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.
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The Hand Ball
I'm not a futbol fan--soccer for you hicks. The only times I choose to watch soccer is when I'm suffering from insomnia 'cus it kicks the crap outta counting sheep. But seriously, kids, if you have occasional insomnia Baca recommends pills & booze--but only in moderation, of course. And even I heard about the recent knockout round match in the (futbol) World Cup between Ghana and Uruguay. The reason I heard about it is because it ended in a shoot out that Ghana lost after a late in regulation goal attempt by Ghana was "blocked" by an Uruguayan player (in the goal) (not the goalie) swatting the shot away with his hands. For those of you not well versed in the ways of soccer the rest of the world calls it futbol [football] because you play it with your feet, unless you're the goalie, and using your hands (or arms) is a no-no.
So what's the upshot of a play that literally robbed one team of a game winning goal with an intentional foul? The player was red-carded--given the boot--Ghana received some form of penalty kick (which they apparently missed) and the guy who committed the penalty is a national hero and every sports talking head I've heard called it a great play.
So what gives? Is this modern sportsmanship? If so is paintball over doing it? I mean you could commit every infraction in the rulebook and still not alter the outcome of a single point much less a whole match. I'm just saying.
So what's the upshot of a play that literally robbed one team of a game winning goal with an intentional foul? The player was red-carded--given the boot--Ghana received some form of penalty kick (which they apparently missed) and the guy who committed the penalty is a national hero and every sports talking head I've heard called it a great play.
So what gives? Is this modern sportsmanship? If so is paintball over doing it? I mean you could commit every infraction in the rulebook and still not alter the outcome of a single point much less a whole match. I'm just saying.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Limited Paint
One of the lost comments to the ROF post suggested not worrying overmuch about actual ROF and instead limit the amount of paint. (That's my paraphrase and may not represent precisely the commenter's intent. Whatever.) Both in tourney play and recreationally. In tourney play this could be done by fiat and in rec play the suggestion was to do it by price. There are a few reasons why this isn't the best option in either case but my interest here relates to tournament play.
A brief observation: All tourney paintball is limited paint. Limited to what a player chooses to carry on the field. In 10-man days I never carried fewer than 12 pods. Nowadays you seldom see more than 7 though one of my guys likes 9. Either way there is a limit.
And, in point of fact, there is absolutely nothing keeping players and/or teams from shooting as little paint as they want. There is a PSP D1 xball team where nobody carries more than 4 pods and most of them only 2 or 3. Their choice. Nobody is making anybody shoot "lots" of paint unless you want to say the nature of the game demands it. (And if you go that route you have to be willing to say that any significant change in paint allowed would also alter the nature of the game.)
Of course what is meant is an intentionally restrictive limit that is enforced on everyone. Which is okay and probably even commendable as an introductory tournament format in say a 3-man or even 5-man rookie and/or young guns level event. Even beyond that I'm not going to object, given that all tourney paintball is limited in fact (if not by rule) except to point out what should be obvious. Namely, that any change made to "fix" a specific problem tends to be of greater significance than anyone intends, expects or prepares for. I'm not even saying that change is necessarily a bad thing given competitive paintball's relative youth–and considering some of the things I've advocated--but if the peeps who make these decisions are serious about their responsibility to the game it's the sort of thing that shouldn't be done without taking the time to consider the possible ramifications.
Think of it as Baca's Rule #11: Don't Screw With The Game Unless You've Got A Damned Good Idea What The Result Will Be.
Limited paint in broad application across the tournament spectrum would be a game altering factor and this is where I have some serious reservations. The same is true of factors like field dimensions, number and shape of props and certain features of layout design that have all influenced the way the game is played. As has the technology. I won't detail here the ways I think limited paint as a standard would alter (and in this case probably diminish) the competitive game as all I'm shooting for with this post is to encourage keeping the Big Picture in mind when looking at ways to "solve" problems. [I'll do something on how the game changes us soon which will include volume of paint in play.]
A brief observation: All tourney paintball is limited paint. Limited to what a player chooses to carry on the field. In 10-man days I never carried fewer than 12 pods. Nowadays you seldom see more than 7 though one of my guys likes 9. Either way there is a limit.
And, in point of fact, there is absolutely nothing keeping players and/or teams from shooting as little paint as they want. There is a PSP D1 xball team where nobody carries more than 4 pods and most of them only 2 or 3. Their choice. Nobody is making anybody shoot "lots" of paint unless you want to say the nature of the game demands it. (And if you go that route you have to be willing to say that any significant change in paint allowed would also alter the nature of the game.)
Of course what is meant is an intentionally restrictive limit that is enforced on everyone. Which is okay and probably even commendable as an introductory tournament format in say a 3-man or even 5-man rookie and/or young guns level event. Even beyond that I'm not going to object, given that all tourney paintball is limited in fact (if not by rule) except to point out what should be obvious. Namely, that any change made to "fix" a specific problem tends to be of greater significance than anyone intends, expects or prepares for. I'm not even saying that change is necessarily a bad thing given competitive paintball's relative youth–and considering some of the things I've advocated--but if the peeps who make these decisions are serious about their responsibility to the game it's the sort of thing that shouldn't be done without taking the time to consider the possible ramifications.
Think of it as Baca's Rule #11: Don't Screw With The Game Unless You've Got A Damned Good Idea What The Result Will Be.
Limited paint in broad application across the tournament spectrum would be a game altering factor and this is where I have some serious reservations. The same is true of factors like field dimensions, number and shape of props and certain features of layout design that have all influenced the way the game is played. As has the technology. I won't detail here the ways I think limited paint as a standard would alter (and in this case probably diminish) the competitive game as all I'm shooting for with this post is to encourage keeping the Big Picture in mind when looking at ways to "solve" problems. [I'll do something on how the game changes us soon which will include volume of paint in play.]
ROF
This was actually a subject I was gonna do a magazine piece on last year (before I stopped writing for PB magazines) because it cuts across all facets of paintball and seems to be a focal point for many if not most of the disgruntled within the grassroots paintball biz. Word of warning: If you are among the disgruntled you're probably gonna like part of this and want to throw something at your monitor for other parts. If you feel a surging pain up your left arm stop reading. S'all I'm saying.
There's two parts to this: tourney ball & the so-called trickle down effect seen at the local level around the country. Let's begin with the fun one, tournament paintball. [But first, one caveat: Don't start in about the evils of ramping with me while defending electronic guns that can be shot at 10-15 bps in "semi-auto". That just tells me either you don't know what you're talking about or you have a particular axe to grind and reality a mere inconvenience. It is all one issue. So here's the deal; don't try making a nonsensical argument and I won't call you rude names. Seems fair to me.]
There has been, for a couple of years, a call from some quarters to reduce the ROF allowed in tournament play. One reason given is current ROF creates too high a barrier at the rookie and young gun level and scares players off with firepower that overwhelms beginner skills. Other reasons include makes the game stagnant, takes the fun out, costs too much in paint and turns local fields into shooting galleries 'cus all the baby ballers want to blaze just like the pros. We'll leave that last one out for now 'cus it's got nothing to do with actual tourney play.
Let me take a moment to ask a question or two. Where is the hue and cry aimed at the NPPL's irresponsible gun rules? (If you are under the misapprehension that NPPL is controlling ROF you are way behind the curve or easily duped in which case I'd like to tell you about this property for sale in south Florida ... ) And who among you rips PSP for ramping guns even though they's the only ones actually controlling ROF? Consider those rhetorical questions.
I'm in favor of regulating ROF in tourney play. But only to a point. I think there is a case to be made for matching ROF to developing levels of skill. I am NOT in favor of a universal ceiling ROF though I can live with the PSP's current 13. The reason I am not in favor of a universal ceiling is that ROF corresponds to skill level in a positive way as well as in the negative way everyone tends to think of. And one thing I'd hate to see is a needless artificial limit placed on the upper levels of competitive paintball. Pro football isn't played by Pop Warner rules. Pro level paintball shouldn't be held hostage to rookie skill, or the lack thereof. ROF in the recent PSP context both defines and refines much of the tournament skill set directly and indirectly. That said I'd tier ROF at 8, 10, 12 and 15 and if you think that's overdoing it I'd settle for 10 and 13. 10 bps for everyone either at or below D3 and 13bps for everyone above. As to the common reasons given above the only one I buy into at all is that there is merit in not driving young players away before they develop the skills to appreciate the game and discover if the competition is what they really want. Stagnant games are the result of deficient skills and tactics. Lack of fun is not really wanting to compete in a tourney context and/or routinely getting your ass whooped. Paint consumption is more directly tied to time played--at least when the difference is 15.4 to 13.3 bps. And now for the impact on local fields.
I don't deny ROF is a serious issue at the local level but imagining that changing tourney ROF to some lowest common denominator will fix the problem is wishful thinking, a desire to shift the blame and/or a refusal to take some personal responsibility. How's that left arm doing? Remember those rhetorical questions? You can answer them now.
I visited a local field with some old friends awhile ago that was mostly woodsball. Much to my surprise, not, the majority of the camo jockeys were shooting the latest high tech hardware including of course some raging Tippmanns as well as Egos and Dms and the rest. Here's another question for you: Were those guys mere puppets of Evil Paintball Marketing who wanted to be just like the "pros" and couldn't help themselves? Or were they seduced by firepower? Or were they just keeping up with the Joneses? Nor was it an isolated unique situation. Check out your next local Big Game and see what the other side of paintball is shooting. [Once upon a time the major gun manufacturers had a max bps agreement. It lasted less than a year.]
It just doesn't add up for me. There are a lot of conflicting claims depending on just what argument is being framed. Tourney made them want it. Yet, the numbers say tourney is a small piece of the whole paintball pie. And rec and scenario players are supposedly uninterested (and used to be viewed as hostile) to tourney except when they aren't. And all that media pressure presenting fast guns as cool has brainwashed every baller from here to Missoula which is why the magazines and DVD business is exploding... Doesn't Blues Crew have a gun sponsorship with one of those big bad mainstream gun manufacturers?
When I started playing paintball field rentals were a mix of pumps and early semis but guns like the Illustrator were beginning to appear. Guess what. In short order there was a firepower disparity at work. Not as pronounced as today nor with the capability of today's guns to transform anybody with a finger into a paint chucking machinegun but a version of the same problem. So it's not really new.
More questions. Do you sell machineguns and factory and aftermarket multi-function boards in your pro shops and stores? Do you sell everybody who has the cash as much paint as they want to buy? So let me see if I've got this right: you supply anyone who wants it with the stuff you want somebody else to control for you. Is that about it?
The technology complicated a preexisting issue by making the disparity (the potential difference in equipment) a wider gulf and by making the consequences so unpleasant (unsuspecting and/or unprepared peeps getting blowed up). And some of you advocate tourney ball putting that genie back in the bottle for you. Not gonna happen. Got a couple of ugly little secrets for you. Technology has been driving tourney ball too, not the other way around and as long as the technology is out there people will want to use it.
So what are local field operators to do? They could sack up and regulate what they can control or not. Be like the NPPL or be like the PSP. Simple choice. Take a look at which one is working and which one isn't. I'm not suggesting it's all down to controlling guns but it is certainly part of the difference. What the vast majority of competitors want is a level playing field, an honest competition. Which isn't really all that different from what the average rec player wants--an equal opportunity and a fair game. And in both cases it isn't superfast guns that deny that opportunity, it is the lack of proper regulation. IT IS THE LACK OF PROPER REGULATION.
Try these:
Depending on the size of your field prioritize according to your desired market.
Segregate players by both skill and equipment as well as inclination; play tourney style vs. play rec ball.
Be specific about the rules of play on your website and in your safety briefings so everyone knows what to expect. Include upfront the penalties for gun violations and enforce them rigorously. For every loose cannon you "lose" you gain more from everyone else who see the rules work.
Invest in a PACT timer and teach your refs how to use it. When you chrono a player you can also check ROF.
Build some pride and purpose into your ref staff as they are the front line to your success.
(There's other stuff that could be included and each situation is a bit different but that's the foundation for getting control of ROF.)
Or, you know, you could go find somebody who really will do it for you. Try your insurance company or your local government and explain the situation to them. I'm sure given the right horror stories and a bit of pleading they'd be happen to tell you how to run your business.
There's two parts to this: tourney ball & the so-called trickle down effect seen at the local level around the country. Let's begin with the fun one, tournament paintball. [But first, one caveat: Don't start in about the evils of ramping with me while defending electronic guns that can be shot at 10-15 bps in "semi-auto". That just tells me either you don't know what you're talking about or you have a particular axe to grind and reality a mere inconvenience. It is all one issue. So here's the deal; don't try making a nonsensical argument and I won't call you rude names. Seems fair to me.]
There has been, for a couple of years, a call from some quarters to reduce the ROF allowed in tournament play. One reason given is current ROF creates too high a barrier at the rookie and young gun level and scares players off with firepower that overwhelms beginner skills. Other reasons include makes the game stagnant, takes the fun out, costs too much in paint and turns local fields into shooting galleries 'cus all the baby ballers want to blaze just like the pros. We'll leave that last one out for now 'cus it's got nothing to do with actual tourney play.
Let me take a moment to ask a question or two. Where is the hue and cry aimed at the NPPL's irresponsible gun rules? (If you are under the misapprehension that NPPL is controlling ROF you are way behind the curve or easily duped in which case I'd like to tell you about this property for sale in south Florida ... ) And who among you rips PSP for ramping guns even though they's the only ones actually controlling ROF? Consider those rhetorical questions.
I'm in favor of regulating ROF in tourney play. But only to a point. I think there is a case to be made for matching ROF to developing levels of skill. I am NOT in favor of a universal ceiling ROF though I can live with the PSP's current 13. The reason I am not in favor of a universal ceiling is that ROF corresponds to skill level in a positive way as well as in the negative way everyone tends to think of. And one thing I'd hate to see is a needless artificial limit placed on the upper levels of competitive paintball. Pro football isn't played by Pop Warner rules. Pro level paintball shouldn't be held hostage to rookie skill, or the lack thereof. ROF in the recent PSP context both defines and refines much of the tournament skill set directly and indirectly. That said I'd tier ROF at 8, 10, 12 and 15 and if you think that's overdoing it I'd settle for 10 and 13. 10 bps for everyone either at or below D3 and 13bps for everyone above. As to the common reasons given above the only one I buy into at all is that there is merit in not driving young players away before they develop the skills to appreciate the game and discover if the competition is what they really want. Stagnant games are the result of deficient skills and tactics. Lack of fun is not really wanting to compete in a tourney context and/or routinely getting your ass whooped. Paint consumption is more directly tied to time played--at least when the difference is 15.4 to 13.3 bps. And now for the impact on local fields.
I don't deny ROF is a serious issue at the local level but imagining that changing tourney ROF to some lowest common denominator will fix the problem is wishful thinking, a desire to shift the blame and/or a refusal to take some personal responsibility. How's that left arm doing? Remember those rhetorical questions? You can answer them now.
I visited a local field with some old friends awhile ago that was mostly woodsball. Much to my surprise, not, the majority of the camo jockeys were shooting the latest high tech hardware including of course some raging Tippmanns as well as Egos and Dms and the rest. Here's another question for you: Were those guys mere puppets of Evil Paintball Marketing who wanted to be just like the "pros" and couldn't help themselves? Or were they seduced by firepower? Or were they just keeping up with the Joneses? Nor was it an isolated unique situation. Check out your next local Big Game and see what the other side of paintball is shooting. [Once upon a time the major gun manufacturers had a max bps agreement. It lasted less than a year.]
It just doesn't add up for me. There are a lot of conflicting claims depending on just what argument is being framed. Tourney made them want it. Yet, the numbers say tourney is a small piece of the whole paintball pie. And rec and scenario players are supposedly uninterested (and used to be viewed as hostile) to tourney except when they aren't. And all that media pressure presenting fast guns as cool has brainwashed every baller from here to Missoula which is why the magazines and DVD business is exploding... Doesn't Blues Crew have a gun sponsorship with one of those big bad mainstream gun manufacturers?
When I started playing paintball field rentals were a mix of pumps and early semis but guns like the Illustrator were beginning to appear. Guess what. In short order there was a firepower disparity at work. Not as pronounced as today nor with the capability of today's guns to transform anybody with a finger into a paint chucking machinegun but a version of the same problem. So it's not really new.
More questions. Do you sell machineguns and factory and aftermarket multi-function boards in your pro shops and stores? Do you sell everybody who has the cash as much paint as they want to buy? So let me see if I've got this right: you supply anyone who wants it with the stuff you want somebody else to control for you. Is that about it?
The technology complicated a preexisting issue by making the disparity (the potential difference in equipment) a wider gulf and by making the consequences so unpleasant (unsuspecting and/or unprepared peeps getting blowed up). And some of you advocate tourney ball putting that genie back in the bottle for you. Not gonna happen. Got a couple of ugly little secrets for you. Technology has been driving tourney ball too, not the other way around and as long as the technology is out there people will want to use it.
So what are local field operators to do? They could sack up and regulate what they can control or not. Be like the NPPL or be like the PSP. Simple choice. Take a look at which one is working and which one isn't. I'm not suggesting it's all down to controlling guns but it is certainly part of the difference. What the vast majority of competitors want is a level playing field, an honest competition. Which isn't really all that different from what the average rec player wants--an equal opportunity and a fair game. And in both cases it isn't superfast guns that deny that opportunity, it is the lack of proper regulation. IT IS THE LACK OF PROPER REGULATION.
Try these:
Depending on the size of your field prioritize according to your desired market.
Segregate players by both skill and equipment as well as inclination; play tourney style vs. play rec ball.
Be specific about the rules of play on your website and in your safety briefings so everyone knows what to expect. Include upfront the penalties for gun violations and enforce them rigorously. For every loose cannon you "lose" you gain more from everyone else who see the rules work.
Invest in a PACT timer and teach your refs how to use it. When you chrono a player you can also check ROF.
Build some pride and purpose into your ref staff as they are the front line to your success.
(There's other stuff that could be included and each situation is a bit different but that's the foundation for getting control of ROF.)
Or, you know, you could go find somebody who really will do it for you. Try your insurance company or your local government and explain the situation to them. I'm sure given the right horror stories and a bit of pleading they'd be happen to tell you how to run your business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
