Over on MCarterBrown there is a fair amount of discussion in the pump-ball threads that is equal parts reaction to my series on pump play  and criticism of some of the things I said that were supposedly divisive and critical of other styles of play.

I can certainly understand how some might come to the conclusion that instead of promoting pump play in the woods, I was instead attacking other forms of play (arena in particular) and in retrospect, I may have gone a little overboard in my enthusiasms for old style play in the woods (the kind of ‘ball I ‘grew up on’).

So for what it’s worth, two things by way of explanation: when I was referring to “arena ball” I was not referring to pump play on concept fields – or even semi-auto play on concept fields.  I was using the phrase to refer to a style of play that is more about dollars and flash than it is about play, more about commercialism than it is about friendship and camaraderie, more about electronic enhancements than about native skills.

And secondly – if I offended you by way of your favorite way to play – my apologies where appropriate.  I didn’t mean to offend so much as to incite a little interest, a little curiosity and to make it clear that some of us (at least those who have had a chance to experience the evolutionary history of the game first hand) do think that some forms of play are superior to others. Particularly the forms of play that involve PLAY and skill, as opposed to spending dollars in a fruitless attempt at winning a computer-operated arms race or competition where the winning factor is how many dollars you can afford to throw down on the table.

But by all means – play.  Play whatever style of paintball gets your rocks off, do it well and please, do it for the right reasons.

~~~

I had originally followed the above explanation/apology with a history of sport and an explanation of what separates “sport” from other activities that appear to be similar. Those activities we know as “games” or “gambling” or “exhibition”.

That piece got overly long and rambling (even if I do think it was pretty informative). In the interest of getting to the point, I’ve chopped it down to the following:

Regardless of the style and tech of play, you can’t call a “game” a “sport” unless it has certain things and among those things are: a set of rules that are understandable, definable and enforceable.

The issue at hand is whether versions of the game that employ electronic enhancements are subject to those three “rules of rules”.  In my considered opinion and experience, they are not.

They aren’t because what they do takes place inside of a black box (the circuit board) and the requisite controls for determining what happens inside that black box (definable, enforceable) are not and never have been in place.

I’d have no issue with the “fairness” of electronic markers if, for competition play, all of them used the same circuit board or were loaded up with the same (league supplied) software.  But as it stands, the technology in use has moved well beyond the ability of officials to control and monitor it.

If we wre talking about something that had a minor influence over the game, again, I’d have no issue.  Indeed, we’ve dealt with such things effectively already.  One example is the “out-of-bounds” ruling.  Believe it or not, there was a season or two of arena style play that relied on the referee’s personal judgement as to the physical placement of a player’s body on the field.  (This must have been before the invention of chalk.)  Minor. It was plain to see if an entire team was stepping way out of bounds for an advantage, and the few times that an elimination was the result of a player shooting from an “illegal” angle, it was just that:  a few times over the course of an entire season’s worth of play.

Similarly, controlling a gun’s velocity is a minor technological issue that is mostly controllable and has little overall impact on a game.

However, the ability to have a gun that can fire beyond a player’s physical capability – in an undetectable manner – is not minor in its effects on the game.

When  guns were strictly mechanical-pneumatic in operation, there was no way possible for a player to be able to fire faster than they could physically operate the gun. (Cheat on velocity, yes, but not on the rate of fire.)

Furthermore, because the physical relationship of the parts of one of these guns were observable and worked in ways that were known to many, simply looking at a gun’s setup could usually determine its compliance with the rules.  (And one other rule would handle all of the outliers and questionable cases: let our gun techs take apart your gun and examine it, or put it away and use something else.)

For this reason alone I personally favor a version of the game that is restricted to mechanical/pneumatic markers (and I probably have to add the caveat of – ones without pneumatic-assist triggers).

The other looming issue is the one of personal skill (though I suppose that my feelings in this regard are more opinion than fact). Working a mechanical marker accurately and quickly (though both are not necessarily required for effective play) are skills that can be learned and trained for.  Skills that MUST be trained for (thereby eliminating a large number of wannabe players).  It is also my opinion that the closer the game relies on the physical and mental abilities of the players, the closer it is to a true sport, and I am in favor of removing or eliminating anything from the game that dilutes it as a contest of skill.