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.

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.

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.

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.

The Incident & The Rule Book

The best video record of the incident (that I'm aware of) can be seen here. Check it out. It's less entertaining than one might have hoped for. In fact it's little more than business as usual except for the names of the prime movers. A bit of controversy and a little drama aren't necessarily bad things for sports--unless it highlights an endemic problem and the sport in question is trying to establish its legitimacy as a sport.
My interest is not in the penalties assessed (except as they pertain to the rule book) nor in the personalities involved. I am not interested (in this post) in whether or not the refs got the call(s) right or not--though it appears they did not. What needs to be kept in mind is that the rule book defines the game we play and the refs adjudicate the process. That is, knowing the rules (oops!), they observe and assure the players play the game within the parameters set out by the rules and/or otherwise assign appropriate penalties for violations of the rules.
One problem competitive paintball has had from the very beginning is that certain of the rules were often written not in bright lines with clear boundaries but in such a way that the promoters could do whatever they wanted whenever they felt the need and use the rules as justification. And one problem the NPPL refs consistently struggle with is a lack of institutional control, a non-functioning hierarchy of authority and no independence whatsoever. Along with generally poor knowledge of the rules.
My question for the NPPL is which rules were applied to 'the incident'? And who made the decisions? And, while I'm at it, why wasn't anything done earlier that might have defused the situation?
As to which rules applied see below. All the relevant portions of all the relevant rules are there. Let's take a look. Neither of the prime movers was penalized under 21.06. How do I know? Because 21.06 also identifies the penalties that violations are subject to; 23.04 & 23.05, which are one game and 3-game suspensions. Nor were the prime movers subject to 21.07 because the penalty is a season long ejection.
Instead we are told each prime mover was given a 6 game suspension. Who handed out those suspensions? It's supposed to be the Head Referee. If it was he doesn't know his own rules and if it wasn't--that's another violation. From the first game of the day the two prime movers had been yapping at each other. (There's other video that shows some of the silliness.) There is no verbal abuse category for a 6 game suspension. There was physical contact but it didn't rise to the level of a so-called headbutt and it was initiated by one player, not both. It was physical contact that resulted in no injury to either party. By rule that's a 3 game suspension.
So again I ask: Which rules applied to the incident? Who made the suspension call? And why wasn't anything done earlier to defuse the situation?

The NPPL currently has an Ultimate Ref who is a nice but ineffectual guy. A Lead Ref who is incompetent and favors friends whether they are competent or not. The league has allowed back refs fired for incompetence and bias and the league rep chose to use his authority over the refs to target another pro team. The rules are meaningless if the designated enforcers of the rules don't know them, can't or won't enforce them or try to manipulate them to whatever end. Is this the new direction the NPPL is going?

21.06 Unsportsmanlike Conduct. Players will be eliminated if they engage in unsportsmanlike like conduct and will be subject to further penalties, see Rules 23.04 and 23.05. Unsportsmanlike conduct may include, but is not limited to:
(4) Verbally abusing any players, spectators or Referees.

21.07 Embarrassing, Dangerous or Destructive Behavior. Teams and players participating in an NPPL sanctioned tournament shall not engage in conduct that would bring the NPPL, the promoter or any sponsor into disrepute. During any tournament weekend, players must not: ... harass or intimidate any individuals; provoke a physical altercation or otherwise incite violence, ... Any player caught violating this rule will be ejected for a full season. See Rule 23.06.

23. Suspensions, Disqualifications, Fine
23.01 Issuing Suspensions and Disqualifications. All Suspensions will be issued by the Head Referee of each field and kept track by the Commissioner. All Disqualifications will be issued by the Commissioner.

23.05 Three-Game Suspension. Players may be suspended, causing the team to play short for three games for the following infractions:
(2) Physical contact. Physical contact during or after play that does not result in injury (e.g., shove, grab, shoulder-bump).
(3) Verbal abuse.

23.06 Six-Game Suspension. Players will be ejected and the team will play short for six games for the following:
(2) Physical contact. Physical contact during or after play (e.g., spit, punch or kick).

23.07 One-Year Suspension. Any player or team that violates Rule 21.07 shall be prohibited from competing in any NPPL tournament for a period of up to one year from the date of the infraction.

A Pre-Monday Poll Query

First, my apologies for the slow week of posting. I'm working on a new project while maintaining several older ones that are usually behind my ever optimistic scheduling without the added pressure of another competing project. Anyway, this is a first.
I'm looking to you lot to supply answers for the upcoming Monday Poll. It's going to be a mostly just for fun poll so instead of you telling me afterwards what I should have done you get an opportunity to make this a better poll by offering up your insights in advance. Then if I don't use your answer you can tell me afterwards how much better the poll would have been if only I'd had the good sense to include your answer--which was obvious, brilliant, clever & amusing. The trifecta plus one!
The upcoming poll question will be: Why do referees huddle? It happens all the time. In PSP divisional and NPPL play it's usually ex post facto (after a penalty has been assessed) but on the pro field it also happens at times before a call is made but after a flag is thrown. I've often wished Derder or Social or somebody filming would jump in the ref's huddle like they do the players huddles but until we have conclusive video evidence of what's going on I want your answers. You've got the weekend to supply an answer or two--or even three--as the poll will go up Monday, with or without you.

Major League Paintball Held Hostage, Day 16

It's getting old, isn't it? The whole held hostage thing. I agree but that's sorta the point. We are in the pre-season of the most uncertain major league season in years if not in the brief history of major league seasons and it's supposed to begin to weigh on y'all after awhile. Most of us only pay attention or care when we're directly involved--and that's totally understandable. Paintball ought'a be fun. Who wants to struggle all the time? But who said you have to struggle to participate? I don't know about you but I'm having a good time. The guys who have it hard are the ones making the decisions that count.

Okay, true confession time. When the PSP's new rulebook comes out if something doesn't work particularly well or you don't like it you can hold me at least partially responsible 'cus I was there. Not everyone agreed about everything but in general most of what came out of the meeting found broad consensus. A lot of the stuff that wasn't relevant anymore was/will be removed and other details were/will be updated. We also agreed on a way to look at difficult situations--the guiding principle was/is to let the players and teams decide the outcome on the field as much as possible. That doesn't mean less penalties will be called but it does mean that anytime we could have gone one way or another we erred toward the notion of deciding the game on the field. For example, the 90 second rule was reduced to 60 seconds to correspond with the new penalty times and it will also mean the same 60 second rule will apply in OT periods instead of any major penalty in OT immediately ending the game an awarding the point to the other team. (If you can serve the penalty and survive you keep playing.) As the penalties apply in the lower divisions the intent is similar though it will play out a bit differently given the calls are 1-4-1's and 2-4-1's in most circumstances. I think it's fair and better. And Tim S. will be directing his refs in how to deal with the rule changes in fact and in spirit. It should be clearer when you see an official rulebook. If anyone has any questions I'll be happy to give you an UNOFFICIAL answer--if I know it.

Btw, there were things that weren't on the agenda--like classifications & rosters.

I'm thinking of making a list once Phoenix and HB roll around of all the pro players not on a roster this year but I'll need help. Also thinking of trying to keep track of the "disappeared" among the D1 ranks. One reason we can do it is because APPA actually has the data available. Anybody got any ideas how to find similar stats for 7-man players? (Though I'm of the opinion paintball lost a lot of the 7-man grassroots over the last couple of years and not so much the higher profile player.) Either way, I'd like to hear from y'all on this. Where are players going and why?

The Boundary of Sport

Aight, kids. Cup is over for another year and here we are. I've got quite a lot to get off my chest and it begins with not having internet access where I was staying in Orlando--but I intend to make up for that.

The boundary of (any) sport is its rulebook and the frontline guardians of sport are the officials. Puts a bit of a twist on things, doesn't it? [If you're not sure what I mean it's this: the rules define what is and isn't part of the play of the game and the refs enforce those rules. It also means the willful failure to play by the rules is disrespecting the game. It also means the refs deserve our respect for their role--but it also means they have to treat their role with respect too. More on this in a minute.]
The place where competitive paintball gets into trouble is accountability. Here's how it shakes out: the players are accountable and nobody else is. If that doesn't sound right to you then pay close attention to this next part. On the field the players are accountable to the rules as enforced by the officials. Off the field they are accountable to sponsors, team management, each other. Failures of enforcement (on and off the field) aren't a lack of accountability. All the power and discretion reside with somebody other than the player.
Here's where the guardians of the sport stuff fits. The refs, the leagues and ownership are the ones responsible for maintaining the integrity of the game and none of them is accountable in any obvious way. The refs owe the game their best most impartial effort. The leagues owe their customers and the game fair oversight of their officials and it's the owners responsibility to see it all happens. Sure, the leagues may say they do their best to put good refs on the field but what does that really mean and can anybody offer up an example of how that works as a practical matter? You and I both know the leagues will almost inevitably back their refs against any accusations and whatever actions might be taken aren't made public. And who holds the owners accountable for their obligation to the game? They're making decisions about everything from format, to rosters, to time, to number of officials, and on and on. Every decision made or unmade can alter the game. How seriously is that responsibility taken?
Now I'm not saying all players are noble and virtuous and all the others are power mad and corrupt. Not at all. What I am saying is both sides need to respect the game, not just the players. In fact the refs, the leagues, the owners need to respect it more keeping in mind that part of their job is to protect the integrity of the game by actually doing the best job possible--not just giving it lip service. Or worse, thinking it's their game to do with as they please. That means that not only their attitude matters but also their competence and personal integrity. It seems like it's fair game to routinely call the players out--and it is when they are in the wrong--but out of line to call out the refs, the leagues or the owners. Or PBIndustry. (Which is frequently the same thing.)
Uncle Ben gave Peter Parker the creed he lives by (C'mon, you may not read Spiderman comix but you've seen the movie) when he told Peter that with great power comes great responsibility and in the realm of competitive paintball ALL the power is held by peeps other than the players. If you accept Uncle Ben's formulation that puts the players, regardless of their behavior, out of the loop and puts ALL the responsibility, in ascending order, on the refs, the leagues, the owners.
My purpose here isn't to suggest anyone indulge in wholesale blaming of refs, leagues and owners now for the perceived ills of the game instead of the usual blame the player. My purpose is to remind those who do have the power that they are indeed responsible for whatever becomes of the game precisely because we have no way to hold them accountable except by refusing to participate. And if they won't hold themselves to a high standard they've no right to expect it from anyone else–and further if it all comes crashing down they will have no one to blame but themselves.

More on Buffalo NPPL

Aight, this isn't gonna be pretty but then neither was the Buffalo event. Across the street from the shambling hulk that is the Bill's Ralph Wilson stadium the event looked, from a distance, like a set from some apocalyptic distopian straight-to-video horror flick. But enough about the good stuff.
Let me share a novel thought with y'all. If you're gonna design fields that encourage interior action and/or regular cross field eliminations it's not particularly helpful to place the majority of the refs on the sidelines like ranks of bored ushers. Doesn't matter how many of them there are. I'm just saying. If the league feels some embarrassment over past missteps how does it look when nearly everybody in attendance (okay, other than Buffalo 'cus you could count them on your fingers and toes) except the refs routinely see hits that go blithely unnoticed? And trust me, it happens way too often. It sometimes looks like the refs are trying not to see anything.
And the guns! Okay, I know this one has been done to death and I'm pretty well convinced the plan is to continue the Big Bluff policy of the past NPPL ownership mixed with the occasional arbitrary and utterly subjective egalitarian suspension. Look, we suspended a Pro player, nobody is above the law! Rules? Er, the rule is I know an illegal gun when I decide it is. It would simply be a bad joke if it wasn't contributing to the deterioration of the league. Everybody knows the rules are a joke and that enforcement isn't by rule but by fiat. And everybody knows that everybody else knows it. And that there are more "illegal" guns than legal ones.
I could go on for quite awhile on this subject but why?
Instead let me close this post by suggesting the league needs to re-think its priorities. The days of the NPPL being the party league are over. There is no more bigger, better, flashier, cooler left to bust out at the next NFL parking lot. Where once peeps bought into the hype and the hope it's just tired now, symbolic of a faltering vision. Nobody is buying into the fantasy any longer. It's time to start running a paintball league instead of a vehicle for paintball domination or the generation of a gigantic marketing list targeting a key demographic. It's not good enough to paper over the generic weaknesses with dozens of press releases and propaganda media mouthpieces. And the place to start running a serious paintball league is with real enforceable gun rules and a priority focus on officiating. Or maybe not.