NPPL Results

[Robbo]

Re: Re: Controversial Quarters

Originally posted by Baca Loco
C'mon, Pete. Get with the program. It ain't about the "facts."

A wholly interesting proposition and not one I really wanna get involved in thanks....I'll let you two discuss the 'real' issue then and I'll just concern myself with the facts....

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Tell us about the Enemy situation at Maxes and then explain how your views of that situation has any bearing on how the disciplinary committee--backed by the Mil promoters--dealt with it.

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

Have you gone mad

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Andy Piper
What the hell has that got to do with anything?

Have you gone mad

Did you read all this nonsense? It's a parallel, Pipes. Knobbs seems to think that just because he holds an opinion about a specific incident he can parlay that opinion into a sensible view on how the NPPL ought to treat all such incidents. I am simply putting his view (or should I say lack of vision) into it's appropriate context.

Originally posted by Robo
A wholly interesting proposition and not one I really wanna get involved in thanks....I'll let you two discuss the 'real' issue then and I'll just concern myself with the facts....

Cepting of course you don't know the facts. You only know what parties involved told you. Bloody stubborn Brit!

 

[Robbo]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Cepting of course you don't know the facts. You only know what parties involved told you. Bloody stubborn Brit!

Ya know, when a jury presides over a case, they were probably not present at the scene of the actual crime but they listen to all the testimony from witnesses and decide what they believe to be factual and what is not.
They use for the most part, common sense; I am using just that, and my experience in paintball and my knowledge of Rage and of Dynasty.
Now you can debate all you like as to the veracity of my judgment but you cannot deny me my right to determine the facts as I see them.
I believe Magued and the rest of his judges, I do not believe any of the Rage players and in my book, that makes the testimony of the judges factual in the event of me not actually seeing what went down but I suppose if I did see what happened, then no doubt a philosophical debate would ensue initiated by yourself questioning my ability to determine what is real or imagined.

 

[knobbs]

Re: Re: Controversial Quarters

Originally posted by Baca Loco
C'mon, Pete. Get with the program. It ain't about the "facts." You and Knobbs both keep insisting on responding to incidents, one at a time, in isolation and then making general applications to how the NPPL should or shouldn't, can or can't, respond. What I'm suggesting to both of you is that the NPPL should have a policy and practice in place so they always respond in a consistent manner.

The problem here is that I AM suggesting a consistent manner of addressing these issues. STAND BEHIND YOUR REFS.

This game is no different than every other game where someone alleges that the other team cheated or where a player was pulled when someone didn't think they should have. Should the NPPL release a PR statment everytime Pro Team X plays Rookie Team Y when the rookie team states insists that "I shot that guy, but I'm sure he wiped." The ONLY thing that makes this incident different is that Dynasty was involved and releasing a statment that talks about the game does NOTHING but give Dynasty some sort of preferential treatment, which will be read as the NPPL backing Dynasty. The refs made the call and the other team got pissed...how is that different from anything else.

Meanwhile we have something very out of the ordinary in the Dogs/Ton Tons game...eliminated players coming back on the field and making physical contact with the other team. Big no no. Still, the only statement that should come out about this is if a decision is made to suspend players, and that's just because we didn't know that decision while the game was played on the field. Otherwise, the game was called as it should have been and the NPPL should treat the ensuing controversy in the consistent manner of standing behind the refs.

Unless the NPPL decides to release a statment for every game played that is a play by play of what happened, standing behind the refs decisions is the only consistent manner to treat this incident in.

The judge's competency and integrity should be verified before the game starts and not have to be defended after the game is over.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by knobbs
The problem here is that I AM suggesting a consistent manner of addressing these issues. STAND BEHIND YOUR REFS.

Two words: Bill Cookston

Pete: You're still a bloody stubborn Brit.

 

[knobbs]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Two words: Bill Cookston

I think that goes with the whole integrity and competence being verified before the event.