The Monday Poll

It's alive! Okay, not really. Not by any conventional use of the term alive but it's back. The Monday Poll returns!

The HydroTec paintball news made a splash at first but seems to have fallen off everyone's radar just as suddenly. Of course that's probably because there's no new news to speculate about but I've never let the lack of information stop me before--yes, that was an intentional joke--so it's time to see what y'all think the new paintball will mean for the industry and the game.

Pick the answer that comes closest to your point of view and next week we'll see what the results look like and whether or not you managed to get your Nostradamus on or not. Vote your conscience. Vote for change. Or just vote in the Monday Poll.

What is Tournament Paintball?

It may seem a silly question at first glance but it really isn't. In the recent post, Crazy May be Too Harsh, John, the crux of my objection--beside the weak argumentation--was a strong difference of opinion about what is tournament paintball. Also, given the fact tournament paintball can refer to quite a variety of paintball is why I tend to use the term competitive paintball when discussing the brand of paintball I focus on and participate in. (That's a hint about the distinction I'm going to make.)

Here's a (related) curiosity. Earlier this summer I started to hear some 10-man chattering in the background; the usual what-ifs, how much fun that would be and even a hint or two that somebody might try to resurrect the format for real--and all of a sudden the smackbox at ProPaintball is full of 10-man ranting. Coincidence?

And a current thread in the CFOA forum at PBN that threw out the idea of introducing 7-man in the CFOA morphed into a complaints and suggestions thread. (If you are outta this loop the CFOA is in the same situation as the major leagues having peaked a few years ago.) The most common responses focus on cost, the idea of simplifying by focusing on 5-man and a return to the old CFOA divisions as it seems too many players are being classified out of a chance to compete. Regardless of the specifics or the merits of any complaint or suggestion, in one sense, the thread is really about what tourney ball ought to be like in order for the CFOA to continue and hopefully grow.

When the discussion turns towards how to fix tournament paintball the different answers tell us what the respondents think is the problem. One idea is that the disconnect from our roots in the woods isolates tourney ball from the majority of new players. If so the answer could be some transitional Old Skool type woodsball tournies to introduce the newbies and walk-ons to tourney play. For a while the hot solution was lowering the ROF as all that scary paint in the air discouraged newbies. As John's editorial, the 10-man talk and the CFOA suggestions thread demonstrate there's a group thinking that maybe returning the game to something close to what it was will bring lost players back and invite more new ones into the ranks of tournament players.

Before we try to decide what to do though let's take a closer look at what's different. How is tournament paintball in 2010 different from tournament ball in 2000, 2003 and 2006? On the national scene in 2000 there is only the NPPL. It's year 2 of the cow pasture World Cup. There's a mix of woods, Hyperball and Airball fields. (Correction: last woods year for WC was 1999. 2000 saw some woods fields still in play in Pittsburgh & Chicago.) Electronic markers are becoming more ubiquitous, burst fire capped at 9 bps. Viewloader Revolutions dominate. 296 teams compete in 5-man & 10-man formats. Each field is a different layout. The prelims feature mixed division play but the rules only recognize 3 divisions (Pro, Am A, Am B). However there are so many B teams registered Novice is added and the B's are split into 2 divisions. The whole event lasts a week.
2003 was the first year of the major league split. The PSP (old NPPL) introduced xball at WC '02 and offered 5-man, 10-man and xball. The first year NXL had 8 franchise teams and D1 xball was really a pro-am division. There are 348 teams competing. Overshooting complaints became common and the appearance of ROF & velocity ramping guns in the NXL force the league to begin examining ways to regulate marker performance. It was the first year the pros didn't ref the pros. The first time WC was held at Disney WWOS and there were no wooded fields in play. NXL xball matches were played in two 25 minute halves.
The new NPPL close their first season in Miami with 138 teams, the largest turnout of the season. (That means all you slackers claiming to have been at the first HB are also unrepentant liars. Ok, not all, just most.) The pro teams are playing for a spot in the soon to be locked at 18 team division. The format is 7-man and the league has ties with the MS that allows some ranking points to be scored playing MS event(s). The league tries to ban event sales of Ultra Evil because it stains. PMI prove other paint brands on sale are no different. The league says nevermind. Suspensions explode. Can you say (subjectively determined) major gun violations? The event is played over a long weekend; Friday through Sunday--but everyone comes in a day early to walk the fields.
2006 WC has 304 teams playing 5-man and xball at Disney's WWOS. There are three streets of vendors in the middle of the venue. 11 fields total in play--if I remember correctly. Ramping with a ROF cap of 15 has been in place since the beginning of '05 and it's the second season in the NXL for the Russian Legion. Xball begins play on Thursday with the 5-man to be played over the weekend.
The 2006 NPPL Commander's Cup event was held at the Orange County fairgrounds. There were 125 teams in attendance across 5 7-man divisions. HB opened the '06 NPPL season with 222 teams. Participation peaks at HB and steadily declines over the course of the season. It's a recurring pattern. 3 of the 5 events were held in the parking lots of NFL teams for the third year in a row. Semi-auto remained the core of the gun rules despite the wide availability of custom programmable boards and the failure of the "robot" to catch illegal modes of operation. The pros are only playing Saturday & Sunday on two show fields, otherwise the events run much as they have since the split. It was the last event with the original Super 7 promoter, Pure Promotions, who sell out just before HB '07 amid rumors they consistently lost money running the league.

So what's different and what's, more or less, the same from then then to now? Answers tomorrow along with some conclusions.

MS Paris '10: The Good, the Bad & the Ugly

There will be a lot of good, bad & seriously ugly when this event is played. This layout very heavily favors offense and the more aggressive the better. Even playing defense on this field requires some aggressive movement. It also forces each team to commit to a strategy off the break that will, as often as not, result in a bloodbath--assuming both teams have decent gun skills.

The issue in a nutshell is limited shooting lanes, a modest back center Home bunker, lots of open space and not a lot of options once a point is underway. The choices OTB will be take up territory and get to the wires asap or delay with as many guns up as possible and try to cut your opponent down fast and first--and then get to the wires asap. But let's talk about defense (and it's fundamental futility) first.

Home and the D-wire corner are tall cakes. [EDIT: Nope, D-wire corner is regular CK which means its only utility is as a breakout alternate for a bump upfield. Also significantly reduced ability to contain on outside of wire.) Isolated cakes. Both can serve useful, if defensive, functions in an ordinary game plan and are often taken as primaries almost by default--it's what everybody does. In this case however the risk is quite high that players will stay with those bunkers much too long. (Btw, Home is really only viable for D-side rotation control after the break.) If these bunkers are used in any sort of primary role it must be done with the understanding it will be used to delay the opposition and then serve as a launch point to a secondary bunker. Otherwise players will get stuck in them and subject to multiple angles of attack from ever-widening lanes and almost certain elimination.

Take a look at the purple SD. Along with Home it is the only marginally effective control bunker on the D-side. As will prove obvious on examination it is a high risk play susceptible to cross field attack that also cedes the gun-fighting (edge control) contest to every bunker on the wire. The only remaining alternatives for the defensive-minded are the upfield/middle MT and the brick connected to the center M. The MT has limited D-side effectiveness and if you're going to risk the move to the brick to try and lock down the D-wire odds are your plan is also to push your player into the 50 dorito as well. The reality is the D-wire is a race to the 50 because defensive control of the wire is delaying tactic at best and because the snake can decimate the D-side of the field very quickly unless contained.

Now look at the red Temple. It is the only snake-side bunker capable of contesting with your opponent's S1, S2 and snake 50. (And here is where some will be tempted to use the D-side upfield MT as a snake counter but unless you also commit to playing the D-side as the strong side [3 players that way] all you end up doing is weakening your D-side effort and risking a blown wire by creating a mismatch--in favor of your opponent--from the sound of the horn.) As such expect it to be the one bunker on the field that will almost always be occupied and given that it offers some excellent cross field angles as well I can see some enterprising teams doubling it up early as a change of pace and reasonably safe alternative to doubling Home. It also works as a feed into the snake or a launch point for a highway move. The real risk of the red Temple is that players will hesitate to leave it when the time comes to finish pressing the attack.

Time to switch to offense and check out the green bunkers. The green bunkers can bring eliminating fire to bear on the crossfield and backfield of their opponent. Otherwise the majority of bunker placements encourage contesting each wire individually. The result will be that offensive teams will push to reach the green bunkers first and fast. And on this layout accessing a green snake wire bunker should be quite easy. That means D-side players will be at high risk very quickly. The snake corners cannot contest movement up the snake until the opponent reaches the 50 as is the case for every other bunker except the 50 snake MT. As a consequence this field will see heavy action in and around the snake as it offers the most accessible dominating shots.

If you have any specific questions feel free to post them in comments or drop me an email.

Millennium Sells Out

That's news? Wait a minute. This just in. Millennium sells out Paris event. (I couldn't resist having a little fun at their expense.) Apparently 130 registered teams is a sellout these days. Is that a venue issue or diminished expectations? On the plus side the league hasn't hit 130 teams since Malaga '09--and they are working diligently to try and squeeze some more teams in for Paris. Hey, read the press release, it says so right there in the middle somewhere. All they need now is a new signature sign off--The Millennium Series, We Care.
All kidding aside it's good to see a solid turn out for the final event of the season.

Crazy is probably a little harsh, John.

But you could be doing decreasing concentric circles around the deep end of the pond that is Paintball. Of course I'm not a doctor and I didn't spend last night at a Holiday Inn Express so it's just an opinion and not a diagnosis. As for the rest of you lot--If you missed it I'm referring to John Amodea's editorial in the August issue of X3. (The link is the title.) He closed his editorial by asking his readers if he was crazy and I thought why bother with the traditional letter to the editor when I could as easily respond here at VFTD.
The premise is that major leagues (and much of the rest) of competitive paintball is in decline from its peak years in the middle of the last decade. So far so good. I think we can all agree that actual numbers of participants is down and the numbers are significant. Beyond stating the obvious and giving a nod to the bad economy--this is where things go off the track--the following paragraphs attempt to make the case for why using some dubious assertions and some outlandishly inaccurate variations of the conventional wisdom. For example, fields are shrinking, as are the bunkers and guns are going faster than ever. The last time a tourney field shrank it was by five feet and as a result of Dye buying the wrong sized carpets for the PSP's LA event in 2006. As for bunkers tall cakes and regular cakes are bigger and more playable than the blocks they replace and I don't recall carrots and wingnuts being particularly large or comfy props back in the day either. And none of those claims post date the high water marks for tourney ball anyway. So if they are contributing factors now why weren't they during tourney ball's peak?
Beyond the suspect claims the principle point seems to be that most players can't play at the highest levels. Another revelation. Of course they can't--and they never have. If he really means the majority can't compete at the national level in any division that's just plain silly. They can and they do. Offered in conclusion is the easy peasey solution of lengthening the field and making sure there's a big Home bunker for the old, fat (slow) guy. Why, do that and we're halfway home to the good old days.
Okay, maybe I am being (overly) harsh and it isn't (quite) that bad but it does seem to me that the whole editorial amounts to little more than nostalgia and a retrograde conception of what the game ought to be. It does, however, lead to an interesting dichotomy worth exploring and does lay a (creaky) foundation for asking some important questions because--despite any real editorial clarity it is observably true that the competitive demographic has skewed younger. And at least with Race 2 the game is more physically demanding. But it's also true that there are hundreds, if not thousands of registered competitors no longer competing at the national level for reasons other than the physical demands of the format.
From a practical perspective the real issue is how to sustain major league competitive paintball when the old model of tournament operation is on the verge of failing. Answering that question is far more important than worrying about who is playing and who isn't. Neither league made money during their peak years.
In addition, the fact is there's plenty of alternative tournament and competition paintball options available for much less than national level play costs and none of them show any signs of replacing the current standards. The potential exists more so today to play virtually any kind of paintball you want than ever before.
Beyond the practical the answers to the following will set the path for the future: Is the game's competitive future to be found in its past or is the answer to keep moving forward? Is the movement towards being a sport unsustainable? Is the transition into a sport necessarily going to remake the game as it's played competitively and narrow, at least for a time, the number of devoted players?

Is There A Method To The Madness?

The answer is, yes, of course, there's a method to the madness--and I'm curious. Which particular madness am I referring to? (Given that Paintball is prone to all sorts of insanity.) The madness that is the latest edition of ProPaintball's Pro Power Rankings. No, I haven't changed my mind about the power rankings. Still love 'em. Still think they are good fun for everybody and a great way to generate interest in the pro game--from the borderline pathological to the casual conversation. All good, all the time.
Having glanced over the latest results though I'm curious about an aspect (or two) of the methodology at work. In particular how the issue of two different leagues plays out when only some of the ranked teams compete in both. Clearly, it's a factor as the top 4 teams all compete in both but it does create some potential controversies as well. How does one reasonably compare Vicious with Mutiny, for example. Are the rankings shaded in favor of one league or the other? Can any team that doesn't play both realistically end up on top of the rankings? Would a team that plays both but performs poorly in one be penalized compared to a team that only played one or the other?
Methodology aside, nobody wins or loses on the internet, so it really doesn't matter--but, even so, I can't help but be curious.

Paintball Wars: Is Armageddon on the Horizon?

People in general, not just paintball peeps, tend to believe what they want to believe and further tend to rationalize those beliefs by choosing to selectively believe only the information and/or data that supports their pre-conceived ideas. That appears (in many instances) to be how the battle lines are being drawn in this latest round of the paintball wars. Some are discounting the new water-based paintball and some are latching on to it like a kidnapped child, suddenly and unexpectedly, returned to its family.

Can HydroTec deliver? What happens to the marketplace--and the current manufacturers (of old tech paintballs)--if a new, better and cheaper paintball is introduced? What happens to Paintball? That's the multi-million dollar question.

The Players: the old guard (everybody making the traditional paintball including the return of Richmond Italia.) Includes KEE, DXS and a surprising number of smaller manufacturers around the world despite the North American corporate consolidation efforts (ZAP, X.O., etc.) and companies like GAP & Severe closing down. The new kid on the block, HydroTec (particularly with the rumored support of Kraft Foods) instantly gains credibility--though the proof is in the as-yet-unseen, untested product.

The Game: roughly speaking it's market share, at least for the big players. They have, by and large, gone the route of competing by price (and the economy of scale) although it's not even close to being that simple. Paintballs produced in Asia & India do have a production cost edge certainly on North American manufacturers and probably on Eurokids as well. But proximity matters in terms of shipping costs, currency exchange rates and even the delivered quality of the product. As does high end quality in a portion of the market and the effective reach of a manufacturer's distribution arm. What it amounts to is there are a myriad of factors involved beyond just making paint. The important thing to keep in mind is that in today's paint market there is a balance between quality and cost and the competition over sales is predominantly by price.

The Outcome: Whether HydroTec will kick off a new, hot paintball war is dependant on the quality of the new paintball--from shell consistency, breaking characteristics, marking ability, etc.--and the wholesale pricing structure. That, and their ability to deliver product in a timely manner. Let us assume for the moment the new paintball is as advertised; the functional equal of current paintball tech at something in the neighborhood of half the manufacturing cost. That would put HydroTec in the driver's seat but still leave some wiggle room for the old guard.
How would HydroTec play it? I had assumed the big players would look for opportunities to file lawsuits in hopes of delaying or inhibiting a HydroTec rollout. One source reasonably close to the situation doesn't think there's any room for legal maneuvering. I'll believe that when I don't see it. Basically HydroTec will have two ways of playing this. They can take on the established players by undercutting their best prices and still make a profit as they build a distribution network. And/or they can establish their superiority and then be open to negotiate licensing agreements, perhaps with flagship manufacturers in key regions around the world.

The Fallout: Again, assuming the new paintball is as claimed a variety of things are likely to result. It could be a real boon for competitive paintball where cheaper paint could have a real impact on a player's and/or team's ability to compete. It will almost certainly force the old guard's big players to try and match the technology. It's an open question if HydroTec can "protect" a water-based paintball--as opposed to patenting the process--but it leaves the potential for a small window of opportunity to the old guard. In the meantime even a brilliant success from HydroTec will take time to build up its manufacturing volume and distribution network which is where the old guard's big players find that window of opportunity; in the time it will take for HydroTec to take control of the market. Regardless of how HydroTec works out (or doesn't) the same basic tensions will continue to exist between wholesale cost and end user customer cost. A cheaper case of paint at the wholesale level eases some of the pressure on higher volume retailers and could allow for improved margins but as with the promises of small ball when the retailer benefits that savings isn't, for the most part, passed on to the customer. Or, if the savings are passed along to the customer the current debate over how the local field should operate will continue unabated. To say nothing of what happens to established PBIndustry giants if they can't compete with the new paintball.

Burning Question

Wasn't the mantra of NPPL 3.0 that there needed to be a real players' league again without vested industry involvement and control? So if HydroTec enters the market as a serious player what will that make Chuck (Hendsch) & (the silent partner)? And will the paint companies sponsor the league of their newest competition?

Burning Question

Tom Kaye in the news under a different name?

Pro Team Attrition

Remember when shrinking sponsorships and the lack of paint sponsorships in particular bespoke imminent doom for the ranks of pro teams? As it turns out there's doom--and then there's more doom. More than enough doom for nearly everyone. The downward spiral that has seen the once overflowing PBIndustry gravy train run dry and leave many teams without first killed off the weak and defenseless, those almost fully dependent on industry largesse for their survival. As team numbers shrank those that survived the first round of cutbacks may (or may not) have seen a modest uptick as the total number of pro teams decreased. But the thinned ranks also invited new teams to take their chances and, at least temporarily, swell the ranks of pro teams again. So while the pro ranks haven't altogether gone the way of the dinosaurs (yet) the forces driving them to the brink of extinction continue to wreak silent havoc.

As in the past we first see signs of the next round of losses after mid-season. With Arsenal re-joining the NPPL in DC (and 3 D1 teams tossed into the pro mix) it (mostly) covered the no-show status of Entourage & Explicit. Not as well known a majority of XSV regulars didn't make DC either. Under the surface there is the reduced practice schedules of many pro teams (just like last year) and at MAO there was an undercurrent of dialogue about current pro teams taking a hard look at their ability to continue past this year. The numbers suggest anywhere from 4 to 6 pro teams may be unable to compete in 2011. And realistically similar numbers may come from the other major league although the NPPL may benefit from some two league teams opting to go NPPL only. Assuming the NPPL extends into 2011. (I'm not hinting at trouble--only that even if the NPPL manages to break even in 2010 there remains substantial debt from 2009.)

It will be intriguing to discover if the new paintball (and corresponding rumor of prices & costs) has any impact on pro team attrition or even major league paint sponsorship. Whispers suggest that some dialogue already exists sub rosa on the sponsorship prospects for the prospective new paint manufacturer and a significant cost reduction could breathe some new life into struggling programs.

The other factor that could help with pro attrition is VFTD's oft repeated suggestion that pro field layouts not be revealed prior to the event(s) which would radically reduce practice paint usage and the "need" to burn tournament volumes of paint in scrimmaging points.

(Yeah, yeah, the paint wars is coming. I didn't forget, just got side-tracked.)

Mr. Curious

Offered up this bit of news a few days ago. And while VFTD mostly stays away from team and player gossip this news fits in with another post that will be up shortly.
It seems there is a likely explanation for Aftershock's poor showing at the recent MAO event. Just prior to the event Shock's mystery moneyman is said to have pulled out leaving the players to fend for themselves at the last minute and leaving their future uncertain.

Here's hoping everything works out.

Small Ball Assault

Facefull has the skinny on a massive deal between Syder 50 cal and Giant Paintball Parks, which operates SC Village, Hollywood Sports, Cali Paintball & San Diego Giant Paintball Parks and affiliates. Throughout the debate about small ball it has been suggested the real hurdle isn't today's player but the big recreational sites and with the purchase of 4K markers Giant Paintball Parks has made a--yes, I had to do it--giant commitment to small ball in their future operations.

Tomorrow--breaking down the latest in the paintball wars.

Over the weekend, VFTD restructures the penalty system for Race 2 competition paintball.

Throw in the Towel?

If you looked at yesterday's links (Throw in the Green Flag) here and here are the follow-up links. (And even if you didn't look at yesterday's links check these out.) They do a very good job of framing the Big Picture issue I want to raise today. And that's all I want to do--offer a perhaps different way of thinking about refereeing. Right now the conceptual framework underlying the rules is the law enforcement approach. You do the crime, you do the time--with built in deterrence to let the next guy know that crime doesn't pay. I understand the motives and the approach, I just don't think they result in the best game.

Rules are necessary. They give the game shape and substance. Violating those rules requires redress. So far, so good, right?

Here's where I have a couple of questions for you. What's more important, the play of the game or rules enforcement--or is there, should there be, some balance?
Which sort of basketball do you prefer; the game that is constantly being interrupted to send players to the free throw line or the sort that is fast and free flowing the majority of the time?


My gripe yesterday was the lack of consistency in officiating. That lack of consistency is exacerbated by the law enforcement attitude of the referees and the impact of any penalty call on the play of the game which I think is often disproportionate overkill. But current views of the game don't really have any other place to go so we are stuck with pulling bodies or doing nothing. There are no in-betweens, and the only result of official discretion is widely divergent outcomes. What I am advocating is taking a fresh approach to the game and re-prioritizing our goals. Ideally I would like to see the penalties more accurately reflect their impact on the game and focus on maintaining order and basic equity while allowing the game to be played and won (or lost) on the field by the players the majority of the time. (As we are unlikely to ever fully escape the officiated outcome.) We can do better. But first we have to want to improve the game instead of focusing the function of penalties on punishment; merited or otherwise.

Btw, there's no throwing in the towel. Tomorrow, a new system for regulating play of the game on the field by the officiating crew.

Throw in the Green Flag

I'm going to be talking about officiating--some more--and the first question that comes up when I do is you lazy slackers want to know what happened at the most recent event to put that bug up my donkey--again. The answer--again--is nothing out of the ordinary. (But you may be able to read something between the lines if you peer deeply.) Nothing other than what is the norm occurred at MAO. However, the immediacy of the events serve as active reminders that short-comings remain a part of the process. What better time to revisit a topic than when it's fresh in one's mind?

I mentioned to two or three people during the event that teams ought to be able to throw in the green flag once a match, like a challenge flag in pro football. (Green only because it's different from the yellow and red used now to signal penalties.) If you see a penalty called (or not called?) that seems an obvious and egregious violation of the rules as it currently stands there is no recourse. There isn't even much time to get clarifications on the actual penalties called. Frequently you have to use your timeout in order to argue a (non-) call. (Which is a complete waste of time and energy and effort.) Everybody I spoke to thought the green flag was an interesting, maybe even a good idea, but from the first time I said it I knew it wouldn't work. And it won't work because there is no non-subjective review possible at the present time. There is only the process we have now that oftentimes sees a clutch of refs huddle after a thrown flag and through the alchemy of proximity codify the call made. But if the green flag isn't a realistic possibility I do have a couple of other suggestions that might be helpful.

All the teams want is consistency. It could be harsh consistency or lenient consistency but the key to good officiating is consistency. Everybody knows it. No reasonable person can dispute it. The PSP commish acknowledges it and to his credit is trying to get the ref crew there. But it's not. They can't even call the no talking after elimination rule consistently. Are you kidding me?

To put a number on it I'd guesstimate that 95% of all calls made are straightforward and should be simple. There aren't multiple things happening with players converging on each other in hard to observe portions of the field, etc. And yet there isn't anything close to 95% consistency in the calls that are made. (Some time ago VFTD did a series of posts on officiating that speak to this particular issue. Check them out here, here & here. The comments are revealing as well.) I can't really explain the lack of consistency in the routine calls--well, yes I can, different refs call the same situations differently, even from incident to incident--but part of the problem is likely to be procedural and the physical act of officiating as it's currently done. Let me explain. On the break there are interior or backline officials and wire officials. If an interior or backline ref sees a player get hit he signals, via gesture or radio, to a wire side ref to pull the hit player. Seems sensible and on its face it is. It even works a goodly percentage of the time. But sometimes it doesn't. (And those sometimes aren't rare occasions.) For whatever reason wire corner refs are often deep in their respective corners somewhere out of the players line-of-sight. The call is made, the signal seen and the ref makes the appropriate hand gesture of elimination--that the player can't see. Not only does this sort of thing happen off the break but it also happens during points from positions all over the field. Refs gesturing a player eliminated from a place the player can't see. The time gap between the gesture and reaching the player often results in a by the rules violation that merits a penalty flag. Which becomes penalty roulette (including the non-call.) Would it be so hard for the refs to verbally call the player(s) out at the same time they are gesturing their eliminations? The players have numbers all over their jerseys. How 'bout the gesture plus "21, you are eliminated. Leave the field."

Next up the simultaneous wire elimination that usually sees bunkered and bunkerer removed from the field accompanied, at some phase in the proceeding, with assorted penalty calls part of the time. This single oft repeated event on the field of play is the most consistently poorly called element of the sport. Period. And the fact is it's not that hard to get right. Most of the time when the wire simo occurs it's predictable. The refs can see it coming and all they need is a second or two of advance notice. The other thing required to make the right call is two refs on the one wire. The ref nearest the player about to be bunkered watches the bunkering player and the ref closest to the bunkering player watches the player to be bunkered. The last requirement is a vocal call. The first ref to see a player hit verbally signals the hit. If both refs call it close together pull both players. If one ref called it with a noticeable gap between the other refs follow-up call eliminate the first one out and wipe off the other guy and keep playing. Is it perfect? No, but with practice it would be a vast improvement that would also see more consistent and appropriate penalties called during bunkering runs. As it stands now refs can't see all the action alone and are often out of position because they have the wrong responsibilities for the given situation and as a result they just pull bodies and sometimes throw flags as an afterthought without real clarity as to what exactly happened.

This last is merely a suggestion. And I'm telling y'all this 'cus nobody else will. When a flag is thrown and a penalty called why is it necessary to get most of the refs in a huddle? Sure, when there's been some moments of chaos on the field and nobody is 100% sure what happened I can see the value in trying to come to some consensus but only just. Even in those situations somebody threw a flag. Or flags. Is that penalty call going to be overruled? Go away? Is the new guy ever gonna say he thinks what three other refs are saying is mistaken? Isn't it all just theater? An opportunity to create a consensus of self-justification?
Look, I understand that reffing pro paintball is almost an impossible task but the refs don't do their cause any favors with all the huddles. If it's a simple call that one ref made why make it harder? If ref A throws a flag is anything more really necessary than that he signal that call to the ultimate who can communicate the appropriate details with the scorekeeper? Every time a routine call turns into a pow-wow it looks suspicious. It just does. Everybody knows calls don't get changed and don't get explained until after the pow-wow. What does that sound like to you? Yeah, me too.

I realize these sorts of posts don't garner me any friends amongst the officiating corps. Heck, for all I know, it results in some unspoken payback but I've been doing this for a long time now and things didn't begin to get better until people were willing to openly address the issues. (And two leagues began competing for customers.) There's another issue related to officiating, a Big Picture issue, given the acknowledged inconsistencies that I'll address tomorrow.

Mr. Curious

Mr. Curious was mildly disappointed not to get the scoop on the wacky new paintball story but earlier today he was giddy with excitement over this snippet of info. Rumor has it the money & power behind the new paintball and the HydroTec kids is Kraft Foods. If so the potential to fend off litigation and ramp up to high volume production shouldn't be an issue as long as the new paintballs perform.

Later this week VFTD will break down where this move may take the paint wars.