Just recieved this from Oh about an hour ago. This is an exact replica so
here goes.

"      I am writing this letter in regards to the on going debate on the
Internet regarding the ESPN video tape of Bad Company versus the Ironmen.
I first want to say that I am proud to live in a country where a person is
innocent until proven guilty. Since people have taken it upon themselves
to debate this topic like a case, I suggest that only the facts be counted
in this debate rather than opinion.

Fact number one: The camera angle was limited to a certain span. This did
not allow proper or complete coverage of the entire field during the
action.

Fact number two: The player in front of me was Shane from the Ironmen. If
you look closely at the action, you will see him getting hit on the side
of his leg while Tom Cole is going by him.  He was shot by me and possibly
Tom.  Shane then began to shoot at me after being hit. The paint on the
goggle is the result of his shooting. You will also hear the t.v.
commenator stating that it appeared Shane was hit while Tom Cole went by.
The judges did call Shane eliminated.

Fact number three: You will notice me pointing out and yelling about his
hit after I shot him. You will also notice that there are judges in front
of me and behind me while all of this is going on. You will also notice
that there are hundreds of spectators right next to me on the sidelines
while all of this going on.

Fact number four: As Marty runs by, I shoot him since I was shot by an
eliminated player and the rules state that I amnot eliminated and the
judges didn't call me eliminated.

Fact number five: Bob Long(possibly Darryl also) runs up the center of the
field( which the camera angle doesn't show) and shoots me as I engage
Marty. I immediately called myself out on his shot and not on the goggle
paint from Shane who was eliminated before he shot me.

Now that the facts of the debate are before your eyes, let me provide
everyone with some opinions.

First opinion: People shouldn't pass judgement unless they know the facts
of the situation.

Second opinion: If all the judges on the field, spectators, and the
opposing team didn't have a problem with my play on the field( I didn't
receive a penalty while I played in the entire tournament), why should a
closed angled t.v. audience have any questions.

Third opinion: I've been playing for nearly 9 years and everyone who knows
me and has played against me will vouch for my clean play.

Fourth opinion: People should be mature enough to call me directly with
any questions about anything regarding me rather than openly debating
without hearing the facts of the matter.

Sincerely

Oh Pawlak"

That was all I got at 5:02 EST.
********************************************************
"When you think you're invicible, you ARE invincible"-Scott
"Business is VERY good"-Tom
The Rookie
Bad Company of Maryland
BadCoR...@aol.com.
********************************************************

In article <3tv5bf$...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, badcor...@aol.com

You know, this is all well and good. But as I said before, as with any
other pro-sport, you'd better get used to people discussing your play
publicly because it's going to happen whether you like it or not...
particularly if you're going to play on TV, particularly if you're a
high-profile player with endorsements and ads in APG.

I'm not making any comments as to Oh's innocence or guilt, I'm just saying
he (and other sensitive pro-players) had better develop a pretty thick
skin pretty damn fast or get out of the pro-sport to preserve his sanity.

Because people are going to watch and people are going to talk.

good luck
-Ravi

TIP#831
Team Scrap (don't ask - I just follow my team around)

It's great to hear Oh's side of the story.  It all makes good sense.

--steve
--
Steve Mitchell      KD6BET       TIP#168       steve_mitch...@csufresno.edu
"Everything in this message may be wrong."  /  "Make love, not Perl code."
  "A buttered cat will, when dropped, quickly move to a height where the
     forces of cat-twisting and butter repulsion are in equilibrium."

: Fact number four: As Marty runs by, I shoot him since I was shot by an
: eliminated player and the rules state that I amnot eliminated and the
: judges didn't call me eliminated.

I was really confused by this so I went and looked up the relevent rules
on this.  This is from NPPL 1995 rules, though it is from the first of
the year so it has possibly changed.  Anyway the relevant sections are
17.32-17.37:

17.32  Non-valid hits are generally refereed to as 'splatter' or hits by
a previously eliminated player.  Splatter is paint and or shell which
results from a ricochet, brushing up against painted trees or structures,
stepping on unbroken pellets, etc.  Splatter less than a quarter's size
in area is considered to be a non-valid hit.

17.33  Splatter which accumulates-from multiple ricochets or other
sources-into a contiguous area larger than a quarter in area is a valid
hit.  

17.34  Eliminations by eliminated players: Hits which would normally
consitute a valid elimination which are made by players who themselves
have been eliminated will not count as eliminations, so long as the
referee is able to make a determination that the shooter was eliminated
before the player in question.

17.35  A determination of whether a shooter was live or eliminated when
shooting will only be made if the referee who directly observed both the
shooter and the shot player, or if the referee receives information from
another referee who directly observed the action.

17.36  If the player who's hit is ruled invalid is still on the field of
play, the referee will reinstate that player.  The player will be
provided with five second neutrality.  The player will always be restored
to the location in which that player was hit.

17.37  Referees will always wipe splatter or non valid hits off a player
at the time they are inspected.  No player will be allowed to continue
play with paint that is considered non-valid until it is wiped clean by a
referee.

I hate to get technical, but Oh's reading of NPPL rules are very
interesting.  Of course it is entirely possible that Oh is not well
versed in the exact rules of the NPPL.  I can assume that quite a few
people play in NPPL events without ever looking at the rules.  Most
players probably just know what their captain tells them.

Ed "Catfish" Gibbs
Desert Heat

<deleted stuffr>

Welp as the rules read shane or whoever was eliminated and his shot didnt
count a a valid hit on Oh. The Ref didnt pull him or penilizes the team
for his actions and there were refs there to see what happenes.

Oh contuned play because the hit didnt count. Enough said.

        -R

--
The Company Store - 301-497-7677 - Run by Bad Co MD - Mail Order
Pev's 4 Star Paintball - 703-491-6505 - Staffed by Bad Co Players - No M/O
AG Paintball Games - 301-417-0137 The Field Leesburge VA - BYOP is Back !
This space for rent - Write rhoo...@capaccess.org - Rate cards available :)

] In article <3tv5bf$...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, badcor...@aol.com
]
] > [big explanation deleted]
] > First opinion: People shouldn't pass judgement unless they know the facts
] > of the situation.
] >
] > Second opinion: If all the judges on the field, spectators, and the
] > opposing team didn't have a problem with my play on the field( I didn't
] > receive a penalty while I played in the entire tournament), why should a
] > closed angled t.v. audience have any questions.
] >
] > Third opinion: I've been playing for nearly 9 years and everyone who knows
] > me and has played against me will vouch for my clean play.
] >
] > Fourth opinion: People should be mature enough to call me directly with
] > any questions about anything regarding me rather than openly debating
] > without hearing the facts of the matter.
] >
] > Sincerely
] >
] > Oh Pawlak"
]
] You know, this is all well and good. But as I said before, as with any
] other pro-sport, you'd better get used to people discussing your play
] publicly because it's going to happen whether you like it or not...
] particularly if you're going to play on TV, particularly if you're a
] high-profile player with endorsements and ads in APG.

Perhaps, with your comments in mind, Oh Pawlak should do a peice
on this incident in his PCRI column.  His report indicates that
yes, TV can decieve, even unintentionally, and people need to
quit assuming the worst.

Why do people always seem to want to assume the worst about other
people anyway ?  

Anyway, if someone could forward my suggestion to Oh, and if he agrees,
I think such an article if well-crafted could help mature the sport
a little.  Not everyone is aware of all the stuff that can happen
at a tourney that can lead to misunderstandings like this one, so
it would help if Oh explained it, as he has done in his letter.
--
---
Dennis O'Connor                 Not Speaking for Anyone Else.
d...@primenet.com              Fear is the Enemy : TIP#518

So it seems that ethically and morally he was not cheating, but technically
he was?  It strikes me that this is the exact opposite of the usual "Pros
twist the rules to morally-cheat without technically-cheating" arguments
we usually read here.

As for Oh's complaint that we're talking about him behind his back, as I
recall, one of the earliest entries in this thread was by someone who said
he would contact Oh to get his side.  

For another character reference, I too have played with Oh (years ago) and
thought he was an OK guy.  Not arrogant like one might be if one's dad
ran the paintball field.

   _______
  //      \                  "Try Not.  'Do', or 'Do Not';
  \\__/^\_/   Flint Smith       there is no 'try'" --- Yoda
   \\\%%%      fl...@uclaue.mbi.ucla.edu
     \%%%        TIP#418

: > : Fact number four: As Marty runs by, I shoot him since I was shot by an
: > : eliminated player and the rules state that I amnot eliminated and the
: > : judges didn't call me eliminated.

Robert Hoover (of BC) writes:

: Welp as the rules read shane or whoever was eliminated and his shot didnt
: count a a valid hit on Oh. The Ref didnt pull him or penilizes the team
: for his actions and there were refs there to see what happenes.

I thought the rules were self explanatory, but I'll try to explain
again.  OK Oh claims in this scenario that he shoots Shane, gets shot by
Shane and turns and shoots at Marty with an obvious hit on his goggles,
because as he determined Shane was eliminated by him.

Oh is claiming that the hit on his goggles is a non valid hit.  The
problem here is that according to the rules only the referee's make that
determination.  First the referee making the call has to directly
"observe both the shooter and the shot player."  Then if "the player
who's hit was ruled invalid is still on the field of play, the referee
will reinstate that player."  Also in case it is unclear "no player will
be allowed to continue play with paint that is considered non-valid until
it is wiped clean by a referee."

My guess is having only seen the game on TV twice is that Shane was hit
at some point and played on for a second or two on Tom Cole.  You can't
tell from TV whether he can see the hit or not, but there is a definite
reaction by Shane.

Oh at this point has already been hit or is hit within a second or two by
Shane as he claims.  Oh then turns and shoots at Marty eliminating him
and calls himself out almost instantly afterwards.  Oh may have felt
justified in shooting Marty, but he was not strictly following the
rules.  He cannot continue to play with an obvious hit until a ref runs
over and declares it a non-valid hit.

For the referees this whole thing is sort of a nightmare.  Situations
like this where teams are pushing which both BC and Ironmen were doing
are very tough to ref.  You have to get where you can see both sets of
players and then call them out as fast as possible as well as pulling one
for ones as fast as possible for players playing on.  It's well known that
a lot of the gray area of tournament paintball takes place here.  Playing
on is almost impossible to determine if the first player hit only takes a
few more shots, usually enough to eliminate the person who shot him.  
Typically any player can get away with a few extra shots even after
goggle shot, and unless a ref is right on top of the situation, he can
get away with it.

If that game had been reffed perfectly, the referees would have had to
call at least a 1 for 1 on someone involved.  Since it was in the middle
of a push, they just did the best they could and removed eliminated
players regardless of whether they might have played on accessing no
penalties.

Ed "Catfish" Gibbs
Desert Heat

Ed,

You are right about being a nightmare for the referee to judge.  In a
situation such as you have been describing the refs will have more stuff
to look at than they will have time.  This is not unknown to players.
Some teams excel in using this to their advantage.  I have experimented
with a boundry "stealth" referee who roams outside the tape line looking
in with the assumption that the people he is watching ARE going to cheat
but that produced mixed results too long to talk about here.  The main
reason I stopped using the boundary referee concept was that it was not an
efficient use of the available manpower.  Nevertheless, players enagaged
in a high volume fire fight will frequently fire off a few more rounds out
of reflex more than a desire to cheat.  This is still penalty material but
not everybody who get that extra round or two off- not even most of them
are trying to cheat.  

You are correct about the referee needing to observe the hit.  Players can
not "self-declare" which hits are valid and which are not - even if they
are convinced to their core they are right.  Only the referee can make
that determination.  Subsequent action by the player is illegal and
subject to penalty if detected by the referee.  Often arriving on scene
without a comprehensive view of the sequence of events leading up to his
arrival the referee has just seconds to make a decision he hopes to God is
as correct and fair as possible.  In almost all cases where I have had
observers as part of an experiment - to determine how accurately even the
most experienced referee can call such a situation - the observers have
found that the referee has missed several important elements of the
situation.  An amazing but frequent result in this research is that
referees who were on-scene from the start and development of the action
made almost as many mistakes but slightly different ones.  

All of this, of course, leads to the post game opera where truely angry,
concerned vicitm of such a situation mixes in with people who are on their
way to the great actors school.  Again, little way to make a corrective
determination exists.  All of this leaves us with the understanding that
things will go wrong.  If we are of the type who believe its cool to blame
people then we have a great time sounding like we really are the wounded
high caliber player victimized by the (Fill in the blank) bad ref, stupid
ref, cheating player, etc.  

Want to have some fun at the end of a paintball day?  Get some guys
together and choreograph a melee - keep two or three out as referees and
see how many catch what is really happening.  Its a hoot and makes for
some really good discussion on the way home.

Very best regards,

Mark Stiffler
NAPRA