramatically alters the outcome of scoring points – or even assigning points – that issue really comes down to what impacts the play of the game with the minimum impact. Sure, you can try to pummel violators into submission but as the NTP posts suggest that actually following the letter of the rules in every instance doesn’t make the game fair, it can make it unplayable. Remember that whole rules aren’t the ends, they ought to be the means? This is where the rubber meets the road.)
Am I trying to say the game is all screwed up? Not at all. (It does amazingly well sometimes considering.) What I am saying is that the playability of the game is dependent on the officiating and varying application of the rules results in wildly different experiences on the field of play. And if we want to create and provide as much consistency as possible it begins with rules designed with the gaming experience we want to promote in mind and with a unified interpretation for the referees to rely on when they are officiating actual game play. No big deal really.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Rules & Officiating
This is the continuation of the Name That Penalty trilogy of posts found here, here, and here. If you missed them first time around (or skipped them) or just plain forgot them ‘cus it’s been so damn long do a quick review because the content of this post assumes familiarity with the ‘Name That Penalty’ (NTP) trio of posts. (If you are wondering why I didn't stick with the 'Name That Penalty' series title for all related posts you haven't been here long, have you? I'm afraid that would be too easy and make too much sense. That, and I'm switching gears a bit with these follow-up posts. What can I say? Embrace the eccentricity. Or, for the geek crowd, resistance is futile.)
Each of the NTP posts posits a very common situation in the format formerly known as xball. Each of the NTP posts asked readers to describe the outcome as a decision made by the refs. And as one might have easily predicted there was no unanimity in the responses. Now this could be attributed to the limited information supplied or an incorrect understanding of the rules–since at least theoretically Faction’s interpretation must be correct given that he wrote them–but regardless, the point was (and remains) that situations that occur potentially dozens of times in a single match are open to interpretations that include no penalty assessed to possibly minor or major penalty assessments. Each one requiring the judgment of a referee. And in less time than it takes to read, much less, a referee must decide what the appropriate outcome should be and act accordingly. (And we haven’t even begun to touch on the touchy topic of whether a particular penalty really is appropriate given the game we claim we want to play. That’s tomorrow.)
In the running and gunning a corner scenario the player may or may not know he was hit and cannot know if the ball broke. The question then becomes what do the rules require him to do? Apparently he is allowed to finish his run but not continue shooting. So how many steps is he allowed if any? For that matter how long does it take to recognize a possible hit and then stop shooting? How does the ref know whether or not the player in question did or didn’t stop shooting? The whole run takes no more than 3 seconds.
At this point a couple of factors come into play. Let’s consider this first in terms of risk/reward. As a practical matter would anyone trade two seconds of shooting their gun for two players removed from his team? Of course they wouldn’t but not everyone acts sensibly all the time either but the real hazard here is the ambiguity. What does the player understand the rule to be? Will the ref call it or not? Did the player realize he was hit? And so on.
The other question I have here is about the fairness–or appropriateness--of a penalty assessed and its’ deterrence value. (I’m not a big advocate of penalty as deterrent, btw.) As a practical matter we have a gun being fired for anywhere from 1 to 3 seconds too long and the penalty is the removal of one or two players; 20% or 40% of the team for a given point. Is that an appropriate penalty or is that an attempt to deter a behavior? Can it be both at the same time? Does it in fact deter or does a combination of inconsistent interpretation, the speed of the game and the value players and teams assign to the ability to run and shoot simply create an oft-repeated situation that results in a frustrating crapshoot? [This applies to divisional play as this is not a call made in the pro game 99% of the time–though every once in a blue moon ...]
In the second NTP scenario we have a snake runner hit in the legs below the hips. Break or no break? When, and where, does the player check? (Here’s where a case could be made that Faction got his own rules wrong as 2.8.7 says a player in motion must move to the "nearest cover.") So unless the possible hit occurs at the last possible moment the snake runner, and the corner runner for that matter, should not continue running to their primary but stop at the "nearest cover" and, in fact, be liable for some assessed penalty if they don’t in any situation where the player may or may not be eliminated and can’t know which at the time it happens. Is that the way you want to play the format formerly known as xball. Me either.
Look, I’m running long so I’ll stop for now. Real world officiating is not and probably can’t be as clean and simple as rule book rulings because the rulebook can’t cover all the possibilities. For example, the current PSP rule book doesn’t even include a definition of playing on–it simply assumes in a couple of places that everyone knows what playing on is.
First things first, penalties need to be appropriate to the infraction and refs need to know the whole rule book. In addition a handy item for promoting consistent officiating might be a Referees Guide to the Rule Book written by somebody other than Chris.
Each of the NTP posts posits a very common situation in the format formerly known as xball. Each of the NTP posts asked readers to describe the outcome as a decision made by the refs. And as one might have easily predicted there was no unanimity in the responses. Now this could be attributed to the limited information supplied or an incorrect understanding of the rules–since at least theoretically Faction’s interpretation must be correct given that he wrote them–but regardless, the point was (and remains) that situations that occur potentially dozens of times in a single match are open to interpretations that include no penalty assessed to possibly minor or major penalty assessments. Each one requiring the judgment of a referee. And in less time than it takes to read, much less, a referee must decide what the appropriate outcome should be and act accordingly. (And we haven’t even begun to touch on the touchy topic of whether a particular penalty really is appropriate given the game we claim we want to play. That’s tomorrow.)
In the running and gunning a corner scenario the player may or may not know he was hit and cannot know if the ball broke. The question then becomes what do the rules require him to do? Apparently he is allowed to finish his run but not continue shooting. So how many steps is he allowed if any? For that matter how long does it take to recognize a possible hit and then stop shooting? How does the ref know whether or not the player in question did or didn’t stop shooting? The whole run takes no more than 3 seconds.
At this point a couple of factors come into play. Let’s consider this first in terms of risk/reward. As a practical matter would anyone trade two seconds of shooting their gun for two players removed from his team? Of course they wouldn’t but not everyone acts sensibly all the time either but the real hazard here is the ambiguity. What does the player understand the rule to be? Will the ref call it or not? Did the player realize he was hit? And so on.
The other question I have here is about the fairness–or appropriateness--of a penalty assessed and its’ deterrence value. (I’m not a big advocate of penalty as deterrent, btw.) As a practical matter we have a gun being fired for anywhere from 1 to 3 seconds too long and the penalty is the removal of one or two players; 20% or 40% of the team for a given point. Is that an appropriate penalty or is that an attempt to deter a behavior? Can it be both at the same time? Does it in fact deter or does a combination of inconsistent interpretation, the speed of the game and the value players and teams assign to the ability to run and shoot simply create an oft-repeated situation that results in a frustrating crapshoot? [This applies to divisional play as this is not a call made in the pro game 99% of the time–though every once in a blue moon ...]
In the second NTP scenario we have a snake runner hit in the legs below the hips. Break or no break? When, and where, does the player check? (Here’s where a case could be made that Faction got his own rules wrong as 2.8.7 says a player in motion must move to the "nearest cover.") So unless the possible hit occurs at the last possible moment the snake runner, and the corner runner for that matter, should not continue running to their primary but stop at the "nearest cover" and, in fact, be liable for some assessed penalty if they don’t in any situation where the player may or may not be eliminated and can’t know which at the time it happens. Is that the way you want to play the format formerly known as xball. Me either.
Look, I’m running long so I’ll stop for now. Real world officiating is not and probably can’t be as clean and simple as rule book rulings because the rulebook can’t cover all the possibilities. For example, the current PSP rule book doesn’t even include a definition of playing on–it simply assumes in a couple of places that everyone knows what playing on is.
First things first, penalties need to be appropriate to the infraction and refs need to know the whole rule book. In addition a handy item for promoting consistent officiating might be a Referees Guide to the Rule Book written by somebody other than Chris.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Name That Penalty 3
This is the third, and last, scenario I'm gonna ask you to evaluate. (Yes, I know, it's dragging out but things happen. The good stuff is coming.)
Player X is tucked into an Aztec attempting to control a lane. An aggressive cross field move puts an opponent into a position to shoot Player X in the pack. One paintball breaks on a pod still in Player X's pack. Player X doesn't indicate in any way knowledge that he's been hit and continues to play--which includes periodic bursts of fire.
What does the ref do? A) signal the player eliminated. B) signal the player eliminated, throw the yellow flag, and assess a minor penalty. C) signal the player eliminated, throw the red flag, and assess a major penalty.
Next time I visit these scenarios I'm going to break each one down and use some of your contributions in the collective comments to illustrate the points I want to make about rules & officiating.
The game is not in service to the rules. Read that again. Too often rules are designed (and/or enforced) to address some specific "problem." The process confined to consider narrow issues or effect convenient changes. The potential problem with those practices is that the rules define the game as it is played but that isn't the game. (Stay with me.) Competitive paintball didn't begin as a set of rules. It began as a concept, an idea, like every other game and sport. And the rules are written, first and foremost, in order to construct a playable version of the concept. The game is not in service to the rules, the rules are (or should be) in service of the game.
Player X is tucked into an Aztec attempting to control a lane. An aggressive cross field move puts an opponent into a position to shoot Player X in the pack. One paintball breaks on a pod still in Player X's pack. Player X doesn't indicate in any way knowledge that he's been hit and continues to play--which includes periodic bursts of fire.
What does the ref do? A) signal the player eliminated. B) signal the player eliminated, throw the yellow flag, and assess a minor penalty. C) signal the player eliminated, throw the red flag, and assess a major penalty.
Next time I visit these scenarios I'm going to break each one down and use some of your contributions in the collective comments to illustrate the points I want to make about rules & officiating.
The game is not in service to the rules. Read that again. Too often rules are designed (and/or enforced) to address some specific "problem." The process confined to consider narrow issues or effect convenient changes. The potential problem with those practices is that the rules define the game as it is played but that isn't the game. (Stay with me.) Competitive paintball didn't begin as a set of rules. It began as a concept, an idea, like every other game and sport. And the rules are written, first and foremost, in order to construct a playable version of the concept. The game is not in service to the rules, the rules are (or should be) in service of the game.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Name That Penalty 2
This time it's a snake runner off the break. Once again the player is hit in the legs during the run. The paintball breaks and leaves a mark. The player may or may not have felt the hit. The player dives into the snake and tucks up tight behind snake one.
Based only the information given what is the correct outcome? A) the referee signals the player out and the player is eliminated. B) the referee throws a yellow flag, calls the player out and assesses a minor penalty. C) the referee signals the player out and assesses a major penalty.
Based only the information given what is the correct outcome? A) the referee signals the player out and the player is eliminated. B) the referee throws a yellow flag, calls the player out and assesses a minor penalty. C) the referee signals the player out and assesses a major penalty.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Name That Penalty
The horn sounds. Both teams are on the break. Player X is running & gunning a corner bunker. He is hit on one of his legs below hip level during his run. He shoots all the way into his primary. Protected by his bunker Player X immediately checks his leg for a break.
Does the action described result in A) no penalty with the ref signaling the player is eliminated, or B) a minor with the ref signaling the player is eliminated or C) a major penalty with the ref signaling the player is eliminated.
I realize many of you are sufficiently creative to complicate this scenario almost endlessly. What if the player misses the hit? What if the ref waits to see what the player does next. Etc. Etc. None of those complications are to the point. The point is this is a simple, oft-repeated situation. Take it as given and answer A, B or C.
And, yes, for those thinking ahead there is a point. One we'll be getting around to in the not-too-distant-future.
Does the action described result in A) no penalty with the ref signaling the player is eliminated, or B) a minor with the ref signaling the player is eliminated or C) a major penalty with the ref signaling the player is eliminated.
I realize many of you are sufficiently creative to complicate this scenario almost endlessly. What if the player misses the hit? What if the ref waits to see what the player does next. Etc. Etc. None of those complications are to the point. The point is this is a simple, oft-repeated situation. Take it as given and answer A, B or C.
And, yes, for those thinking ahead there is a point. One we'll be getting around to in the not-too-distant-future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
