View Single Post
Old 05-18-2011, 04:47 AM   #27 (permalink)
Active Member
stevedavidson's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007

Originally Posted by DSA View Post
Lets be fair, Chris did not write the rules for the NPPL, Steve Davidson did. In writing the original rule book with the one for two, one for three rule encouraged what became the mainstay of pro paint ball of the era 'wiping!" No dont get me wrong I love Steve and what he did for the sport in other facets. However in order to be be fair and place the blame where the blame goes you have to look to the founders of the NPPL, Steve Davidson and JB. When ever you make what the average player calls cheating just a penalty, you are advocating its use. IMHO It was the demise of the sport but I know that was not its original intent.
Couple of points:

I "wrote" the rule book, based on what the rules committee voted to have included in the rules at our inaugural meeting.

Caleb Strong was the creator of the 1-for-1 rule.

Prior to 1 for 1s, all we had as a tool to deal with wiping and playing on was penalizing the team by taking points away AFTER THE GAME WAS ALREADY DECIDED.

You tell me - which works better? Taking players off the field DURING a game or taking points away after the cheaters have already won?

1-for-1 affects the possible outcome of the game the "cheaters" are participating in. It potentially fixes things for the team that was cheated against (and does work - won at least two games by simply waiting for the other team to cheat themselves off the field). Points after is nothing but an insult to the team that lost due to cheating. Big deal, the 'cheaters' only got 75 points instead of 100.

That's like giving the super bowl win to a team that cheats and simply taking a field goal away from them AFTER the game. Can you imagine? The official score is a tie on points, but one team wins? because the penalty game after the conclusion?

To say that the 1-for-1 concept institutionalizes what people were already doing I think demonstrates a lack of understanding of the situation.

I'd MUCH prefer to stop the game and assess penalties, but that wasn't in the cards for NPPL. It was at PaintFest 2000 and the USPL patented rules, but that came later. For a non-fixed length, single score opportunity game as it is played now, 1-for-1 is about the fairest thing anyone has come up with.
stevedavidson is offline