Millennium Changes
- Thread starter NIALL
- Start date
Football....pah!
Nick,
Yes, lets use football as an example. What I really want to see in Paintball is the same as you get in football when a red card comes out, all the players shouting and jostling the ref, looks real good that does. Just the image when need to use to get outside sponsorship.
On the otherhand I agree that if, and its a massive if, we can control elliminated players then the blind dead zones could go but we can't. Mayhem showed that and not just Mayhem. I have lost count of the number of times players shout from the dead zone, come running out when a harsh desision is made in a 1-on-1 for example or abuse marshall becuase of a incident they viewed differently. In Toulouse there was virtually none of that and it was down to the blind dead zone.
Scutty
Nick,
Yes, lets use football as an example. What I really want to see in Paintball is the same as you get in football when a red card comes out, all the players shouting and jostling the ref, looks real good that does. Just the image when need to use to get outside sponsorship.
On the otherhand I agree that if, and its a massive if, we can control elliminated players then the blind dead zones could go but we can't. Mayhem showed that and not just Mayhem. I have lost count of the number of times players shout from the dead zone, come running out when a harsh desision is made in a 1-on-1 for example or abuse marshall becuase of a incident they viewed differently. In Toulouse there was virtually none of that and it was down to the blind dead zone.
Scutty
Wrong
The time taken to sort those problems out is much less with this new system.
manike
Really? wow, most people I spoke to said this rule made them think about their game and what to do to play better next time in order to stay on the field and be part of what was happening. All said it made them contemplate how to play better. None mentioned it made them feel they didn't want to play, almost all said it made them want to play better!
Look at the bigger picture, if we keep the game more respectable with less arguements and temper tantrums then the sport becomes more appealing to the public with a better image... then your players will be able to watch themselves on TV and in the Media... I'd rather see that. As with any game if you don't want to be 'benched' you try to play better and then oh look you wouldn't be on the bench you would still be on the field... get my point?
It did work and to my eyes having watched games almost non-stop it worked brilliantly.
The problem is not with a very few. It never has been, there has always been problems with influences from the sidelines and tantrums. It's a rule for the majority not the minor. It keeps debates and discussions clean and doesn't give bad feelings to many players who think they saw something but didn't... it keeps it down to the players that were there and the judges that were.
If we analyse Mayhem, I would say almost every team at some point had a conflict with the marshalls and or decisions made. So those are the offenders... those are the ones 'penalised' by this rule... oh look it was pretty much everyone...
The time taken to sort those problems out is much less with this new system.
manike
Agree with Nick...
Okay so I wasn't at Toulouse but...
I think that moving the deadzones to back of the field was a good thing. Personally I believe that a lot of the problems of "eliminated players syndrom - EPS for short" stems from the fact that the deadzones where close to where most of the final action during a game occurs (the 30-50 yard line). It is easier to intefere when you are right beside the refs.
Now on the item of blocking their view...
I think this is wrong, for various reasons.
1) It makes the game boring for anyone in the deadzone. Part of the fun playing is watching when you screw-up and seeing how the rest of your teammates pull the game out.
2) It could have an adverse effect on team development. As the old saying goes - If it ain't broke don't fix it - BUT IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S BROKE?? Do we expect any coaches/trainers ever to develop their team based on video only or second hand descriptions of what happened - NO - so why should we??
The obvious solution to all of this is quite simple. Leave the deadzones at the back and ENFORCE THE DAMN RULES!!
It's quite simple inform the teams at the start of any tournament that any player who approaches a ref in a confrontational way after they are eliminated - during or after the game - will be penalized. Ensure that the captians are the only ones who discuss anything with refs. And penalize anyone who leaves the deadzone - makes any noise - or in any way interferes with game - with automatic single game suspensions.
Again I say part of the problem is that there are a lot of rules that are only given lip service, and if there was a proper job done on enforcing them I'm sure there would be a huge change.
just my 0.02
goose
Okay so I wasn't at Toulouse but...
I think that moving the deadzones to back of the field was a good thing. Personally I believe that a lot of the problems of "eliminated players syndrom - EPS for short
" stems from the fact that the deadzones where close to where most of the final action during a game occurs (the 30-50 yard line). It is easier to intefere when you are right beside the refs.Now on the item of blocking their view...
I think this is wrong, for various reasons.
1) It makes the game boring for anyone in the deadzone. Part of the fun playing is watching when you screw-up and seeing how the rest of your teammates pull the game out.
2) It could have an adverse effect on team development. As the old saying goes - If it ain't broke don't fix it - BUT IF YOU CAN'T SEE IT HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S BROKE?? Do we expect any coaches/trainers ever to develop their team based on video only or second hand descriptions of what happened - NO - so why should we??
The obvious solution to all of this is quite simple. Leave the deadzones at the back and ENFORCE THE DAMN RULES!!
It's quite simple inform the teams at the start of any tournament that any player who approaches a ref in a confrontational way after they are eliminated - during or after the game - will be penalized. Ensure that the captians are the only ones who discuss anything with refs. And penalize anyone who leaves the deadzone - makes any noise - or in any way interferes with game - with automatic single game suspensions.
Again I say part of the problem is that there are a lot of rules that are only given lip service, and if there was a proper job done on enforcing them I'm sure there would be a huge change.
just my 0.02
goose
Dead Screens a good idea
After what happened when we marshalled at Portugal, I think the dead screens are a great idea.
Obviously I'm gutted that you can't see what's going on when your out ( I spend a lot of time in the dead box), but the bottom line is that if it cuts out the $hit then its a good thing.
I agree with scutty about the scores too. Perhaps if the scores were only posted after the prelims, it would encourage teams to play to the max (so to speak) every game. There certainly wouldn't be any dubious decisions about how to play a game if the captain of the team wasn't sure about hot gun penalties etc.
After what happened when we marshalled at Portugal, I think the dead screens are a great idea.
Obviously I'm gutted that you can't see what's going on when your out ( I spend a lot of time in the dead box), but the bottom line is that if it cuts out the $hit then its a good thing.
I agree with scutty about the scores too. Perhaps if the scores were only posted after the prelims, it would encourage teams to play to the max (so to speak) every game. There certainly wouldn't be any dubious decisions about how to play a game if the captain of the team wasn't sure about hot gun penalties etc.
Spectating or playing...?
Goose
I really don't see this point about watching your team play/coaching/learning etc. You use the example of coaches/traniners and Nick used to example of benched players - both of these would get to see the whole paintball match - they don't play and therefore dont get to go in the blind box. The commitee are trying to stamp out one of the worst elements of tournament play at the highest level - that of marshal intimidation and abuse by dead players. By just saying enforce the rules is not enough - we marshalled to the letter in Portugal, very strict, and still had a charge of dead players, rushing to make their point, many times over the weekend.
I think we can expect to see the blind dead boxes for a while yet - eventually I would like to see them gone too, but only if we can gaurentee players behaviour.
Scutty
Goose
I really don't see this point about watching your team play/coaching/learning etc. You use the example of coaches/traniners and Nick used to example of benched players - both of these would get to see the whole paintball match - they don't play and therefore dont get to go in the blind box. The commitee are trying to stamp out one of the worst elements of tournament play at the highest level - that of marshal intimidation and abuse by dead players. By just saying enforce the rules is not enough - we marshalled to the letter in Portugal, very strict, and still had a charge of dead players, rushing to make their point, many times over the weekend.
I think we can expect to see the blind dead boxes for a while yet - eventually I would like to see them gone too, but only if we can gaurentee players behaviour.
Scutty
Nick
You must remember playing in non-concept fields and i am sure when you or your mates ended up being eliminated you could not watch the rest of the game.
In fact the NPG/EPSF rules from many years ago suggest that the dead zone from one field should be next to another one and that fields marshals keep an eye on them.
And i do not think anyone will leave the sport because they can not watch the rest of the game.
Unless YOU want to prove myself and all who agree wrong
You must remember playing in non-concept fields and i am sure when you or your mates ended up being eliminated you could not watch the rest of the game.
In fact the NPG/EPSF rules from many years ago suggest that the dead zone from one field should be next to another one and that fields marshals keep an eye on them.
And i do not think anyone will leave the sport because they can not watch the rest of the game.
Unless YOU want to prove myself and all who agree wrong
Agree with Nick...
As someone said before how did teams ever develop before in woods fields when they couldn't see the rest of their team playing?
manike
Damn good reason not to get yourself into the deadzone then huh?
Every player sat for the rest of the game contemplating why he was eliminated will know exactly why he was eliminated and will be thinking about how to do it better next time. That's a fact. Each player will be mentally working on their game over and over.
Erm yes we do. You'll notice many of the top teams do. I have personally video many games for Avalanche so they could analyse their performance in the finals. Or they have people (i.e. like coaches or sitters) off field watching and feeding it back to the team. All the players that were still on the field when issues happened can still feed back to the team as well.
As someone said before how did teams ever develop before in woods fields when they couldn't see the rest of their team playing?
manike
Scutty & Manike...
sorry you missed my point.
Do the Rushers have a dedicated trainer/NON-PLAYER ??
If you guys do, great - most teams don't, and they rely on the views of the eliminated players to figure out just "what the hell happened".
On the enforcement problems, I partially disagree. When we reffed the Joy Masters we didn't have any problems with players coming out of the deadbox. They knew (because I told them from day 1) that we wouldn't tolerate it and would punish it.
If you had a problem in Portugal (I'm not saying you did anything wrong - cuz god knows y'all know your stuff) a simple rule book stipulated 1 game suspension for anyone who leave the deadzone before allowed by the refs probably could have solved this.
Manike... sure Avalanche uses video to SUPPLEMENT their own memory but not as a replacement. Just a little background I have coached high level basketball for 8 years (in Canada and here in Denmark) and no matter how much video you have on an opponent (scouting) you learn 10 times more by actually watching a game in person. Relying on a spectator or someone who doesn't know what your team gameplan is is also not very helpful.
Players contemplating what happened on their own is a good thing BUT it takes someone from the outside to see what happens. A lot of lower level teams only travel with 7 players so the only people they have who can re-cap the game are the dead players.
As far saying "don't get shot so you won't end up in the deadzone" - GET A GRIP. Front players have a long way to go on the break and there is always the chance that they taken out, it's not that they do anything wrong it happens.
Peace
goose
sorry you missed my point.
Do the Rushers have a dedicated trainer/NON-PLAYER ??
If you guys do, great - most teams don't, and they rely on the views of the eliminated players to figure out just "what the hell happened".
On the enforcement problems, I partially disagree. When we reffed the Joy Masters we didn't have any problems with players coming out of the deadbox. They knew (because I told them from day 1) that we wouldn't tolerate it and would punish it.
If you had a problem in Portugal (I'm not saying you did anything wrong - cuz god knows y'all know your stuff) a simple rule book stipulated 1 game suspension for anyone who leave the deadzone before allowed by the refs probably could have solved this.
Manike... sure Avalanche uses video to SUPPLEMENT their own memory but not as a replacement. Just a little background I have coached high level basketball for 8 years (in Canada and here in Denmark) and no matter how much video you have on an opponent (scouting) you learn 10 times more by actually watching a game in person. Relying on a spectator or someone who doesn't know what your team gameplan is is also not very helpful.
Players contemplating what happened on their own is a good thing BUT it takes someone from the outside to see what happens. A lot of lower level teams only travel with 7 players so the only people they have who can re-cap the game are the dead players.
As far saying "don't get shot so you won't end up in the deadzone" - GET A GRIP. Front players have a long way to go on the break and there is always the chance that they taken out, it's not that they do anything wrong it happens.
Peace
goose
You always have to disagree...
A captain of the team should discuss any point the same way it is done in other sports conducted with a gentlemanly and sportsmanship approach. (for instance rugby ) The captain gets the information from his player, then says excuse me sir and speaks to the head judge in a polite manner. He puts his point across fairly and nicely and then respects the decision of the head judge. Nice and simple huh
The threat of criticism for poor marshalling has not been removed at all, if a player is unhappy he can speak to his captain who can speak to the judge after the game has finished. What it does remove is the distraction and problems caused while the game is still going and should be played.
It removes marshal bullying by extra team members in the dead box. If you need anyone other than the player concerned and the captain to discuss any problem whatsoever then there is something wrong. You should only need the view and opinion of the player concerned in an issue not him and his 5 team mates who "saw it from the other side of the field but know for sure he never played on but the other guy was cheating like a bitch..." yeah right.
You are kidding yourself if you think players only try to influence the game from the deadbox when there is bad marshalling. They do it when the marshalling doesn't go their way, not necessarily when it is bad...
manike
A captain of the team should discuss any point the same way it is done in other sports conducted with a gentlemanly and sportsmanship approach. (for instance rugby
) The captain gets the information from his player, then says excuse me sir and speaks to the head judge in a polite manner. He puts his point across fairly and nicely and then respects the decision of the head judge. Nice and simple huh The threat of criticism for poor marshalling has not been removed at all, if a player is unhappy he can speak to his captain who can speak to the judge after the game has finished. What it does remove is the distraction and problems caused while the game is still going and should be played.
It removes marshal bullying by extra team members in the dead box. If you need anyone other than the player concerned and the captain to discuss any problem whatsoever then there is something wrong. You should only need the view and opinion of the player concerned in an issue not him and his 5 team mates who "saw it from the other side of the field but know for sure he never played on but the other guy was cheating like a bitch..." yeah right.
You are kidding yourself if you think players only try to influence the game from the deadbox when there is bad marshalling. They do it when the marshalling doesn't go their way, not necessarily when it is bad...
manike