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 rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The Baca Addendum
Is it synchronicity or serendipity? (Google a definition, slacker.) The current Monday Poll wants to know your favorite format given that there is no world standard just yet--and the NPPL has jumped into the multi-point variant with both feet for 2012. But even that is just the same old same old after a fashion. Nothing groundbreaking. (Other than the tacit admission they needed to do something other than traditional 7-man to be competitive.) And then there's the new NPL (National Paintball League) being discussed over at the Nation. Like the original tourney alternative [the first USPL] it features offense and defense. A smaller field not unlike the old UAPL--that was also 3-man. The NPL splits the difference and goes with 4 players per side. Perhaps most intriguing is the fact the NPL is imagined to function from the grassroots up to a national title event modelled after more traditional sports but also akin to VFTD's own (Almost) Everything Tournament Paintball Needs To Know from the Dead Tree Archive (and the days of real paintball magazines.) Also along the way there's been real Xball, 'Moneyball' and truckloads of other random ideas for how competitive painball ought to be played. VFTD has even contributed the purely hypothetical Bacaball to the list of mostly ignored (forgotten) ideas--and probably rightly so. (Except of course for Bacaball.) But reading about the NPL got me thinking--and that's always a dangerous proposition. And I've got the answer. The Baca Addendum. [Cue Also sprach zarathustra]
Before I get into that though a couple of asides about the NPL. As raehl mentioned [at PBN] they need to focus on the basics for now and not sweat the superstructure of unnecessary rules and requirements and procedures that will only inhibit their potential for growth. (Thanks for asking, yes, agreeing with Chris about anything was a singularly unpleasant sensation.) This is not, btw, an endorsement. I've read the website, watched the videos and seen the comments (so far) and I'm unpersuaded but that's neither here nor there. If the game has something going for it--and the creators don't suffocate it prematurely--it may find an audience and if it gets and keeps peeps playing competition-oriented paintball that wouldn't be a bad thing.
About the Baca Addendum. It's one simple idea built on existing notions of playing competitive paintball. [So simple in fact that somebody must have already thought of it but was ignored or didn't set it up quite right. I'll be interested in finding out.] It's 3 simple rules that can be added to any common format or variation currently played although it really will work best in a multi-point or time limited match. It'll work in 3-man, 5-man, 7-man or whatever you like. On a PSP, NPPL or MS field layout. It will work for beginners or pros. It will both offer focus and strategic and tactical complications at the same time. It will make players better. It will reward both athletic and intellectual agility. The variety it can produce is unparalleled. And I will explain it in detail after I test play it. (Which will happen within the next two weeks.)
Before I get into that though a couple of asides about the NPL. As raehl mentioned [at PBN] they need to focus on the basics for now and not sweat the superstructure of unnecessary rules and requirements and procedures that will only inhibit their potential for growth. (Thanks for asking, yes, agreeing with Chris about anything was a singularly unpleasant sensation.) This is not, btw, an endorsement. I've read the website, watched the videos and seen the comments (so far) and I'm unpersuaded but that's neither here nor there. If the game has something going for it--and the creators don't suffocate it prematurely--it may find an audience and if it gets and keeps peeps playing competition-oriented paintball that wouldn't be a bad thing.
About the Baca Addendum. It's one simple idea built on existing notions of playing competitive paintball. [So simple in fact that somebody must have already thought of it but was ignored or didn't set it up quite right. I'll be interested in finding out.] It's 3 simple rules that can be added to any common format or variation currently played although it really will work best in a multi-point or time limited match. It'll work in 3-man, 5-man, 7-man or whatever you like. On a PSP, NPPL or MS field layout. It will work for beginners or pros. It will both offer focus and strategic and tactical complications at the same time. It will make players better. It will reward both athletic and intellectual agility. The variety it can produce is unparalleled. And I will explain it in detail after I test play it. (Which will happen within the next two weeks.)
Thursday, January 5, 2012
2012 PSP Divisions & Entries
And prizes. (Such as they are.) I threw that last bit in for the D3 podium deserves fat cash crowd. Look, I don't have a lot to say about this yet. Maybe ever. I'ma wait until the PSP posts their series prizes but otherwise it seems okay to me. But then I don't favor big prizes to the lower divisions even if there are more teams there. the PSP is about the competition and that means, among other things, that everybody who thinks they belong in D3 or D4, legitimately or otherwise, don't believe they can compete in a higher division. And if the object of competition is to reward excellence and success one of the ways you encourage that is to help motivate players and teams to be excellent and succeed if they want the best prizes.
Mostly I'm surprised by the lack of a hue & cry today from the prize hunters because it's been such a popular topic in the past. (Of course, it's early yet.) Otherwise the only thing that gave me pause was double value points World Cup for divisions D3-X and below. (I'm good with less stringent series requirements for the lower divisions.) I'm not sure what I think of the double value Cup points just yet other than I would object long and loud if it had extended to the Pro division. More on this when series prizes are announced.
Mostly I'm surprised by the lack of a hue & cry today from the prize hunters because it's been such a popular topic in the past. (Of course, it's early yet.) Otherwise the only thing that gave me pause was double value points World Cup for divisions D3-X and below. (I'm good with less stringent series requirements for the lower divisions.) I'm not sure what I think of the double value Cup points just yet other than I would object long and loud if it had extended to the Pro division. More on this when series prizes are announced.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Inside the Merger Talk & Rumorology
Actually not so much really. At least not enough to merit that post title but it got your heart racing, didn't it? (Most of you excited, fewer of you horrified.) [I'd gladly apologize for leading you on except of course I'm not sorry 'cus I think it's kinda funny. In an admittedly cruel sorta way.] Rumor has it stuff like revisiting ROF and notions like limited paint have been part of the discussions. And I don't mind saying I find it a little disconcerting. Mostly because too many of the people at the table have no business being there unless you count enormous egos, entrenched opinions and self-interested motives as appropriate first principles. Did I sugarcoat that too much? Do I need to be more forthright? Was that really necessary? Naw, but I enjoyed it--and frankly, it's the truth. Hey, I always say once you start digging a hole, dig it deep!
As you might have guessed the real subject is paint usage. And as it happens I have some numbers available. But first I want to offer for the record, again, that there is no data that supports changing the ROF as a paint saving measure. (We've had ROF changes based on the notion that it will trickle down to local recreational fields and/or that it will lower the threshold to tourney entry. How's that worked out? We've had the PSP change their ROF three times and if there's any data to demonstrate those changes made any quantifiable difference in paint usage I haven't heard about it.) Now of course if the change is substantial enough, 12 bps to Billy Ball, yes, there will be lower paint consumption as a result. But with that significant a change you're also playing a different game too.
Uncertain? Other paint usage factors include pack size, pod size, (total paint carried) bunker placement & game time. Without taking the other factors into account how can anyone categorically say--and possibly change the game again--on the basis the change will somehow save paint. Will it really? If so, how much? And what consideration is being given to potential peripheral consequences? If you really want to save paint leave the ROF alone and open up the OTB shooting lanes. If laners OTB increase their kill percentages you are guaranteed to save paint. First that eliminated player won't be shooting the paint on his back and when you remove 20% or more of your opponent's players off the bat the game transitions into a close almost immediately. Of course doing that may not make the current player base particularly happy, but hey, it saved paint.
The same applies to limited paint--which is a practice already in place. Everybody plays with limited paint. What is meant is a restricted by rule limit to the maximum paint allowed on the field at any one time. However, depending on just how limited an amount of paint is being discussed it will, without any doubt, alter the nature and play of the game. In the lower divisions this isn't necessarily a bad thing but it would a terrible decision at the pro level as it would dumb down the game considerably. (See the link to an old post below which discusses this in more detail.)
And now for the numbers I promised. For the sake of round numbers let's say the current ROF is 12. Let's also agree that a hopper (loader) holds 180 paintballs. And let's use D1/D2 Race 2 format of a 15 minute game Race 2-5. The game parameters then is fifteen minutes of game time or first team to 5 points with a max number of 9 points played per match. At 12 bps a player could conceivably shoot 10800 paintballs in 15 minutes. A team of 5 could shoot 54000 paintballs. In practice that potential is limited by the number of pods a player carries. If we assume an average of 7 pods--which is probably a little high--plus hopper a 5-man squad is carrying 5100 paintballs; around 2 and one half cases. How often does a team shoot that much paint in a point? (Almost never.) And what are the game conditions that promote heavy paint use?
At 12 bps a player empties his hopper in 15 seconds. At 10 bps the same player empties the same hopper in 18 seconds. Is that 3 seconds a hopper fill going to save paint? (No.) Does it reduce the amount of paint in hand? (No.)
Take a moment and revisit the PSP Galveston event where an attempt was made to both encourage older, fatter, slower players into coming back to tourney play along with a field layout that would promote faster points. (Faster points equal less paint shot per point potentially.) How did that work out? My point isn't that the league screwed up. My point is that making singular changes alone, especially the ones being discussed, are unlikely to achieve the results desired unless the change is so dramatic it changes the game too--and even when an effort was made to "improve" the pace of play the desired results didn't occur because even with the best intentions and best efforts the complexity of the game wasn't properly evaluated or understood.
The last thing a newly unified league needs is a host of changes the results of which can't be predicted with anything like certainty.
For more on ROF and its relationship to how the game is played today read this post from the archives. (I'm feeling more lazy than usual today and didn't feel like repeating myself. Again.)
In other rumorology there's lots of behind-the-scenes talk about the off season musical chairs of pro players already--along with some speculation about the future of a few pro teams as well. It's too soon to start talking names and details because as far as I know nothing (much) has been finalized just yet. But as soon as these rumors start turning into near factoids I'm sure Mr. Curious will have the skinny. (And I don't mean Kevin.) Okay, here's a taste; could be some Ironmen on the move and apparently Yaya is dialling up a serious phone bill calling ballers.
As you might have guessed the real subject is paint usage. And as it happens I have some numbers available. But first I want to offer for the record, again, that there is no data that supports changing the ROF as a paint saving measure. (We've had ROF changes based on the notion that it will trickle down to local recreational fields and/or that it will lower the threshold to tourney entry. How's that worked out? We've had the PSP change their ROF three times and if there's any data to demonstrate those changes made any quantifiable difference in paint usage I haven't heard about it.) Now of course if the change is substantial enough, 12 bps to Billy Ball, yes, there will be lower paint consumption as a result. But with that significant a change you're also playing a different game too.
Uncertain? Other paint usage factors include pack size, pod size, (total paint carried) bunker placement & game time. Without taking the other factors into account how can anyone categorically say--and possibly change the game again--on the basis the change will somehow save paint. Will it really? If so, how much? And what consideration is being given to potential peripheral consequences? If you really want to save paint leave the ROF alone and open up the OTB shooting lanes. If laners OTB increase their kill percentages you are guaranteed to save paint. First that eliminated player won't be shooting the paint on his back and when you remove 20% or more of your opponent's players off the bat the game transitions into a close almost immediately. Of course doing that may not make the current player base particularly happy, but hey, it saved paint.
The same applies to limited paint--which is a practice already in place. Everybody plays with limited paint. What is meant is a restricted by rule limit to the maximum paint allowed on the field at any one time. However, depending on just how limited an amount of paint is being discussed it will, without any doubt, alter the nature and play of the game. In the lower divisions this isn't necessarily a bad thing but it would a terrible decision at the pro level as it would dumb down the game considerably. (See the link to an old post below which discusses this in more detail.)
And now for the numbers I promised. For the sake of round numbers let's say the current ROF is 12. Let's also agree that a hopper (loader) holds 180 paintballs. And let's use D1/D2 Race 2 format of a 15 minute game Race 2-5. The game parameters then is fifteen minutes of game time or first team to 5 points with a max number of 9 points played per match. At 12 bps a player could conceivably shoot 10800 paintballs in 15 minutes. A team of 5 could shoot 54000 paintballs. In practice that potential is limited by the number of pods a player carries. If we assume an average of 7 pods--which is probably a little high--plus hopper a 5-man squad is carrying 5100 paintballs; around 2 and one half cases. How often does a team shoot that much paint in a point? (Almost never.) And what are the game conditions that promote heavy paint use?
At 12 bps a player empties his hopper in 15 seconds. At 10 bps the same player empties the same hopper in 18 seconds. Is that 3 seconds a hopper fill going to save paint? (No.) Does it reduce the amount of paint in hand? (No.)
Take a moment and revisit the PSP Galveston event where an attempt was made to both encourage older, fatter, slower players into coming back to tourney play along with a field layout that would promote faster points. (Faster points equal less paint shot per point potentially.) How did that work out? My point isn't that the league screwed up. My point is that making singular changes alone, especially the ones being discussed, are unlikely to achieve the results desired unless the change is so dramatic it changes the game too--and even when an effort was made to "improve" the pace of play the desired results didn't occur because even with the best intentions and best efforts the complexity of the game wasn't properly evaluated or understood.
The last thing a newly unified league needs is a host of changes the results of which can't be predicted with anything like certainty.
For more on ROF and its relationship to how the game is played today read this post from the archives. (I'm feeling more lazy than usual today and didn't feel like repeating myself. Again.)
In other rumorology there's lots of behind-the-scenes talk about the off season musical chairs of pro players already--along with some speculation about the future of a few pro teams as well. It's too soon to start talking names and details because as far as I know nothing (much) has been finalized just yet. But as soon as these rumors start turning into near factoids I'm sure Mr. Curious will have the skinny. (And I don't mean Kevin.) Okay, here's a taste; could be some Ironmen on the move and apparently Yaya is dialling up a serious phone bill calling ballers.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The Vegas Addendum
It seems our friends over at the NPPL have posted some additional event info & a code of conduct for Vegas. And since it's posted at their website and not on Pev's Facebook page I was concerned that many of the first timers might miss it. (A link is posted on the NPPL Facebook page.) So I've decided to cover the highlights in brief. Consider it a VFTD public service. (Post title is link to the NPPL page.)
(O/T--if you're wondering about part 3 of the World Cup layout practice I'll probably get around to it but this stuff just came up, along with a couple other things and it wasn't like the practice posts were lighting the world on fire so ... There you go.)
The big one is keep your markers under wraps except on the field, the chrono area or the players paddock. Otherwise you might be ejected or suspended for 3 games. That includes hotels, cars, walking the street, dashing thru the airport, etc. Hide your gats. No, it isn't any clearer than that but just don't do it and you'll probably be fine.
If you choose to park in the Convention Center lot it may not be free. The last two years it's been $10 a day.
The use of unauthorized paint will result in severe penalties. We're not saying what those penalties are but they will be severe--you can count on that. And you better not spill any paint outside the authorized event area--or else.
All teams must attend the Captain's Meeting. (Unfortunately they don't specify the penalty for not attending but it's, you know, probably severe. Yes, I'm kidding. I hope.) Subjects to be discussed; no swearing, zero tolerance, ref's discretion if swearing non-aggressive or non-malicious. Also zero tolerance for talking after being eliminated. Again at ref's discretion. (No, I'm not making this up. Note to NPPL kids--zero tolerance and ref's discretion are not compatible concepts. It's one or the other. Can't be both.) And finally, to all you blatant cheaters, better watch out 'cus the refs will be on you like white on rice.
[I'm assuming some of this is in response to DC. The only other response the league had to the failures and criticism regarding the DC event was to post a heart-warming paean to the virtues of officiating. For real. See here.]
Next up is registration. Bring cash and a government ID and remember your team captain is solely responsible for any illegal roster inclusions and may, as a consequence, be subject to severe penalties and forfeitures before, during or after the tournament. I wish I knew what those severe penalties were as they is popping up everywhere. And what exactly does a team captain forfeit? Or does that apply to the team? But if the captain is solely responsible I ... I'm left scratching my head.
Any player caught on the field without a wristband will be, say it with me now, subject to severe penalties and probably suspended for the event. How is one probably suspended? Is this another one of those zero tolerance at the ref's discretion situations? Players caught without a signed waiver--I can't wait for this to happen--will suffer the consequences. (Direct quote.) OMG, not the consequences!
Under the heading of ID cards here's a couple of quoted sections. "The penalty for not playing with a card, suspension from event, loss of points and a minimum $500.00 fine, due immediately from the offender or team captain." So let me see if I understand this correctly. If I have a player ID but don't play I am subject to suspension, loss of team points and a fine? Seems kinda harsh to me. Then there's this: "Please make sure your information is accurate, or you and your team could be subject to prize forfeiture, penalties, civil legal action and/or suspensions." Which translated means we have no good way to verify anything so we're hoping to scare you into compliance. Civil legal action? Really?
There's a drugs and alcohol section too done with the same precision as the rest of this announcement. As it reads you could be booted for taking aspirin--but of course that isn't what they mean even if it is what they said.
And when you arrive, look around and wonder where the huge trade show & exhibition are the NPPL wants you to know that it's ... "at the Beach."
I have a confession to make. A small part of me kinda hopes these guys are responsible for all the press releases in the new PNSPPPL.
(O/T--if you're wondering about part 3 of the World Cup layout practice I'll probably get around to it but this stuff just came up, along with a couple other things and it wasn't like the practice posts were lighting the world on fire so ... There you go.)
The big one is keep your markers under wraps except on the field, the chrono area or the players paddock. Otherwise you might be ejected or suspended for 3 games. That includes hotels, cars, walking the street, dashing thru the airport, etc. Hide your gats. No, it isn't any clearer than that but just don't do it and you'll probably be fine.
If you choose to park in the Convention Center lot it may not be free. The last two years it's been $10 a day.
The use of unauthorized paint will result in severe penalties. We're not saying what those penalties are but they will be severe--you can count on that. And you better not spill any paint outside the authorized event area--or else.
All teams must attend the Captain's Meeting. (Unfortunately they don't specify the penalty for not attending but it's, you know, probably severe. Yes, I'm kidding. I hope.) Subjects to be discussed; no swearing, zero tolerance, ref's discretion if swearing non-aggressive or non-malicious. Also zero tolerance for talking after being eliminated. Again at ref's discretion. (No, I'm not making this up. Note to NPPL kids--zero tolerance and ref's discretion are not compatible concepts. It's one or the other. Can't be both.) And finally, to all you blatant cheaters, better watch out 'cus the refs will be on you like white on rice.
[I'm assuming some of this is in response to DC. The only other response the league had to the failures and criticism regarding the DC event was to post a heart-warming paean to the virtues of officiating. For real. See here.]
Next up is registration. Bring cash and a government ID and remember your team captain is solely responsible for any illegal roster inclusions and may, as a consequence, be subject to severe penalties and forfeitures before, during or after the tournament. I wish I knew what those severe penalties were as they is popping up everywhere. And what exactly does a team captain forfeit? Or does that apply to the team? But if the captain is solely responsible I ... I'm left scratching my head.
Any player caught on the field without a wristband will be, say it with me now, subject to severe penalties and probably suspended for the event. How is one probably suspended? Is this another one of those zero tolerance at the ref's discretion situations? Players caught without a signed waiver--I can't wait for this to happen--will suffer the consequences. (Direct quote.) OMG, not the consequences!
Under the heading of ID cards here's a couple of quoted sections. "The penalty for not playing with a card, suspension from event, loss of points and a minimum $500.00 fine, due immediately from the offender or team captain." So let me see if I understand this correctly. If I have a player ID but don't play I am subject to suspension, loss of team points and a fine? Seems kinda harsh to me. Then there's this: "Please make sure your information is accurate, or you and your team could be subject to prize forfeiture, penalties, civil legal action and/or suspensions." Which translated means we have no good way to verify anything so we're hoping to scare you into compliance. Civil legal action? Really?
There's a drugs and alcohol section too done with the same precision as the rest of this announcement. As it reads you could be booted for taking aspirin--but of course that isn't what they mean even if it is what they said.
And when you arrive, look around and wonder where the huge trade show & exhibition are the NPPL wants you to know that it's ... "at the Beach."
I have a confession to make. A small part of me kinda hopes these guys are responsible for all the press releases in the new PNSPPPL.
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.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Back on My Hobby Horse
Remember Galveston? And VFTD's predictions regarding how the PSP's annual-we-must-make-changes-in-order-to-save-paintball would turn out? Yeah, well, I'm not satisfied with being right once because frankly it hasn't made (enough of) a difference so I'ma do what I always do--continue to bludgeon ignorance into submission with the Baca stick. In the case of the PSP it's my stubborn determination to help the PSP be the best it can be. Sometimes despite itself. Really. (Love you, Lane. No homo.)
Anyway, the plan is simple. VFTD will be charting all matches played in the multi-point format once known as (watered down) xball. (At Galveston more than half of all matches went to time despite the fact the great majority were Race 2-4.) After taking a look at the Chicago layout I see no reason to suspect there will be a different outcome this time around. (Why, btw, was it released on a Wednesday when the oft-stated pre-season change-to-save-paintball was that official field releases would occur on the Thursday prior to the event? I know, it's just a day but how hard is it to consistently do what you say you're gonna do?)
For those outta the loop here's the deal. The longer field matters, in part, because the number of props hasn't changed. Bigger props were supposed to be close to Home to help out the bigger, slower, fatter player the league was trying to entice back into the game and the upshot of the collective changes was supposed to be a more inviting game to a wider pool of potential players. (While I understand conceptually it was never going to work that way in practice.) As a practical matter it was only going to slow matches, extend points, use more paint & generally be less exciting. To make that point after the fact VFTD charted match results.
To sum up: early release & (apparently) those bigger, fatter, slower players are no longer of interest. Even so, it won't change the outcome at all. Results posted after the event--maybe even during. Watch the webcast and enjoy the pro matches. (Trust me, some of those won't be pretty either.)
Anyway, the plan is simple. VFTD will be charting all matches played in the multi-point format once known as (watered down) xball. (At Galveston more than half of all matches went to time despite the fact the great majority were Race 2-4.) After taking a look at the Chicago layout I see no reason to suspect there will be a different outcome this time around. (Why, btw, was it released on a Wednesday when the oft-stated pre-season change-to-save-paintball was that official field releases would occur on the Thursday prior to the event? I know, it's just a day but how hard is it to consistently do what you say you're gonna do?)
For those outta the loop here's the deal. The longer field matters, in part, because the number of props hasn't changed. Bigger props were supposed to be close to Home to help out the bigger, slower, fatter player the league was trying to entice back into the game and the upshot of the collective changes was supposed to be a more inviting game to a wider pool of potential players. (While I understand conceptually it was never going to work that way in practice.) As a practical matter it was only going to slow matches, extend points, use more paint & generally be less exciting. To make that point after the fact VFTD charted match results.
To sum up: early release & (apparently) those bigger, fatter, slower players are no longer of interest. Even so, it won't change the outcome at all. Results posted after the event--maybe even during. Watch the webcast and enjoy the pro matches. (Trust me, some of those won't be pretty either.)
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
The Chip continued, or
How I learned to love the NPPL.
Mr. Curious has been scouring dark alleys and putting his ear against moldy walls in cheap motels desperate for the rest of the story. The Chip Story, that is. It didn't help but a couple of timely emails did help sort things out a little bit more. It seems some of the ownership teams were out of the loop when NPPL Supreme Command made the decision to install the chips prior to Huntington Beach. (And is likely responsible for some of the leaks and surprise expressed by some.) It also seems that the current idea of enforcement from the Supreme Command's brain trust is to adjust markers with the chips installed to a monitored 15 BPS limit and assume that because the guns can be monitored that no one will alter their gun's function.
But VFTD continues to ask what if some team or even player challenges the league to enforce the gun rules during the event. What then? There is nothing (known to VFTD) in place for handling such a situation. Perhaps a quiet word about turning the guns back down. Or, you know, we know your guns were doing 20 BPS OTB. Best not do that anymore. Or maybe retroactive penalties after games have been played? Nor is there yet a real definition for what constitutes a violation of the 15 BPS cap as monitored by The Chip. What happens when the gun rules are challenged and nobody can give a clear, defensible explanation of how the chip monitoring translates into fair enforcement?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Big Brother: NPPL Division
The NPPL giveth and the NPPL taketh away. Or, in my case, they tooketh but are now giveth-ing back. (That was awkward.) Rumor reached the paintball public yesterday regarding plans for a monitoring chip the NPPL wants to put in everybody's marker--but just the Pros for now--5 days before the first event of the season. Oh, and the prelim schedule is now posted as well. Here's how my current arrangement with the league works: In exchange for nobody telling me much of anything I agree not to discuss league matters until they are made public through another source. Seems more than fair to me. About the chip--it's the real deal and a few pro teams have tested them (or something very similar) in match conditions over the last few months. We had them (or something very similar) in a test sample of our guns briefly last season. And there was some effort made at Galveston to have the chips installed in Pro team guns. [We had tentatively agreed but our Friday schedule didn't allow for the time as it turned out. I don't know how many teams had them installed in Galveston either. And I am hedging my assumption it's the same chip because, while it seems to be performing identical functions, it appears the two leagues are interested in it for different reasons. It is the same manufacturer in both cases however.]
UPDATE: Virtue sent the ProPaintball kids an email claiming Damage had chips in some guns in Galveston. Since they say we did I don't doubt it's true. My comments above were based on what I thought I knew--and it wasn't something I followed closely once I was comfortable that it wouldn't affect our guns.
Every indication I have seen suggests they work as advertised though I don't think we had them in long enough to judge potential impact on battery life. Even so, as a practical matter it seems to me any concerns of that sort are probably over-stated.
That said (typed) (keyed) (whatever) I do have some concerns. The timing is poor to say the least and if I were on a team that had no prior experience with the chips I would flat out refuse to accept them at this late date. I might be otherwise convinced if the purpose was purely testing at HB and I had the option to opt out if it appeared there was any loss of marker performance. But that's just me. Beyond that we have no idea how the ROF will be enforced. Let's agree the chip accurately monitors the firing of each and every paintball. So what? There is a 15 bps cap on a gun shooting in a semi-auto mode. [In the PSP with ramping guns enforcement measures the time gap between shots. A dirty little secret is most ROF violations are both unintentional and outside the player's control.] It seems to me semi-auto mode assures inconsistent gap times between shots while the cap theoretically will limit a marker to 15 bps regardless of how fast the trigger is being pulled. So my question is what constitutes a ROF violation? How does the chip monitor for that? And how does that data result in pulling the appropriate penalty? Finally there's the question of the collected data. The idea is that accumulated data has potential value. If so, who is collecting it and how does the league assure it won't fall into the wrong hands? Or is it the league's intention to make all the data available to anyone who wants it?
And what about the schedule? Yeah, buddy. At HB the league is not only beginning the 2011 season it is undergoing a critical test with a live streaming webcast on ESPN3 and chooses to go with a new format in which up to one third of all the scheduled games may not be played. Looking at the schedule there is already extra time plugged into it--I'm assuming for some extra TV type stuff like interviews and player info--but still, if those third (and deciding) games aren't routinely happening I can foresee a lot of empty air time. Fingers crossed.
UPDATE: Virtue sent the ProPaintball kids an email claiming Damage had chips in some guns in Galveston. Since they say we did I don't doubt it's true. My comments above were based on what I thought I knew--and it wasn't something I followed closely once I was comfortable that it wouldn't affect our guns.
Every indication I have seen suggests they work as advertised though I don't think we had them in long enough to judge potential impact on battery life. Even so, as a practical matter it seems to me any concerns of that sort are probably over-stated.
That said (typed) (keyed) (whatever) I do have some concerns. The timing is poor to say the least and if I were on a team that had no prior experience with the chips I would flat out refuse to accept them at this late date. I might be otherwise convinced if the purpose was purely testing at HB and I had the option to opt out if it appeared there was any loss of marker performance. But that's just me. Beyond that we have no idea how the ROF will be enforced. Let's agree the chip accurately monitors the firing of each and every paintball. So what? There is a 15 bps cap on a gun shooting in a semi-auto mode. [In the PSP with ramping guns enforcement measures the time gap between shots. A dirty little secret is most ROF violations are both unintentional and outside the player's control.] It seems to me semi-auto mode assures inconsistent gap times between shots while the cap theoretically will limit a marker to 15 bps regardless of how fast the trigger is being pulled. So my question is what constitutes a ROF violation? How does the chip monitor for that? And how does that data result in pulling the appropriate penalty? Finally there's the question of the collected data. The idea is that accumulated data has potential value. If so, who is collecting it and how does the league assure it won't fall into the wrong hands? Or is it the league's intention to make all the data available to anyone who wants it?
And what about the schedule? Yeah, buddy. At HB the league is not only beginning the 2011 season it is undergoing a critical test with a live streaming webcast on ESPN3 and chooses to go with a new format in which up to one third of all the scheduled games may not be played. Looking at the schedule there is already extra time plugged into it--I'm assuming for some extra TV type stuff like interviews and player info--but still, if those third (and deciding) games aren't routinely happening I can foresee a lot of empty air time. Fingers crossed.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Burning Question
Hey APPA, how many first time i.d.'s were issued at Galveston and how many were issued to players 30 and older compared to Phoenix last year? Isn't that the sort of data the league should have already requested APPA determine to help evaluate the effectiveness of the older, fatter, slower rule changes? How 'bout sharing with us?
After all the point wasn't to turn Race 2-X into Snooze 2-2 (or 3). And it wasn't to shoot a third (or more) more paint--yet here we are. And if anyone at the PSP is thinking of raising the ROF in order to compensate, don't.
After all the point wasn't to turn Race 2-X into Snooze 2-2 (or 3). And it wasn't to shoot a third (or more) more paint--yet here we are. And if anyone at the PSP is thinking of raising the ROF in order to compensate, don't.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
PSP Galveston Recap
First up is the rules recap. (I'm doing this stuff first 'cus it's incredibly boring and dull and if I put towards the end of the post y'all would probably skip it.) Those of you with a masochistic bent will recall the VFTD post, PSP Rules Questions. In Galveston I had the opportunity to follow-up and receive clarifications of those questions. It was a good thing I did as the "rules" enforced bore no resemblance to the written rules. (Yes, this sorta thing is very annoying. Kinda like NBA refs giving the superstars a pass on traveling violations.)
Rule 3.1.2 states, "At no time during any team points or matches, may anyone communicate from the designated staging area to any Active Players."
Which may or may not be fine but wasn't the "rule" enforced in Galveston. The actual rule (mostly) enforced could be written as follows; Any action, aural or physical, including non-verbal sounds and gestures or patterned movements or the use of devices like signs that could be interpreted as an effort to communicate with persons on the field during the play of the game by any person within the staging area is prohibited.
Worse was the stated determination to extend an unwritten and personal opinion of "fair play" to the spectator sideline. The rules no longer address any coaching issues period. The rules for 2011 are blind to any notion or aspect of coaching. Given that fact there is no basis in the rules for deciding one thing or another is either allowed or "fair play." The claim at the time was that it fell under unsportsmanlike conduct but that's self-serving nonsense as well. Without a definition it simply becomes a catch-all that allows an ultimate (or a commissioner) to do whatever they want. I don't care who you are nobody has any business making up the rules as they go along. Or, for that matter, enforcing rules contrary to how they appear in the rule book.
(Do I treat this kinda stuff more harshly when it's the PSP than the NPPL? Yes, because the PSP represents itself as the league promoting paintball as sport and I take them at their word.)
By and large the field at Galveston played the way I suggested it would far too much of the time; slow & boring. Unless this was part of some masterplan to incrementally move the two competing national formats closer and closer until they are indistinguishable from one another it didn't do the PSP any favors either. Whether it's called xball or Race 2 the format was in a conceptual shambles at Galveston. Part of the issue was the longer field and part was the specifics of the layout chosen. (In leveling this criticism I am not blaming the field designer. Some of you may know who it is but I'm not naming him purposefully. In recent years he has developed a good general understanding and works very hard to provide new, unusual but still playable and entertaining designs--which isn't an easy task--and the new mini A's aren't helpful either.) The problem is juxtaposing the need for secrecy against the notion that including some added voices of experience into the process could be beneficial. Or it might not. I'm also unconvinced there are enough bunkers for the new field dimensions. Fortunately there's time between now and Chitown--oh, wait, we don't yet know, despite the rash of recent rumors, if there will be a Chicago event this year--to consider possible improvements to the process.
UPDATE: Harrass and you shall receive. PSP has posted info on the Chicago area event.
As a resort community Galveston is West Palm Beach compared to Palm Beach. For those unfamiliar with Florida Galveston is like the promise of The Strip in Vegas when reality turns out to be the million-and-one-lightbulbs of La Galleria de Jackpot on the east side of town surrounded by check cashing joints and RV parks. If that didn't do it for you think dinner at Denny's at Ruth's Chris prices. The event was held on a lumpy patch of ground with nothing to commend it other than the grass was decent and there was enough room for the fields. I understand the league is economizing and if you gave me a sheet of optional either/or choices to check off I would pick those that enhanced the competition every time over those that enhanced the venue--but that's really what it is coming down to. At events like Galveston there is nothing there to justify the time and expense except the competition. If the competition falters ...
Back to a few numbers. In the Day 1 & Day 2 reports VFTD noted that nearly 50% of the prelim matches in D1-D3 went to time instead of score. If D4 Race 2-4 was included in the total it would be well over 50% of all those matches went to time. Kick in the playoff matches and the total drops to slightly under 50%. While I'm at it I also want to object, on competitive grounds, to the way the pro division is playing out with a 10 team division. This time 4 of the 10 finished with identical records and will be ranked 5th-8th based on point differential despite not all of them sharing common opponents. I acknowledge that is the rule but it strikes me as woefully unsatisfactory for what is supposed to be the epitome of competitive paintball. Why not rock, paper, scissors to decide. A return to last year's formula would go a long way toward assuring each team earned their ranking and would create some added Sunday excitement.
I'm running way long so I'll save a pro team round-up until tomorrow. Y'all come back now, ya hear. (Oh, and can some kind-hearted Texan tell me when Texas decided to take the bone outta a T-bone steak and smash it round and thin? Two different, relatively high priced restaurants passed off the same sorry piece of meat as a T-bone steak.)
Rule 3.1.2 states, "At no time during any team points or matches, may anyone communicate from the designated staging area to any Active Players."
Which may or may not be fine but wasn't the "rule" enforced in Galveston. The actual rule (mostly) enforced could be written as follows; Any action, aural or physical, including non-verbal sounds and gestures or patterned movements or the use of devices like signs that could be interpreted as an effort to communicate with persons on the field during the play of the game by any person within the staging area is prohibited.
Worse was the stated determination to extend an unwritten and personal opinion of "fair play" to the spectator sideline. The rules no longer address any coaching issues period. The rules for 2011 are blind to any notion or aspect of coaching. Given that fact there is no basis in the rules for deciding one thing or another is either allowed or "fair play." The claim at the time was that it fell under unsportsmanlike conduct but that's self-serving nonsense as well. Without a definition it simply becomes a catch-all that allows an ultimate (or a commissioner) to do whatever they want. I don't care who you are nobody has any business making up the rules as they go along. Or, for that matter, enforcing rules contrary to how they appear in the rule book.
(Do I treat this kinda stuff more harshly when it's the PSP than the NPPL? Yes, because the PSP represents itself as the league promoting paintball as sport and I take them at their word.)
By and large the field at Galveston played the way I suggested it would far too much of the time; slow & boring. Unless this was part of some masterplan to incrementally move the two competing national formats closer and closer until they are indistinguishable from one another it didn't do the PSP any favors either. Whether it's called xball or Race 2 the format was in a conceptual shambles at Galveston. Part of the issue was the longer field and part was the specifics of the layout chosen. (In leveling this criticism I am not blaming the field designer. Some of you may know who it is but I'm not naming him purposefully. In recent years he has developed a good general understanding and works very hard to provide new, unusual but still playable and entertaining designs--which isn't an easy task--and the new mini A's aren't helpful either.) The problem is juxtaposing the need for secrecy against the notion that including some added voices of experience into the process could be beneficial. Or it might not. I'm also unconvinced there are enough bunkers for the new field dimensions. Fortunately there's time between now and Chitown--oh, wait, we don't yet know, despite the rash of recent rumors, if there will be a Chicago event this year--to consider possible improvements to the process.
UPDATE: Harrass and you shall receive. PSP has posted info on the Chicago area event.
As a resort community Galveston is West Palm Beach compared to Palm Beach. For those unfamiliar with Florida Galveston is like the promise of The Strip in Vegas when reality turns out to be the million-and-one-lightbulbs of La Galleria de Jackpot on the east side of town surrounded by check cashing joints and RV parks. If that didn't do it for you think dinner at Denny's at Ruth's Chris prices. The event was held on a lumpy patch of ground with nothing to commend it other than the grass was decent and there was enough room for the fields. I understand the league is economizing and if you gave me a sheet of optional either/or choices to check off I would pick those that enhanced the competition every time over those that enhanced the venue--but that's really what it is coming down to. At events like Galveston there is nothing there to justify the time and expense except the competition. If the competition falters ...
Back to a few numbers. In the Day 1 & Day 2 reports VFTD noted that nearly 50% of the prelim matches in D1-D3 went to time instead of score. If D4 Race 2-4 was included in the total it would be well over 50% of all those matches went to time. Kick in the playoff matches and the total drops to slightly under 50%. While I'm at it I also want to object, on competitive grounds, to the way the pro division is playing out with a 10 team division. This time 4 of the 10 finished with identical records and will be ranked 5th-8th based on point differential despite not all of them sharing common opponents. I acknowledge that is the rule but it strikes me as woefully unsatisfactory for what is supposed to be the epitome of competitive paintball. Why not rock, paper, scissors to decide. A return to last year's formula would go a long way toward assuring each team earned their ranking and would create some added Sunday excitement.
I'm running way long so I'll save a pro team round-up until tomorrow. Y'all come back now, ya hear. (Oh, and can some kind-hearted Texan tell me when Texas decided to take the bone outta a T-bone steak and smash it round and thin? Two different, relatively high priced restaurants passed off the same sorry piece of meat as a T-bone steak.)
Sunday, March 6, 2011
PSP Rules Questions
I noticed over at PBN some peeps were inquiring about the possibility of being placed in separate prelim brackets ostensibly because they were "sister" teams (which their names suggested was likely the truth.) It was explained to them that the rules specify how the seeding is worked out and the result is what it is. It was further suggested to them they should read the rules in advance and figure this stuff out. (Though it may have been to the PSP's benefit they didn't, otherwise they might not have bothered to come.) Be that as it may what the rules didn't address--so far as I can tell (though I confess I haven't read every single word)--is how to handle the potential for collusion when sister or otherwise related teams meet during the competition. This strikes me as an oversight particularly as the issue and situation is nothing new in tourney paintball. I am not suggesting that in such circumstances teams will necessarily cheat but shouldn't the rules address the possibility and have a method in place for handling such situations?
Anyway, that got me wondering about a couple other items. One is a rules question and one is more of a procedural question, I suppose. On the procedural front I'm curious about the order teams play one another. Is there a standardized formula in place depending on the bracket size etc. that comes into play automatically or is the playing order for matches somehow determined randomly?
Regarding the rules I am curious about 3.1.2 which states, "At no time during any team points or matches, may anyone communicate from the designated staging area to any Active Players."
What I'd like to have clarified is the word "communicate." (Yes, I have a very specific reason in mind.) And since the term 'Active Players' was used specifically and active player denotes a very specific status in the rules, does that mean communication with anyone who isn't an Active Player is okay? And perhaps how the determination will be made between an intent to 'communicate' to someone outside the staging area as opposed to someone within the staging area? Or to someone other than an 'Active Player'?
Anyway, that got me wondering about a couple other items. One is a rules question and one is more of a procedural question, I suppose. On the procedural front I'm curious about the order teams play one another. Is there a standardized formula in place depending on the bracket size etc. that comes into play automatically or is the playing order for matches somehow determined randomly?
Regarding the rules I am curious about 3.1.2 which states, "At no time during any team points or matches, may anyone communicate from the designated staging area to any Active Players."
What I'd like to have clarified is the word "communicate." (Yes, I have a very specific reason in mind.) And since the term 'Active Players' was used specifically and active player denotes a very specific status in the rules, does that mean communication with anyone who isn't an Active Player is okay? And perhaps how the determination will be made between an intent to 'communicate' to someone outside the staging area as opposed to someone within the staging area? Or to someone other than an 'Active Player'?
3.1.1.5. "No person appearing on the roster of a team may employ an electronic or mechanical device to communicate with any other person during any of their team’s points or matches."
I understand this particular rule but I wonder why there is no rule to address the loophole scenario--particularly as it has occurred in the past. A person using such equipment proximate to the team or rostered players who then communicates information gathered in violation of the rules to a team or players.
Hey, when I get really bored I'll start in the NPPL rule book.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
NPPL 2011 Rulebook Reviewed
The good news is the basic rules are pretty standard and for purposes of playing games in a competition format should prove sufficient most of the time--assuming the league continues to treat markers and potential marker violations as they have in the past.
The less than good news is no real progress has been made with respect to gun rules (and their enforcement) nor any substantive thought given to player classification.
Beginning with player classification the relevant section of the rules is 4.07 - 4.10. Basically a player retains the rank they played under last season unless their team won the NPPL divisional series in which case that roster is bumped up one division except for D1. [And pump, which is Open class play, though the rules are a little fuzzy on specifics.]
A "pro" player is defined as a player who has held a pro or semi-pro rank in either the NPPL or other national or international (series/league) within the last 10 years--though for practical purposes it really only goes back to 2003. [Because that is the year the NPPL 1.0 database was launched and the first season PSP info is available from APPA (not including the NXL.)]
The practical problems begin to arise because numerous contingencies aren't covered [except in the catch-all petition to get reclassified for $50 (4.08)] For example, since divisional teams are allowed to amend their rosters at will over the season what happens to players who may have made only one roster appearance to a series winning team? In the short term it is unlikely to matter much except that classifying players according to their own claims or current team roster isn't particularly rigorous and will probably not inhibit determined sandbagging. It also does I think a terrible disservice to past pro and semi-pro ranked players. Nor do the current rules provide a sufficient foundation for a comprehensive classification system.
Of more immediate impact are the gun rules (7.0 - 7.12) which are, far as I can tell, no real improvement over the old gun rules except there is an extra stage (or two) that allow for verbal warnings before the hammer (potentially) drops--but the process still remains largely arbitrary. And of course they've added the 15 bps cap. Unfortunately the cap is not accompanied by any explanation for how the league intends to enforce a 15 bps limit. There are plenty of penalty options but, as was the case before, their application is frequently subjective. In part because there is also no description(s) or procedure(s) for determining the legality or illegality of a given marker except use of a chronograph (checking velocity) or official's examination.
The problems begin in (7.01, 7.02) which contradict one another with regards ROF for a start though one assumes the cap supercedes other statements. Also in the same sections is the same old semi-auto, one trigger pull and release equals one shot definition that does not accurately describe the working of any electropneumatic marker yet is supposed to be the operating standard by which all competing markers are judged. (Wishing doesn't make it so.) 7.03 is an effort neutralize some of the simple and obvious ways marker performance can be altered. 7.04 - 7.05 relate to surrender and inspection of a suspect marker but these are purely procedural and penalties may still be handed out on the subjective determination of the inspecting referee. 7.06 restates velocity and ROF limitations and notes the relevant penalty sections. (Still nothing about how a ROF violation is to be determined.) Velocity is checked via chronograph as is the norm.
The next relevant section is Eliminations & Penalties. (22) And Suspensions, Disqualifications & Fines. (23) These 2 sections define the consequences assigned to various hot gun situations and gun "bounce" situations and the dreaded "illegal marker." There are no specific mentions ROF or other shot adding infractions or means of detection which leaves the league in essentially the enforcement position it has been in all along. With a ROF cap the league just added another rule it can't fairly enforce.
The less than good news is no real progress has been made with respect to gun rules (and their enforcement) nor any substantive thought given to player classification.
Beginning with player classification the relevant section of the rules is 4.07 - 4.10. Basically a player retains the rank they played under last season unless their team won the NPPL divisional series in which case that roster is bumped up one division except for D1. [And pump, which is Open class play, though the rules are a little fuzzy on specifics.]
A "pro" player is defined as a player who has held a pro or semi-pro rank in either the NPPL or other national or international (series/league) within the last 10 years--though for practical purposes it really only goes back to 2003. [Because that is the year the NPPL 1.0 database was launched and the first season PSP info is available from APPA (not including the NXL.)]
The practical problems begin to arise because numerous contingencies aren't covered [except in the catch-all petition to get reclassified for $50 (4.08)] For example, since divisional teams are allowed to amend their rosters at will over the season what happens to players who may have made only one roster appearance to a series winning team? In the short term it is unlikely to matter much except that classifying players according to their own claims or current team roster isn't particularly rigorous and will probably not inhibit determined sandbagging. It also does I think a terrible disservice to past pro and semi-pro ranked players. Nor do the current rules provide a sufficient foundation for a comprehensive classification system.
Of more immediate impact are the gun rules (7.0 - 7.12) which are, far as I can tell, no real improvement over the old gun rules except there is an extra stage (or two) that allow for verbal warnings before the hammer (potentially) drops--but the process still remains largely arbitrary. And of course they've added the 15 bps cap. Unfortunately the cap is not accompanied by any explanation for how the league intends to enforce a 15 bps limit. There are plenty of penalty options but, as was the case before, their application is frequently subjective. In part because there is also no description(s) or procedure(s) for determining the legality or illegality of a given marker except use of a chronograph (checking velocity) or official's examination.
The problems begin in (7.01, 7.02) which contradict one another with regards ROF for a start though one assumes the cap supercedes other statements. Also in the same sections is the same old semi-auto, one trigger pull and release equals one shot definition that does not accurately describe the working of any electropneumatic marker yet is supposed to be the operating standard by which all competing markers are judged. (Wishing doesn't make it so.) 7.03 is an effort neutralize some of the simple and obvious ways marker performance can be altered. 7.04 - 7.05 relate to surrender and inspection of a suspect marker but these are purely procedural and penalties may still be handed out on the subjective determination of the inspecting referee. 7.06 restates velocity and ROF limitations and notes the relevant penalty sections. (Still nothing about how a ROF violation is to be determined.) Velocity is checked via chronograph as is the norm.
The next relevant section is Eliminations & Penalties. (22) And Suspensions, Disqualifications & Fines. (23) These 2 sections define the consequences assigned to various hot gun situations and gun "bounce" situations and the dreaded "illegal marker." There are no specific mentions ROF or other shot adding infractions or means of detection which leaves the league in essentially the enforcement position it has been in all along. With a ROF cap the league just added another rule it can't fairly enforce.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
NPPL 2011
I don't know about you but I'm (temporarily) tired of talking about the PSP--so it really doesn't matter whether you are or not. I'd like to have something to talk about when it comes to the other guys, NPPL & MS, but they are both laying low right now. I do have a pdf from the fevered imagination of the Millennium's marketing collective that couldn't be more disconnected from reality if it had been written by a long-time opium addict. (Yes, it's the 2011 sponsorship package.)
Otherwise all I've got is the NPPL capping "semi-auto" at 15 bps & the new bunkers, cubes and big wedges. Whoop-dee-freaking-doo. Oh, and the NPPL has put out hard dates for their complete 2011 schedule of events. The locations are the same as last year's but there's nothing wrong with that as the season opens with the now traditional Huntington Beach, Chitown at Challenge Park outside Joliet (IL) Pev's in Aldie (VA) and Vegas. The one thing I do notice is that none of the events occur during the summer. April, May, September & November? What? There's almost 4 months between events two and three. I'm mildly surprised that the can't-wait-for-the-new-NPPL-season-to-get-started crowd--yes, that's sarcasm--hasn't uttered a peep about the weird break in the season. Of course the NPPL crowd are pretty laid back. PSP changes one bunker and all hell breaks loose with local fields across the country practically bursting into flames with the news; the NPPL changes two bunkers including the "new" family-sized wedge and a couple of stoners notice and go, "Whoa. Cool, dudes." Then again there are so few NPPL fields around the country the impact across the paintball community is negligible. Regarding the capped gun thing nobody seems too put out by that one either. Oh, sure there's a few lamenting the loss of their trigger pulling skill 'cause they can pull 18-20 easy--but if it helps the league with enforceable gun rules--well, okay. We don't yet know how the league intends to enforce their cap but they'll get around to it. Right?
There is one other thing that interests me. Could too much success put the NPPL in the PSP's predicament? Part of the PSP's current problems are a product of scale; how many teams must play in order for an event to be profitable? The NPPL 3.0 has, from Day 1, been looking to mimic some of the elements of the PSP like the regional affiliates. They are also making an effort to expand their reach but what if Huntington Beach registrations push the league beyond two fields? To three or four even. Is that necessarily a good thing?
If NPPL 3.0 were to go to a best of 3 (Race 2-2) format that would put the two major leagues that much closer given the changes in store for the PSP in 2011. (From what I hear it may happen for the Pros but is unlikely for the lower divisions which may have something to do with the logistics of running Race 2-2 on two fields. It hasn't been easy to run the Race format as a 3 day event for the PSP.)
Otherwise all I've got is the NPPL capping "semi-auto" at 15 bps & the new bunkers, cubes and big wedges. Whoop-dee-freaking-doo. Oh, and the NPPL has put out hard dates for their complete 2011 schedule of events. The locations are the same as last year's but there's nothing wrong with that as the season opens with the now traditional Huntington Beach, Chitown at Challenge Park outside Joliet (IL) Pev's in Aldie (VA) and Vegas. The one thing I do notice is that none of the events occur during the summer. April, May, September & November? What? There's almost 4 months between events two and three. I'm mildly surprised that the can't-wait-for-the-new-NPPL-season-to-get-started crowd--yes, that's sarcasm--hasn't uttered a peep about the weird break in the season. Of course the NPPL crowd are pretty laid back. PSP changes one bunker and all hell breaks loose with local fields across the country practically bursting into flames with the news; the NPPL changes two bunkers including the "new" family-sized wedge and a couple of stoners notice and go, "Whoa. Cool, dudes." Then again there are so few NPPL fields around the country the impact across the paintball community is negligible. Regarding the capped gun thing nobody seems too put out by that one either. Oh, sure there's a few lamenting the loss of their trigger pulling skill 'cause they can pull 18-20 easy--but if it helps the league with enforceable gun rules--well, okay. We don't yet know how the league intends to enforce their cap but they'll get around to it. Right?
There is one other thing that interests me. Could too much success put the NPPL in the PSP's predicament? Part of the PSP's current problems are a product of scale; how many teams must play in order for an event to be profitable? The NPPL 3.0 has, from Day 1, been looking to mimic some of the elements of the PSP like the regional affiliates. They are also making an effort to expand their reach but what if Huntington Beach registrations push the league beyond two fields? To three or four even. Is that necessarily a good thing?
If NPPL 3.0 were to go to a best of 3 (Race 2-2) format that would put the two major leagues that much closer given the changes in store for the PSP in 2011. (From what I hear it may happen for the Pros but is unlikely for the lower divisions which may have something to do with the logistics of running Race 2-2 on two fields. It hasn't been easy to run the Race format as a 3 day event for the PSP.)
Saturday, December 11, 2010
PSP "Rumors" Revisited
A few more thoughts on how the latest batch of changes will affect competitive paintball and those who play the game. First, I wonder if the PSP has locked itself into these changes by confirming the rumors on their official website. Sure, changes to the changes might be viewed as the league "listening" to its customers but at the same time wouldn't it undermine the league's credibility? It seems some percentage of the current discontent is over the fact the PSP can't seem to do anything but change.
It also seems that the average internet whiner is only quasi-literate at best. (I was going to say the average PSP-playing internet whiner but then it occurred to me I have no idea how many of the commenters have actually played a PSP event. That's not a prerequisite to having an opinion but it is a prerequisite to my paying any attention to that opinion.) The inability of so many to simply comprehend the PSP's stated changes is enough to shatter one's faith in our future generations--assuming one was foolish enough to have any in the first place. No more pit side coaching is NOT no more coaching. Adding ten feet to each end of a 150 foot field doesn't make it a 180 foot field. A larger field and restrictive design qualifications have nothing to do with reducing overall costs to teams/players.
Did you miss the previous rumors post? Scroll down the page or look here. The case for saving money by not releasing the field layout in advance is made there in two additional links. If you didn't (or don't) bother to look at it there, I won't bother to go through it again here. Suffice to say every other change the PSP has made to reduce costs has directly altered the game played on the field; fewer points, less clock, etc. Non-release doesn't do that. Nor does it keep teams from practicing how and how often they want. Instead it gives all teams an opportunity to re-think what it really takes to prepare and to focus on the players' strengths and weaknesses instead of paint intensive rote repetition. Non-release may not save the lower divisions all that much even--depending on how they choose to prepare but it will save the upper divisions a lot of money and make it less costly for serious teams to move up the ranks.
As to removing pit side coaching it looks to me like more trouble than it's worth. For non-PSP players who whine about coaching it's only half a job done, right? Will they suddenly change their mind because coaching is limited to the snake side only? And I am convinced that enforcement of the no-coaching will be inconsistent or Draconian and both courses will only serve to anger and frustrate teams/players already committed to the PSP.
The players the PSP hopes to bring back to--or into--the PSP with the change in field design and dimensions aren't interested--and don't belong. Like it or not the PSP has positioned itself as the league that promotes competitive paintball as sport. To undo that now would be counterproductive. And won't bring in the player the PSP is looking for. The player they are looking for and need now is the player they pushed out of the game over the last few years by unnecessarily forcing too many of them into classifications they hadn't earned and couldn't continue to compete in. If you want those guys back drop them a whole rank for each year they haven't played a PSP event with a floor of two ranks max. All current Semi-pro players would drop no lower than D2 while D1's wouldn't drop lower than D3. Get as many of them as possible back into circulation and begin to reverse the dumbing down process of the recent past by leavening the mid-divisions with good, competent players. The player they want to draw with the design and dimensions change is the player who should be the backbone of the next generation of local teams--not a national level competitor in D3 or lower.
As a practical matter neither of the major leagues is in a position to lower entry fees. They simply aren't. With revenue from the industry reduced to a trickle almost all the money to operate on comes from entries and related fees. What the NPPL 3.0 stumbled into may be the lesson the PSP needs to learn. Perhaps the league needs to scale back and potentially restrict the total number of teams that can compete if a combination of entries and calculated operational costs provide greater certainty of profitability from event to event.
It also seems that the average internet whiner is only quasi-literate at best. (I was going to say the average PSP-playing internet whiner but then it occurred to me I have no idea how many of the commenters have actually played a PSP event. That's not a prerequisite to having an opinion but it is a prerequisite to my paying any attention to that opinion.) The inability of so many to simply comprehend the PSP's stated changes is enough to shatter one's faith in our future generations--assuming one was foolish enough to have any in the first place. No more pit side coaching is NOT no more coaching. Adding ten feet to each end of a 150 foot field doesn't make it a 180 foot field. A larger field and restrictive design qualifications have nothing to do with reducing overall costs to teams/players.
Did you miss the previous rumors post? Scroll down the page or look here. The case for saving money by not releasing the field layout in advance is made there in two additional links. If you didn't (or don't) bother to look at it there, I won't bother to go through it again here. Suffice to say every other change the PSP has made to reduce costs has directly altered the game played on the field; fewer points, less clock, etc. Non-release doesn't do that. Nor does it keep teams from practicing how and how often they want. Instead it gives all teams an opportunity to re-think what it really takes to prepare and to focus on the players' strengths and weaknesses instead of paint intensive rote repetition. Non-release may not save the lower divisions all that much even--depending on how they choose to prepare but it will save the upper divisions a lot of money and make it less costly for serious teams to move up the ranks.
As to removing pit side coaching it looks to me like more trouble than it's worth. For non-PSP players who whine about coaching it's only half a job done, right? Will they suddenly change their mind because coaching is limited to the snake side only? And I am convinced that enforcement of the no-coaching will be inconsistent or Draconian and both courses will only serve to anger and frustrate teams/players already committed to the PSP.
The players the PSP hopes to bring back to--or into--the PSP with the change in field design and dimensions aren't interested--and don't belong. Like it or not the PSP has positioned itself as the league that promotes competitive paintball as sport. To undo that now would be counterproductive. And won't bring in the player the PSP is looking for. The player they are looking for and need now is the player they pushed out of the game over the last few years by unnecessarily forcing too many of them into classifications they hadn't earned and couldn't continue to compete in. If you want those guys back drop them a whole rank for each year they haven't played a PSP event with a floor of two ranks max. All current Semi-pro players would drop no lower than D2 while D1's wouldn't drop lower than D3. Get as many of them as possible back into circulation and begin to reverse the dumbing down process of the recent past by leavening the mid-divisions with good, competent players. The player they want to draw with the design and dimensions change is the player who should be the backbone of the next generation of local teams--not a national level competitor in D3 or lower.
As a practical matter neither of the major leagues is in a position to lower entry fees. They simply aren't. With revenue from the industry reduced to a trickle almost all the money to operate on comes from entries and related fees. What the NPPL 3.0 stumbled into may be the lesson the PSP needs to learn. Perhaps the league needs to scale back and potentially restrict the total number of teams that can compete if a combination of entries and calculated operational costs provide greater certainty of profitability from event to event.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
PSP 2011: Rumor Edition
I had a perfectly good post almost ready to go and then the phone started ringing. Have you seen ProPaintball's latest? It seems the kids at ProPaintball have a scoop or a balloon, of the trial variety. Either way, it's going to raise a ruckus. (First ever appearance of the word, "ruckus", on VFTD.) Seems someone has leaked some proposed details of what the PSP may, or may not, be considering for 2011. I suggest it is very likely a trial balloon (an intentional leak) simply because the circle of people having any say in what the PSP does is a small one. The only other alternative is a legit leak from someone in the know breaking trust or else it's complete rubbish fit only for the smackbox--and since that isn't where it was posted ... A number of the rumored elements have been discussed for a long time and aren't really anything new. So what do the rumors amount to?
Beginning at the beginning rumor 1 & 2 are what I've taken to calling 'The Amodea Solution' as the suggestion was made a few months ago by John Amodea of X3 magazine to enlarge the playing fields and add larger bunkers towards the back of the field in the hopes of reconnecting with an older more affluent group of players. Despite what I know will be the impact on the play of the game I would support such a move if there was any reason to believe it will work. Does any such group of players actually exist today? Playing scenario maybe? The number of competing teams back when the PSP transitioned from 10-man to Xball doesn't hint at it unless they are some very patient ex-10-man players. Even so, it might be worth a trial period to see what happens.
It has been suggested some local fields will be ill-equipped to add twenty feet of length. It could happen but field dimensions have changed numerous times in the last dozen years and I can't recall any previous outcry. What exactly, while I'm at it, is the PSP's responsibility?
What will happen is not hard to predict. Dimension and design changes will tend to make fields more defense-oriented with wider open lanes and less middle of the field play. The result will be slower game play--potentially much slower game play. It would be a real step backwards for the pro division.
Now about that trial period. How about from D3 down? After all, what classification are these wished for older more affluent players likely to have or receive? If the PSP wants to see if there might be some advantage to the Amodea Solution go ahead and give it a try where the bulk of the "new" players would likely play and where the effects of the change will impact the play of the game the least.
Next on the list is the elimination of pit side coaching. Right now in divisional play the pit side coach is the primary coach and can roam along the net to the fifty, or thereabouts. On the pro field we can't move past the end of the pit. I'm assuming here the object is to try an attract all those teams out there deadset against coaching. Except, again, how many of them are there really? Is the NPPL full of them? Is the NPPL full? And what about the snake side coaching? What's the point of trying to turn the pit side into a tennis match when there's still snake side coaching and a noisy crowd supporting the competing teams? Is a half measure really gonna change anything beyond pissing off the regulars? And how is this going to be enforced? Are the referees going to start calling penalties for off the field actions that will penalize on field play? Really? For the six guys on the internet who will never play if there's coaching?
Finally we come to a move that makes sense--one that I've been advocating for years. Don't release the field layout early. Versions of my case in favor of no release are here & here.
Lastly, rumored event locations in Phoenix and Riverside. Cool. If the league can or will improve their bottom line with new locations more consistent with the economic realities I'm on board. Hopefully they will work out. Until we see them it's hard to offer a real opinion.
Larger field: (neutral-ish)
Bigger bunkers oriented toward the back: (poor)
Eliminate pit side coaching: (huh?)
No field release: (excellent)
Cumulative: (a step back)
UPDATE: Seems the PSP via their website and Facebook are confirming the posted rumors on ProPaintball. That has pushed me to re-write some of this post. (I left in my initial speculation so you'd know what I was thinking.)
Beginning at the beginning rumor 1 & 2 are what I've taken to calling 'The Amodea Solution' as the suggestion was made a few months ago by John Amodea of X3 magazine to enlarge the playing fields and add larger bunkers towards the back of the field in the hopes of reconnecting with an older more affluent group of players. Despite what I know will be the impact on the play of the game I would support such a move if there was any reason to believe it will work. Does any such group of players actually exist today? Playing scenario maybe? The number of competing teams back when the PSP transitioned from 10-man to Xball doesn't hint at it unless they are some very patient ex-10-man players. Even so, it might be worth a trial period to see what happens.
It has been suggested some local fields will be ill-equipped to add twenty feet of length. It could happen but field dimensions have changed numerous times in the last dozen years and I can't recall any previous outcry. What exactly, while I'm at it, is the PSP's responsibility?
What will happen is not hard to predict. Dimension and design changes will tend to make fields more defense-oriented with wider open lanes and less middle of the field play. The result will be slower game play--potentially much slower game play. It would be a real step backwards for the pro division.
Now about that trial period. How about from D3 down? After all, what classification are these wished for older more affluent players likely to have or receive? If the PSP wants to see if there might be some advantage to the Amodea Solution go ahead and give it a try where the bulk of the "new" players would likely play and where the effects of the change will impact the play of the game the least.
Next on the list is the elimination of pit side coaching. Right now in divisional play the pit side coach is the primary coach and can roam along the net to the fifty, or thereabouts. On the pro field we can't move past the end of the pit. I'm assuming here the object is to try an attract all those teams out there deadset against coaching. Except, again, how many of them are there really? Is the NPPL full of them? Is the NPPL full? And what about the snake side coaching? What's the point of trying to turn the pit side into a tennis match when there's still snake side coaching and a noisy crowd supporting the competing teams? Is a half measure really gonna change anything beyond pissing off the regulars? And how is this going to be enforced? Are the referees going to start calling penalties for off the field actions that will penalize on field play? Really? For the six guys on the internet who will never play if there's coaching?
Finally we come to a move that makes sense--one that I've been advocating for years. Don't release the field layout early. Versions of my case in favor of no release are here & here.
Lastly, rumored event locations in Phoenix and Riverside. Cool. If the league can or will improve their bottom line with new locations more consistent with the economic realities I'm on board. Hopefully they will work out. Until we see them it's hard to offer a real opinion.
Larger field: (neutral-ish)
Bigger bunkers oriented toward the back: (poor)
Eliminate pit side coaching: (huh?)
No field release: (excellent)
Cumulative: (a step back)
UPDATE: Seems the PSP via their website and Facebook are confirming the posted rumors on ProPaintball. That has pushed me to re-write some of this post. (I left in my initial speculation so you'd know what I was thinking.)
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?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
