Need a Ruling..

[tragedy]

The only thing left is "targeting", ie. pointing your phaser in their direction.

In my opinion, if one player is in front of the other, and you are pointing your phaser in the direction of the player behind, you are in fact targeting the player in front. If a player is hiding behind a wall and you point in his direction, you are targeting the wall. I fall back on an earlier discussion when Ice Queen raised the point about shielding one hit zone with another. When you are targeting a shoulder or chest, and the player places the phaser in front of that target, you are no longer targeting that point (shoulder or chest), you are targeting the phaser. Using the same logic, you can "attempt to shoot" the player behind by pointing your phaser in their direction, but you are targeting the player in front.

Well that will sort out all the times that I've been penalised

Does nothing of the sort. What you were penalised for is against the rules, which is what I was referring to earlier in the thread.

2. You shouldn't be able to hide behind opponents - No longer has support, should not carry forward.

I didn't say I no longer support it, only that I won't oppose a change. Before you assume that everyone else wants this to change, it should be put to the players for concensus. I have no doubt they will agree with you, but it's better to ask.

3. You shouldn't be able to hide behind referees - Still needs discussion, I favour treating the refs as part of the playing field making this legal.

I don't support this.
1. Most importantly it potentially puts a referee into a situation where they are not in a position to view what the player is actually doing (eg is he targeting from behind the ref).
2. While refs are supposed to be non-biased, what's to stop a ref from knowingly putting himself into a postion that shields a player (eg medic)?
I believe refs should be left out of the equation.

4. You shouldn't be able to hide behind team members - Still needs discussion. How do you distinguish between the Spoonman/Fish situation, the Monkey situation, and what should actually be illegal?

In light of the fact that these rules were written (changed) for Gen4/5, then more careful wording so it's obvious to everyone that reflects exactly what's expected is needed for Gen 6.

Because there's a difference between "shielding" and "hiding."

What do you consider the difference, and how would you define it?

IMO "hiding" is simply removing yourself from view. "Shielding" is having something between an opponent and yourself that prevents you from being tagged. Since "shielding" by definition in our rules involves the act of pointing a phaser (by either yourself, a teammate, or an opponent) then if you are behind a teammate, you are "hiding" until an opponent points a phaser in your direction, then you are "shielding." It's a simplified version that can be made more complex by actual positions of players (ie standing or kneeling) but that's the gist of my thought process.

so it's mission complete as far as my original purpose for creating this thread.

If this was your original purpose, why did you not just state that in the beginning? Why open with this?

If player A is down (deactivated), and they are pointing their phaser at enemy player B, then is player A targeting player B?

This seems to me to have nothing to do with where we've ended but is instead about the definition of Targeting.
If this is indeed where you wanted the discussion to go, why not simply start with a post about that part of the Shielding rule, your opinion of it, and where you think is should be then open the forum for discussion?

[Shadow Dagger]

I can't think of any situation in play where without breaking another rule such as blocking, physical contact, etc. where the opponent (shield) cannot simply move, therefore stopping someone using them as a shield.

I can. Missile lock.

Trag , can you define this, cause I'm not seeing how that applies...

(Gotcha this time Trag, as Scorp was doing, right? )

ahh no. My question was about what should be included, not about how the rule is currently worded.

Well, either way, it was well put.

so it's mission complete as far as my original purpose for creating this thread.

If this was your original purpose, why did you not just state that in the beginning? Why open with this?

If player A is down (deactivated), and they are pointing their phaser at enemy player B, then is player A targeting player B?

This seems to me to have nothing to do with where we've ended but is instead about the definition of Targeting.
If this is indeed where you wanted the discussion to go, why not simply start with a post about that part of the Shielding rule, your opinion of it, and where you think is should be then open the forum for discussion?

Cause then when the thread is invariably changed, his original purpose isn't glossed over...

... Shifty , yes, but he was just saving time...

On that note, the changing questions were addressed by many persons in turn.

[Scorpion]

If this was your original purpose, why did you not just state that in the beginning? Why open with this?

If player A is down (deactivated), and they are pointing their phaser at enemy player B, then is player A targeting player B?

This seems to me to have nothing to do with where we've ended but is instead about the definition of Targeting.
If this is indeed where you wanted the discussion to go, why not simply start with a post about that part of the Shielding rule, your opinion of it, and where you think is should be then open the forum for discussion?

Because if I was capable of targeting while down, then I could do a trivial "end run" around 13 (c) and I wouldn't have to spend countless hours debating the issue in this thread.

[Aztec]

If I may point out, you all may find some benefit to reviewing how others have or currently address these questions. I mean there is no cause to re-invent the wheel so to speak. Relevant information and perspective can be found in many places. Afterall I know that I have seen this very conversation unfold in the rules of the tournaments for Photon, Laser Storm, Qzar, Zone, Laser Quest, Lasertron, Actual Reality, Laser Trek, Laser Blast, and Darklight. While eachtag system has its own unique aspects to consider, at the very heart they are more similar than different, and the rudimentary concepts you all discuss (ref involvement, teammates in hallways etc) carry across all of them.

[tragedy]

Trag , can you define this, cause I'm not seeing how that applies...

Disregard. Didn't pay enough attention to what you actually wrote. Sorry

[Shadow Dagger]

If I may point out, you all may find some benefit to reviewing how others have or currently address these questions. I mean there is no cause to re-invent the wheel so to speak. Relevant information and perspective can be found in many places. Afterall I know that I have seen this very conversation unfold in the rules of the tournaments for Photon, Laser Storm, Qzar, Zone, Laser Quest, Lasertron, Actual Reality, Laser Trek, Laser Blast, and Darklight. While eachtag system has its own unique aspects to consider, at the very heart they are more similar than different, and the rudimentary concepts you all discuss (ref involvement, teammates in hallways etc) carry across all of them.

Ah, but that's the trick now isn't it?

Now no offense to the powers that be, but have you tried this site's search function? !

If the answer to the query lies elsewhere, maybe it can be divined here...

[Gallandro]

3. You shouldn't be able to hide behind referees - Still needs discussion, I favour treating the refs as part of the playing field making this legal.

I don't support this.
1. Most importantly it potentially puts a referee into a situation where they are not in a position to view what the player is actually doing (eg is he targeting from behind the ref).
2. While refs are supposed to be non-biased, what's to stop a ref from knowingly putting himself into a postion that shields a player (eg medic)?
I believe refs should be left out of the equation.

In every version of the official rules, even dating back to before Laserforce was Laserforce, the referees were specifically noted to be considered part of the field.

It was with this fundamental precept in mind that I wrote the Referee's Guidelines, e.g. from the Guidelines:

Once stationary, a referee is considered to be an immobile part of the field, and therefore players cannot ask a referee to move, but must move around them.

My thoughts on your specific points:
1. Then that's just poor positioning by the ref.
2. What's to stop them?.Well I would think that NEVER getting to ref ever again because they're a cheat and breached the Ref's Guidelines would be a pretty good deterrent (although some would consider never ref'ing again a plus )

Chris is correct on this point.

[tragedy]

Thanks for your thoughts, Gallandro, and I hope you can continue in this discussion

However, I'd like to point out the following...

In every version of the official rules, even dating back to before Laserforce was Laserforce, the referees were specifically noted to be considered part of the field.

It was with this fundamental precept in mind that I wrote the Referee's Guidelines, e.g. from the Guidelines:

Once stationary, a referee is considered to be an immobile part of the field, and therefore players cannot ask a referee to move, but must move around them.

The refs are considered to be an immobile part of the playing field. This has not changed, nor has (at least this part of) your Ref's Guidelines changed. It has always been taken that way from a player's perspective. This is the line that tells referees that if a player asks you to move, you do not have to.
The next line should give pause

Referees will often have to move around to be able to keep an eye on the action.

and for this reason, they should not be allowed to be used as shields. Allowing referees to be used as a shield puts them into a position where they could (knowingly or unknowingly) bias a game. Refs should be left out of the equation.

In response to your thoughts:-

1. Then that's just poor positioning by the ref.

Referees cannot simply put themselves in a corner and hope to see everything they should, THAT is poor postitioning. I can point out at least two places on our field where, whilst still against a wall, a ref needs to be standing with space on either side. It is that type of placement that, while allowing the referee to be able to view as much of the arena as possible, still puts him in a compromising position should he also be a possible shield.

although some would consider never ref'ing again a plus

Precisely. This is an issue unto itself, but does strengthens my position on the matter.

[Gallandro]

Once stationary, a referee is considered to be an immobile part of the field, and therefore players cannot ask a referee to move, but must move around them.

The refs are considered to be an immobile part of the playing field. This has not changed, nor has (at least this part of) your Ref's Guidelines changed. It has always been taken that way from a player's perspective. This is the line that tells referees that if a player asks you to move, you do not have to.

No this is the line that tells everyone that the refs are to be considered part of the field, in all respects. It was not written with any caveats, it was worded to mean exactly what it says. Remember that this wasn't something that was written as new, it was just the codification of how things had always been.

The next line should give pause

Referees will often have to move around to be able to keep an eye on the action.

and for this reason, they should not be allowed to be used as shields.

No, that does not naturally follow. What does follow is exactly what comes after that in the Guidelines

However, it is important that they do not disturb the flow of the mission. Simply put, when players are nearby, the referee should restrict their movement unless necessary. If movement is necessary, it should be carefully considered to avoid interrupting player’s movement or aim.

In other words, they should do their best to not interfere with the game around them. Nothing else.

Allowing referees to be used as a shield puts them into a position where they could (knowingly or unknowingly) bias a game.

Dealing with the "knowingly" part first, as I said, that would be a breach of the Guidelines and effectively cheating, and the recourse for that is not letting them ref again, which is exactly what would happen if someone was caught doing that. No one would let them ref again (and rightly so). But the rules should not be written on the assumption that refs will cheat. They were written on the assumption that refs would do the right thing, as it is impossible to completely safeguard against a bodgy ref in the rules without making the system a mess. The solution is simple, IF a ref cheats, they don't get to ref again. And practical experience has shown that this is a reasonable expectation, in the time I played (12-13 years or thereabouts), I can't remember a single instance of a ref being caught cheating.... incompetent yes... but not cheating

As to "unknowingly", as long as the refs "carefully consider" their movement and have half a brain (a big call in some cases I know) in terms of their static positioning, then this is such a minor issue, that you are profoundly over-regulating to try to account for this.

Besides, I think you are missing a fundamental point of this. The ref is part of the field, no different to a wall. So in that case, does a player get in trouble for hiding behind a wall. Of course not. The same logic was always meant to be applied to the refs.

Referees cannot simply put themselves in a corner and hope to see everything they should, THAT is poor postitioning.

You don't have to stand in a corner, but you can always situate yourself to cause the least interference possible. Once you've placed yourself, you're just a wall, and people have to play around you.

although some would consider never ref'ing again a plus

Precisely. This is an issue unto itself, but does strengthens my position on the matter.

Errrr... not really... that was a joke. "Ahhhh... humour"....

[tragedy]

Yes, I agree that refs are always considered to be part of the playing field, but the Shielding rule specifically excludes them from being used.

A player, when not targeting an opponent, may use only their torso and/or permanent playing field constructions to block an opponents shot or attempted shot at any of their hit zones provided they are not breaching parts (a) or (b).

This is one of the big changes made to Shielding. It was (long ago now) discussed and decided that the original rule didn't stop players from using their own team to hide behind, which in SM5 would cause problems. While discussing the changes it was also decided that players could not use refs as a shield either. Since they are considered part of the playing field, it was written this way. The original rule specifically stated when targeting, so when not targeting was (basically) included as well. The change was made after lengthy discussions with players from Oakleigh, Wellington, Ballarat, and Brisbane.

I also agree that refs are meant to be impartial, but the human factor should be taken into account too. By placing the onus on the player to not hide behind certain items, there is less pressure on a referee to be "doing the right thing." If a ref decides he needs to move, and a player decides he wants to hide, how is it to be adjudicated that the ref was or was not deliberately moving in a manner that helped that player?

[Gallandro]

I also agree that refs are meant to be impartial, but the human factor should be taken into account too. By placing the onus on the player to not hide behind certain items, there is less pressure on a referee to be "doing the right thing." If a ref decides he needs to move, and a player decides he wants to hide, how is it to be adjudicated that the ref was or was not deliberately moving in a manner that helped that player?

The problem with this sort of thinking, i.e. putting rules in to protect against referee malfeasance, and no longer assuming that referees will "do the right thing", is that it opens an infinite can of worms, e.g. under your system, couldn't a dodgy ref put themselves in a static position that prevents a player from standing in a good field position due to their fear of now being done for shielding behind the ref. The cheating ref in this instance can position himself to limit the positions that players can take around him.

It's a slippery slope... I think you are better off not trying to regulate referee misconduct and let the natural course of events, i.e. a cheating ref is never selected for ref'ing again and promptly beaten up in the carpark, take their course.

[tragedy]

a cheating ref is never selected for ref'ing again and promptly beaten up in the carpark

Can't do that anymore.. they have cameras

[Gallandro]

a cheating ref is never selected for ref'ing again and promptly beaten up in the carpark

Can't do that anymore.. they have cameras

Photoshop is your friend

[tragedy]

couldn't a dodgy ref put themselves in a static position that prevents a player from standing in a good field position

I suppose they could, yes. Irrespective of whatever system is in place, a dodgy ref can always influence play. I'd prefer to put up with a dodgy ref in a bad spot than a dodgy ref in cahoots with a player moving around the field preventing me from getting an elimination.

Irrespective of what the intention is, or what the spirit of the rule may be looking for, in the end a referee is still one of your opponents that you are not currently playing against. While you expect them to do the right thing, and in turn you will do so when you are their referee, it cannot always be expected to be so. Take away the ability or the temptation and you won't have the potential problem.