Jump to content


Photo

Paintball field sued by non-profit for the blind.


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#51 No Mercy Ever

No Mercy Ever

    Sophomore Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Federal Way, WA


Posted 30 January 2012 - 03:27 PM

I'm kind of hoping there is a law on the books that says blind people can't own or operate projectile weapons which will make this an easy case.


If there was, it would probably have negated the lawsuit.

#52 thiswonthurt

thiswonthurt

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 January 2012 - 03:45 PM


I'm kind of hoping there is a law on the books that says blind people can't own or operate projectile weapons which will make this an easy case.


If there was, it would probably have negated the lawsuit.


That's why I'm hoping for it. This is just a civil filing and not the actual court case.

www.livestream.com/skevic:  The only place to watch the Vicious series live.


#53 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 30 January 2012 - 03:47 PM

...
It's funny that you mention legally blind. Yes, you can be legally blind, and still have vision. Even to the point that you could drive, if wanted, but aren't supposed to. But the key part to this, regardless of how much vision that they do have remaining, or have ever had, was that it states the plaintiff's used "cane travel and other mobility skills". It implies that all eight individuals had canes, which can be a good point for the defense. If they are playing at an outdoor facility that does not have any flat fields and/or speedball type of fields, it means that they are playing on rough terrain. This hampers one's ability to traverse the course accurately and safely.

Further, there is mention in the STATEMENT OF FACTS, part 13, it mentions pre-determined bounds. In a woodsball field, this is easily some form of colored tape running from tree to tree, usually around chest level, which can easily been seen by participants and officials. In taking one's sight out of the equation, this renders the boundaries unusable. As well as the fact that at many fields, thanks to the weather, the boundary tape can easily tear between trees, and often is tied off on various branches in a quick fix by officials (Referee's).

There is always the insurance card. Not knowing what their insurance requirements are, the field has every right to deny these people access to the facility if they believe that in doing so, they are opening themselves up for a lawsuit due to injuries that are not going to be covered the insurance agency that they use. Often, there are parts in the wording of an insurance policy that state that they take every reasonable effort to insure a safe environment for participants in the activity. This includes, but not limited to, placing appropriate safety devices between the staging area and the playing field, safety devices on the markers between games and in the non play area, periodically checking equipment for any safety issues, as well as checking the fields for any safety hazards (Like nails sticking out of building materials, ditches that are covered by materials not designed to hold up to a certain weight). As well, this often includes not allowing people under the influence of a substance that may unduly affect one's ability to reason and observe their environment. That last part often pertains to not letting players play while drunk or on drugs. But the exact wording can easily include one's physical liabilities, such as being blind and wanting to play paintball.

I feel for the field. Even if they win, it may cost them so much money that they can't afford to remain open.


I don't think there are enough details to outline who did or didn't have canes, or even what they are using them for. For example, I know that if my eyesight was on it's way out (i.e degenerative disease), you better believe I'd want to practice using the cane. It could very well be some were relying upon canes while others in the group were using 'other' methods to navigate (i.e. Blurry vision).

The last time I played at Rt 40 (a few years ago), it was only a handful of fields and only one was a non-speedball field (that particular one was a very small woods/hyperball field). The rest were all speedball fields with netting. Most (if not all) were airball bunker equipped.
I agree about the possiblity of insurance coverage (I mentioned that earlier in the thread). So, the question there is what is the coverage and, what would be a field operator's recourse. For example, Since the rules of a field often stem directly from insurance requirements (which originally stemmed from field operator's common sense), I would not be surprised if the requirement states "Players must see what they are shooting at", which get's translated into "No blind fire" and get's intepreted by the staff as "you cannot be blind".

Honestly, I can easily see this as a case of the field just not wanting to deal with it (or unable to field a staff to support it). I went there right around the same time that Monsterball became infamous. In my private group (of mostly rentals), the refs stood at the sidelines and chatted (enough to where the idle walk-on players felt the need to make calls for my group). The air station was fully 'self-service' with nobody even asking to check the date of tanks (rentals had to fill their own tanks). And the local regulars were using barrel swabs just as often as barrel plugs (barrel bags were not required). If you bring a vision impaired group to the field, and assume that they can play a match, think about what the park would have to do differently, just to get them through the day. This itself isn't enough to say the park is guilty in this case (maybe they've improved things even though they have the same owner/manager?).

#54 No Mercy Ever

No Mercy Ever

    Sophomore Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Federal Way, WA


Posted 30 January 2012 - 09:10 PM

That's why I'm hoping for it. This is just a civil filing and not the actual court case.


If the law existed, it would not make it to a civil filing. It costs money for a lawyer to file a lawsuit. If a law existed that prohibited the ownership and/or usage of a projectile device by a person who is legally blind, that would be an automatic win for the defendant. Which means that the lawyer and it's clients are out of money that they have no chance of making back. Lawyers don't like to have a situation like that happen, because they get barely anything out of a client for a payday.

I don't think there are enough details to outline who did or didn't have canes, or even what they are using them for. For example, I know that if my eyesight was on it's way out (i.e degenerative disease), you better believe I'd want to practice using the cane. It could very well be some were relying upon canes while others in the group were using 'other' methods to navigate (i.e. Blurry vision).

The last time I played at Rt 40 (a few years ago), it was only a handful of fields and only one was a non-speedball field (that particular one was a very small woods/hyperball field). The rest were all speedball fields with netting. Most (if not all) were airball bunker equipped.
I agree about the possiblity of insurance coverage (I mentioned that earlier in the thread). So, the question there is what is the coverage and, what would be a field operator's recourse. For example, Since the rules of a field often stem directly from insurance requirements (which originally stemmed from field operator's common sense), I would not be surprised if the requirement states "Players must see what they are shooting at", which get's translated into "No blind fire" and get's intepreted by the staff as "you cannot be blind".

Honestly, I can easily see this as a case of the field just not wanting to deal with it (or unable to field a staff to support it). I went there right around the same time that Monsterball became infamous. In my private group (of mostly rentals), the refs stood at the sidelines and chatted (enough to where the idle walk-on players felt the need to make calls for my group). The air station was fully 'self-service' with nobody even asking to check the date of tanks (rentals had to fill their own tanks). And the local regulars were using barrel swabs just as often as barrel plugs (barrel bags were not required). If you bring a vision impaired group to the field, and assume that they can play a match, think about what the park would have to do differently, just to get them through the day. This itself isn't enough to say the park is guilty in this case (maybe they've improved things even though they have the same owner/manager?).


We have the detail that states specifically how many people were in their group (8, two instructors/staff members and six students), and that they used canes. It does not state that half of them had canes, or that two of them had canes (You have to believe that there was at least two canes, since it is stated in plural), so you have to believe that all of them had canes. There is no mention that any of them are legally blind, and not totally blind, even when they are talking about how they tried to play. They did not use the argument that they can see enough to be able to see what they are shooting at, or that they could see enough to get around a course without the aid of a "seeing eye dog" (Joke). There is no mention of the level of blindness that they all suffer from, but there is mention (I believe through a newspaper article that someone else quoted) that at least one of the people did have sight, and lost it. Seeing as how the federal government is where that wiki info comes from (20/200 or the 20 degree acuity) you can believe that most likely, since there is mention of canes, it wasn't the acuity that was the issue.

The other interesting thing, out of the eight people, only three are involved in the lawsuit, the two instructors, and a trainee/student who had normal sight at some point in time of his life, and lost it. So one has to wonder about the other five individuals, and why they aren't a part of the suit as plaintiffs. I am sure that they will be involved as witnesses for the plaintiff's.

Most likely, they were just lazy, and didn't want to deal with the situation, rather than on any kind of a legal or semi-legal basis. And insurance probably didn't even come into their heads until after the fact. Which is why I am sure that they have not responded to the letter that was sent to them back in June.

#55 AmateurBaller

AmateurBaller

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 10:25 PM


...
It's funny that you mention legally blind. Yes, you can be legally blind, and still have vision. Even to the point that you could drive, if wanted, but aren't supposed to. But the key part to this, regardless of how much vision that they do have remaining, or have ever had, was that it states the plaintiff's used "cane travel and other mobility skills". It implies that all eight individuals had canes, which can be a good point for the defense. If they are playing at an outdoor facility that does not have any flat fields and/or speedball type of fields, it means that they are playing on rough terrain. This hampers one's ability to traverse the course accurately and safely.

Further, there is mention in the STATEMENT OF FACTS, part 13, it mentions pre-determined bounds. In a woodsball field, this is easily some form of colored tape running from tree to tree, usually around chest level, which can easily been seen by participants and officials. In taking one's sight out of the equation, this renders the boundaries unusable. As well as the fact that at many fields, thanks to the weather, the boundary tape can easily tear between trees, and often is tied off on various branches in a quick fix by officials (Referee's).

There is always the insurance card. Not knowing what their insurance requirements are, the field has every right to deny these people access to the facility if they believe that in doing so, they are opening themselves up for a lawsuit due to injuries that are not going to be covered the insurance agency that they use. Often, there are parts in the wording of an insurance policy that state that they take every reasonable effort to insure a safe environment for participants in the activity. This includes, but not limited to, placing appropriate safety devices between the staging area and the playing field, safety devices on the markers between games and in the non play area, periodically checking equipment for any safety issues, as well as checking the fields for any safety hazards (Like nails sticking out of building materials, ditches that are covered by materials not designed to hold up to a certain weight). As well, this often includes not allowing people under the influence of a substance that may unduly affect one's ability to reason and observe their environment. That last part often pertains to not letting players play while drunk or on drugs. But the exact wording can easily include one's physical liabilities, such as being blind and wanting to play paintball.

I feel for the field. Even if they win, it may cost them so much money that they can't afford to remain open.


I don't think there are enough details to outline who did or didn't have canes, or even what they are using them for. For example, I know that if my eyesight was on it's way out (i.e degenerative disease), you better believe I'd want to practice using the cane. It could very well be some were relying upon canes while others in the group were using 'other' methods to navigate (i.e. Blurry vision).

The last time I played at Rt 40 (a few years ago), it was only a handful of fields and only one was a non-speedball field (that particular one was a very small woods/hyperball field). The rest were all speedball fields with netting. Most (if not all) were airball bunker equipped.
I agree about the possiblity of insurance coverage (I mentioned that earlier in the thread). So, the question there is what is the coverage and, what would be a field operator's recourse. For example, Since the rules of a field often stem directly from insurance requirements (which originally stemmed from field operator's common sense), I would not be surprised if the requirement states "Players must see what they are shooting at", which get's translated into "No blind fire" and get's intepreted by the staff as "you cannot be blind".

Honestly, I can easily see this as a case of the field just not wanting to deal with it (or unable to field a staff to support it). I went there right around the same time that Monsterball became infamous. In my private group (of mostly rentals), the refs stood at the sidelines and chatted (enough to where the idle walk-on players felt the need to make calls for my group). The air station was fully 'self-service' with nobody even asking to check the date of tanks (rentals had to fill their own tanks). And the local regulars were using barrel swabs just as often as barrel plugs (barrel bags were not required). If you bring a vision impaired group to the field, and assume that they can play a match, think about what the park would have to do differently, just to get them through the day. This itself isn't enough to say the park is guilty in this case (maybe they've improved things even though they have the same owner/manager?).





Route 40 has changed a lot since you last played then. They have 2 Hyperball fields resembled after a speedball field, one "Spool" field and a small woodsball field. Since I have been playing there; A. Players with their own guns are required to chrono, B. The refs are interactive with PARTY groups a lot more than walk-ons. I play with the advanced walk-ons so there isn't really a need for a ref besides starting the game and checking players for breaks. C. 90% of the time I go to fill up air there is a ref who does it for anybody that needs it (even though I know how) and D. You literally cannot walk anywhere off the field without getting told to put your barrel plug in. Route 40 is my favorite place to play at just because of the atmosphere and their safety.

I have talked with a couple of refs about this and they seemed pretty confident that the Blind people would not win. That being said, it IS a pretty big safety issue because before anyone can play, the players are given an orientation and they specifically state that there is NO BLINDFIRING. This is for the safety of people on other fields/the cars. Nobody wants to finish a day of paintball and head back to their car to see it covered in paint from a renter who wasn't looking where they were aiming.

#56 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 30 January 2012 - 10:32 PM

Route 40 has changed a lot since you last played then. They have 2 Hyperball fields resembled after a speedball field, one "Spool" field and a small woodsball field. Since I have been playing there; A. Players with their own guns are required to chrono, B. The refs are interactive with PARTY groups a lot more than walk-ons. I play with the advanced walk-ons so there isn't really a need for a ref besides starting the game and checking players for breaks. C. 90% of the time I go to fill up air there is a ref who does it for anybody that needs it (even though I know how) and D. You literally cannot walk anywhere off the field without getting told to put your barrel plug in. Route 40 is my favorite place to play at just because of the atmosphere and their safety.

I have talked with a couple of refs about this and they seemed pretty confident that the Blind people would not win. That being said, it IS a pretty big safety issue because before anyone can play, the players are given an orientation and they specifically state that there is NO BLINDFIRING. This is for the safety of people on other fields/the cars. Nobody wants to finish a day of paintball and head back to their car to see it covered in paint from a renter who wasn't looking where they were aiming.


Thanks for the update- it's good to hear that they've made some improvements. Still surprising that they allow barrel plugs vice covers. I'm guessing they don't have netting around some of the fields anymore?

#57 kiriyama9000

kiriyama9000

    SEUM DWA!!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dundalk, MD


Posted 30 January 2012 - 10:46 PM

I'm thinking about heading there the next time I go out. I haven't been there since '05 or '06.
Posted Image

#58 No Mercy Ever

No Mercy Ever

    Sophomore Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Federal Way, WA


Posted 31 January 2012 - 12:20 AM

Route 40 has changed a lot since you last played then. They have 2 Hyperball fields resembled after a speedball field, one "Spool" field and a small woodsball field. Since I have been playing there; A. Players with their own guns are required to chrono, B. The refs are interactive with PARTY groups a lot more than walk-ons. I play with the advanced walk-ons so there isn't really a need for a ref besides starting the game and checking players for breaks. C. 90% of the time I go to fill up air there is a ref who does it for anybody that needs it (even though I know how) and D. You literally cannot walk anywhere off the field without getting told to put your barrel plug in. Route 40 is my favorite place to play at just because of the atmosphere and their safety.

I have talked with a couple of refs about this and they seemed pretty confident that the Blind people would not win. That being said, it IS a pretty big safety issue because before anyone can play, the players are given an orientation and they specifically state that there is NO BLINDFIRING. This is for the safety of people on other fields/the cars. Nobody wants to finish a day of paintball and head back to their car to see it covered in paint from a renter who wasn't looking where they were aiming.


Funny, it has been specifically stated that the whole "blind firing rule" does not apply to what happened, and why this lawsuit has been initiated. The plaintiffs never got to the orientation to hear said rule, so they could not make a claim that it made fun of them, or whatever. But the part that I am waiting to hear about is if the public definition applies or not. It sets a precedent to the whole "Management has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" that has been used for quite a long time, by more businesses than can be counted by alot of people.

The field might not win this case, and if they lose, they may not be able to afford to appeal it. But that is rather a dangerous precedent for every other business, as well as private clubs and schools. That would mean that anyone could attend Harvard. They could not refuse to allow you to attend the college because your grades aren't good enough.

#59 thiswonthurt

thiswonthurt

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 January 2012 - 10:02 AM

So reading this line makes me wonder if a public firing range is included? Would we had a blind person a 12 gauge and let them trap shoot? It needs to be recognized that while we strive for equality that we are not all equal in what we can do.

Also what about some one who is mentally retarded? They wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand the rules. Do we have to let them play even though they would be an increased safety risk (the fact they can't sign a waiver being ignored for this instance. Just looking at the equality argument for the sake of discussion )?

Point is where do we draw the line on what is reasonable at a given time. If we can't trust the ability of a Professional Paintball Player (an expert in his field) about what should be deemed safe on the field who do we trust? A lawyer with no experience? A blind man who played once? Has Tom ever proven his judgement is poor when it comes to safety?

Edited by thiswonthurt, 31 January 2012 - 10:21 AM.

www.livestream.com/skevic:  The only place to watch the Vicious series live.


#60 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 31 January 2012 - 10:51 AM

Funny, it has been specifically stated that the whole "blind firing rule" does not apply to what happened, and why this lawsuit has been initiated. The plaintiffs never got to the orientation to hear said rule, so they could not make a claim that it made fun of them, or whatever. But the part that I am waiting to hear about is if the public definition applies or not. It sets a precedent to the whole "Management has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" that has been used for quite a long time, by more businesses than can be counted by alot of people.

The field might not win this case, and if they lose, they may not be able to afford to appeal it. But that is rather a dangerous precedent for every other business, as well as private clubs and schools. That would mean that anyone could attend Harvard. They could not refuse to allow you to attend the college because your grades aren't good enough.


Actually, the laws in this country regulate who management can refuse to do business with. For example, race, gender, and in this specific case, the Americans with Disabilities Act (Federal), and Maryland's White Cane Law. Now, in practice, if a manager refuses to do business with any of those aforementioned groups, he best not reveal his intent because it would condemn him in a court of law.

Ok so reread this for the X time today and was wondering if they went to a shooting range and demanded be allowed to fire a gun and the owner refused them would anyone argue? It says some thing to the effect of if a business is open to the public it has to allow disabled people reasonable access. If it isn't reasonable to let the fire a gun using metal rounds why is it reasonable to let them use one that fires paint?


Think about it this way- The plaintiffs are three "Legally Blind" individuals. This is a relevant statistic about those classified as "Legally Blind":

Approximately ten percent of those deemed legally blind, by any measure, have no vision. The rest have some vision, from light perception alone to relatively good acuity.


Obviously I wouldn't want those at the "light perception alone" group but, I'm guessing that at the other end of the range, folks are well able to identify a human being at 75 ft and tell if he/she has their paintball gun up in the air. I wouldn't even expect them to be able to make out the presence of a barrel bag because I get often get shot by perfectly sighted folks even though I have a bright red barrel bag on my gun, in the air (not talking about walking into a firefight- just newbs who shooting whatever moves).

#61 No Mercy Ever

No Mercy Ever

    Sophomore Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Federal Way, WA


Posted 31 January 2012 - 11:38 AM

So reading this line makes me wonder if a public firing range is included? Would we had a blind person a 12 gauge and let them trap shoot? It needs to be recognized that while we strive for equality that we are not all equal in what we can do. What about a legally blind person who has a 20 degree or less degree of acuity? They may well have 20/20 vision, just can't see to either side as well as the rest of us. So they would have no problem with shooting at paper targets, but trap shooting might more of an issue unless they have assistance, such as being told that the the pigeons are going to shoot from the right, then the left, then back to the right.

Also what about some one who is mentally retarded? They wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand the rules. Do we have to let them play even though they would be an increased safety risk (the fact they can't sign a waiver being ignored for this instance. Just looking at the equality argument for the sake of discussion )?

Point is where do we draw the line on what is reasonable at a given time. If we can't trust the ability of a Professional Paintball Player (an expert in his field) about what should be deemed safe on the field who do we trust? A lawyer with no experience? A blind man who played once? Has Tom ever proven his judgement is poor when it comes to safety?


Actually, there is no mention that the Professional Paintball Player who is the owner, or part owner in the case of a partnership (In this case I am referring to the fact that his wife was there), was present to make said judgement call. On top of that, not all Pro players have that kind of judgement. They understand how to play the game, and have honed their abilities to play at such a high level, but that does not mean that they automatically have an understanding of who should, and who should not play paintball.

Interestingly enough, I have reffed where I had a group of individuals in a private group that did not understand English very well. Out of ten people, three or four of them didn't understand the language, and when I did orientation, I had to wait every so often so that a person could translate what I said. My concern was that during a game, they would not understand me when I was giving out instructions like about them trying to take their mask off when on the field. I told the others that did speak English well enough that if this was a problem, meaning that they did accidentally take off their mask, and didn't put them on when I told them to, they would not be able to play due to the safety concern that they represented to themselves and others.

Funny enough, we enforce the mask rule because we know that they danger exists for someone to lose their vision if they are hit by a paintball in the eye, but what of those that already have lost enough vision to be legally blind? I mean, should they be required to wear the mask?

#62 UV Halo

UV Halo

    Bringing the Big Guns to LLVI

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 31 January 2012 - 12:49 PM

...Point is where do we draw the line on what is reasonable at a given time. If we can't trust the ability of a Professional Paintball Player (an expert in his field) about what should be deemed safe on the field who do we trust? A lawyer with no experience? A blind man who played once? Has Tom ever proven his judgement is poor when it comes to safety?


To address your broader point, in all of these cases, it will be up to a judge and jury to decide if the business owner/operator was behaving with the benefits of public safety. But, you run a slippery slope when you throw out broad categories like "Mentally Retarded". For example here's another quote from Wikipedia:

People with mild MR are capable of learning reading and mathematics skills to approximately the level of a typical child aged 9 to 12.[5] They can learn self-care and practical skills, such as cooking or using the local mass transit system.[5] As individuals with mild mental retardation reach adulthood, many learn to live independently and maintain gainful employment.


In my own opinion, yes, Tom has demonstrated poor judgement in regards to safety. When I went there, he was working the register and registration in the trailer/building. Not once did any of his staff ask to see my or any of my groups tanks (for date of expiration, damage, etc), and nobody was attending the fill station- I was initially confused as to whether I was supposed to wait for a ref, until I noticed most of the local players walk straight up and fill their own tanks. Additionally, he still allows barrel plugs even though these have been demonstrated (by Tyger and others) as unsafe for today's equipment. Now granted, he wasn't the one actually making the call on each of these issues but, as the owner, and onsite manager, he is responsible. He did personally take the time to explain why they were field paint only (not that I cared as I hadn't brought any paint, and I was already aware of monsterball).

#63 kiriyama9000

kiriyama9000

    SEUM DWA!!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dundalk, MD


Posted 31 January 2012 - 02:19 PM

In my own opinion, yes, Tom has demonstrated poor judgement in regards to safety. When I went there, he was working the register and registration in the trailer/building. Not once did any of his staff ask to see my or any of my groups tanks (for date of expiration, damage, etc), and nobody was attending the fill station- I was initially confused as to whether I was supposed to wait for a ref, until I noticed most of the local players walk straight up and fill their own tanks. Additionally, he still allows barrel plugs even though these have been demonstrated (by Tyger and others) as unsafe for today's equipment. Now granted, he wasn't the one actually making the call on each of these issues but, as the owner, and onsite manager, he is responsible. He did personally take the time to explain why they were field paint only (not that I cared as I hadn't brought any paint, and I was already aware of monsterball).


That's what I remember when I was there. No one was monitoring the chrono station or doing spot checks either.
This was years ago though.



Posted Image

#64 thiswonthurt

thiswonthurt

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 January 2012 - 02:51 PM

Obviously I wouldn't want those at the "light perception alone" group but, I'm guessing that at the other end of the range, folks are well able to identify a human being at 75 ft and tell if he/she has their paintball gun up in the air. I wouldn't even expect them to be able to make out the presence of a barrel bag because I get often get shot by perfectly sighted folks even though I have a bright red barrel bag on my gun, in the air (not talking about walking into a firefight- just newbs who shooting whatever moves).


I wear glasses and with out them I can't identify much past about 15 feet. With them I have 20/20 vision.

Edited by thiswonthurt, 31 January 2012 - 02:53 PM.

www.livestream.com/skevic:  The only place to watch the Vicious series live.


#65 AmateurBaller

AmateurBaller

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 08:40 PM


Route 40 has changed a lot since you last played then. They have 2 Hyperball fields resembled after a speedball field, one "Spool" field and a small woodsball field. Since I have been playing there; A. Players with their own guns are required to chrono, B. The refs are interactive with PARTY groups a lot more than walk-ons. I play with the advanced walk-ons so there isn't really a need for a ref besides starting the game and checking players for breaks. C. 90% of the time I go to fill up air there is a ref who does it for anybody that needs it (even though I know how) and D. You literally cannot walk anywhere off the field without getting told to put your barrel plug in. Route 40 is my favorite place to play at just because of the atmosphere and their safety.

I have talked with a couple of refs about this and they seemed pretty confident that the Blind people would not win. That being said, it IS a pretty big safety issue because before anyone can play, the players are given an orientation and they specifically state that there is NO BLINDFIRING. This is for the safety of people on other fields/the cars. Nobody wants to finish a day of paintball and head back to their car to see it covered in paint from a renter who wasn't looking where they were aiming.


Thanks for the update- it's good to hear that they've made some improvements. Still surprising that they allow barrel plugs vice covers. I'm guessing they don't have netting around some of the fields anymore?




They have netting up around all of the fields facing the road/set-up are. They only don't have netting facing that little creek, since nothing is over there. I just love playing there simply because of the atmosphere. Everybody who plays there is pretty awesome and just looking to have a great time playing. Win or loose. Plus, Tom doesn't really work there as often now. Out of the past 6 times I have been there he has only been there once. Usually its his wife (who is VERY safety conscious) or his son Julian who knows what he's doing. But as for the fill up thing, now its like I said, they rarely let me fill up my tank and I know what I'm doing.

#66 thiswonthurt

thiswonthurt

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 February 2012 - 09:22 AM


So reading this line makes me wonder if a public firing range is included? Would we had a blind person a 12 gauge and let them trap shoot? It needs to be recognized that while we strive for equality that we are not all equal in what we can do. What about a legally blind person who has a 20 degree or less degree of acuity? They may well have 20/20 vision, just can't see to either side as well as the rest of us. So they would have no problem with shooting at paper targets, but trap shooting might more of an issue unless they have assistance, such as being told that the the pigeons are going to shoot from the right, then the left, then back to the right.

Also what about some one who is mentally retarded? They wouldn't have the mental capacity to understand the rules. Do we have to let them play even though they would be an increased safety risk (the fact they can't sign a waiver being ignored for this instance. Just looking at the equality argument for the sake of discussion )?

Point is where do we draw the line on what is reasonable at a given time. If we can't trust the ability of a Professional Paintball Player (an expert in his field) about what should be deemed safe on the field who do we trust? A lawyer with no experience? A blind man who played once? Has Tom ever proven his judgement is poor when it comes to safety?


Actually, there is no mention that the Professional Paintball Player who is the owner, or part owner in the case of a partnership (In this case I am referring to the fact that his wife was there), was present to make said judgement call. On top of that, not all Pro players have that kind of judgement. They understand how to play the game, and have honed their abilities to play at such a high level, but that does not mean that they automatically have an understanding of who should, and who should not play paintball.

Interestingly enough, I have reffed where I had a group of individuals in a private group that did not understand English very well. Out of ten people, three or four of them didn't understand the language, and when I did orientation, I had to wait every so often so that a person could translate what I said. My concern was that during a game, they would not understand me when I was giving out instructions like about them trying to take their mask off when on the field. I told the others that did speak English well enough that if this was a problem, meaning that they did accidentally take off their mask, and didn't put them on when I told them to, they would not be able to play due to the safety concern that they represented to themselves and others.

Funny enough, we enforce the mask rule because we know that they danger exists for someone to lose their vision if they are hit by a paintball in the eye, but what of those that already have lost enough vision to be legally blind? I mean, should they be required to wear the mask?

One of the articals I read made mention of him being and ex pro.

Next if players don't understand ME as a ref they pose a substantial risk to other players so they don't play


...Point is where do we draw the line on what is reasonable at a given time. If we can't trust the ability of a Professional Paintball Player (an expert in his field) about what should be deemed safe on the field who do we trust? A lawyer with no experience? A blind man who played once? Has Tom ever proven his judgement is poor when it comes to safety?


To address your broader point, in all of these cases, it will be up to a judge and jury to decide if the business owner/operator was behaving with the benefits of public safety. But, you run a slippery slope when you throw out broad categories like "Mentally Retarded". For example here's another quote from Wikipedia:

People with mild MR are capable of learning reading and mathematics skills to approximately the level of a typical child aged 9 to 12.[5] They can learn self-care and practical skills, such as cooking or using the local mass transit system.[5] As individuals with mild mental retardation reach adulthood, many learn to live independently and maintain gainful employment.


In my own opinion, yes, Tom has demonstrated poor judgement in regards to safety. When I went there, he was working the register and registration in the trailer/building. Not once did any of his staff ask to see my or any of my groups tanks (for date of expiration, damage, etc), and nobody was attending the fill station- I was initially confused as to whether I was supposed to wait for a ref, until I noticed most of the local players walk straight up and fill their own tanks. Additionally, he still allows barrel plugs even though these have been demonstrated (by Tyger and others) as unsafe for today's equipment. Now granted, he wasn't the one actually making the call on each of these issues but, as the owner, and onsite manager, he is responsible. He did personally take the time to explain why they were field paint only (not that I cared as I hadn't brought any paint, and I was already aware of monsterball).

MR is also defined as anyone with an IQ of under 70 (I work in a special ed department so I see a lot of this). Due to privacy issues I can not elaborate past that. All I can say is 70 is not sufficient to be on a paintball field in my opinion.

With the exclusion of barrel plugs every where I play has player self fill (you do have the option to have a field worker fill for you) and I've never had a tank checked when I walk onto a field except my old Co2 tank that looked like it was 10 years old.

Juries and Judges have proven time and time again to rule in the most illogical ways ie awarding damages to a bugler who broke his leg breaking into a guys house and sued the home owner.


In my own opinion, yes, Tom has demonstrated poor judgement in regards to safety. When I went there, he was working the register and registration in the trailer/building. Not once did any of his staff ask to see my or any of my groups tanks (for date of expiration, damage, etc), and nobody was attending the fill station- I was initially confused as to whether I was supposed to wait for a ref, until I noticed most of the local players walk straight up and fill their own tanks. Additionally, he still allows barrel plugs even though these have been demonstrated (by Tyger and others) as unsafe for today's equipment. Now granted, he wasn't the one actually making the call on each of these issues but, as the owner, and onsite manager, he is responsible. He did personally take the time to explain why they were field paint only (not that I cared as I hadn't brought any paint, and I was already aware of monsterball).


That's what I remember when I was there. No one was monitoring the chrono station or doing spot checks either.
This was years ago though.



Again I have never been at a field where the chrono station is monitored. Refs have the right to rechrono your gun at any point and on more than one occasion I have seen other player grab guns and check chrono speeds. To sight these as making a field unsafe is unjustified.

Personally I think he did the right thing in this case.

All the things you guys sight as poor judgement on Tom's part are common practice in Nebraska and we don't have any problems so I still say his judgement is sound.

www.livestream.com/skevic:  The only place to watch the Vicious series live.


#67 Demon

Demon

    Master Tech

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Omaha Nebraska


Posted 01 February 2012 - 11:21 AM

tyler, tanks are checked and have a colored zip tie put on them and are supposed to be checked at every event. but they are only checked once a season because the zip tie can be seen. so yes we do check the tanks in nebraska.

also most other fields have a monitored chronograph station and do spot checks.

just because most of our fields don't have the amount of ref's needed to do it does not mean that it is not done at most other fields. and field's insurance policies differ from field to field. there is not one end all be all set of regulations for fields to follow.

but regardless the field owner/officials have every right to deny any person from use of the field for any reason at any time. this is posted in almost every sporting event's insurance policy and rules and on just about every single waiver. a field owner could tell you he doesn't want you using the field if you show up dressed in a clown suit and he doesn't like clowns. it is his field and his right to deny your entry and this extends to staff. the owner was in the clear no matter how butthurt anyone gets saying he hates the blind or w/e because it is a safety issue it has nothing to do with race/religion/descrimination. the choice is solely up to him who he wishes to allow use of his field and property.

Mad Cow Paintball referee and tech
UNL Husker Paintball
"Let's play a game of go fuck yourself, you first..."

My Feedback

 


#68 No Mercy Ever

No Mercy Ever

    Sophomore Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Federal Way, WA


Posted 01 February 2012 - 01:30 PM


Actually, there is no mention that the Professional Paintball Player who is the owner, or part owner in the case of a partnership (In this case I am referring to the fact that his wife was there), was present to make said judgement call. On top of that, not all Pro players have that kind of judgement. They understand how to play the game, and have honed their abilities to play at such a high level, but that does not mean that they automatically have an understanding of who should, and who should not play paintball.

Interestingly enough, I have reffed where I had a group of individuals in a private group that did not understand English very well. Out of ten people, three or four of them didn't understand the language, and when I did orientation, I had to wait every so often so that a person could translate what I said. My concern was that during a game, they would not understand me when I was giving out instructions like about them trying to take their mask off when on the field. I told the others that did speak English well enough that if this was a problem, meaning that they did accidentally take off their mask, and didn't put them on when I told them to, they would not be able to play due to the safety concern that they represented to themselves and others.

Funny enough, we enforce the mask rule because we know that they danger exists for someone to lose their vision if they are hit by a paintball in the eye, but what of those that already have lost enough vision to be legally blind? I mean, should they be required to wear the mask?

One of the articals I read made mention of him being and ex pro.

Next if players don't understand ME as a ref they pose a substantial risk to other players so they don't play


I probably did not make myself clear here. I am not saying that Tom isn't a Pro paintball player, or even an ex Pro paintball player, only that he wasn't there, per what it says in the media reports, and in the lawsuit filing. There is mention of a woman, a Miriam, who is either Tom's wife (Most likely possibility), sister (Less likely), mother (Less likely), or even daughter (Lowest possibility). Said woman is not a Pro player, or ex Pro player. That was what I was saying at the time.

#69 Tusken Raider

Tusken Raider

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glen Burnie, Md.

Posted 12 February 2012 - 08:21 PM

I knew that family that runs the place for many years, including when their son was born. If it was the mother, she is extremely safety conscious. I could tell you how much so when their son first started playing, and this was at their first field off carrol island rd near the bengies drive in.

i worked at that first field for years as a ref, then head ref. Things may have changed since I went my own way, but I doubt they would discriminate and in my experience with knowing them, they did not allow players that posed a safety risk to play.
27 years of experience. Upcoming purchase TM 15.
Gotcha gun,Splatmaster, Line SI Bushmaster pump,PMI 3, PMI 1 Pump, Level 7 Automag, Original Spyder, Spider Shutter, PGP, Sterling pump

Been there, seen it, done it, saw it.

#70 Osnare94

Osnare94

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 248 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:03 AM

lol
THEVAL

#71 PassivePB

PassivePB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canuckistan


Posted 30 March 2012 - 01:08 AM

necro'd?

#72 braindead

braindead

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 120 posts

Posted 30 March 2012 - 07:37 PM

Silly blind people, fun stuff is for the sighted.

#73 Pepsi

Pepsi

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:15 PM

The Blind group doesn't have a case. You Can't play paintball SAFELY blind.

#74 StReaKeR

StReaKeR

    B.O.M.A.G.S Head Honcho!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,021 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California (818)


Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:18 PM

So glad I don't live in the USA. You guys can't take a sh*t without someone being offended and sueing!


Can I get your info so I can have you served. Thanks
Posted Image

#75 ShadowZero

ShadowZero

    Karma Police

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,235 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Pants

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:31 PM

This is honestly kind of stupid.

Blind people can't see, so it is considered Blind Fire, when they shoot at anything (No pun intended). I'm sure there's still stuff they can do to have fun in place of paintball, for example, go to comedy clubs and listen to audiobooks... There's nothing wrong with being blind, but when you have to sue a paintball field because apparently "No Blind Fire" offends you, that's just plain dumb.

-My YouTube (More Videos To Come Soon!)


Set-Up: Marq Rapper, Dye Rotor, Ninja 68/45

Be a Brick Wall, Don't Break Down


#76 Dak-Attack

Dak-Attack

    Likes Puppies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, TX

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:34 PM

Is there an update on the case?


#77 StReaKeR

StReaKeR

    B.O.M.A.G.S Head Honcho!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,021 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California (818)


Posted 03 April 2012 - 11:46 PM

Yup, they won. They were allowed to play on the park, they got all their gear, ref explained the rules, and right after he blew the whistle he kicked them all out of the park for blind firing.......
Posted Image

#78 No Mercy Ever

No Mercy Ever

    Sophomore Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Federal Way, WA


Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:09 AM

The Blind group doesn't have a case. You Can't play paintball SAFELY blind.



This is honestly kind of stupid.

Blind people can't see, so it is considered Blind Fire, when they shoot at anything (No pun intended). I'm sure there's still stuff they can do to have fun in place of paintball, for example, go to comedy clubs and listen to audiobooks... There's nothing wrong with being blind, but when you have to sue a paintball field because apparently "No Blind Fire" offends you, that's just plain dumb.

Keep in mind, there are two basic versions of blindness, one involves what most people typically think of as a blind person, meaning that they loose the ability to see. Not all of these people are blind in that their world is black, and they can't see anything at all. Some have such bad visual acuity that they can't see things clearly but do still make out some light, and large amount of a single color. The other version of blindness is that a person looses most of their peripheral vision. The ultimate case of tunnel vision. They can see everything right in front of them with perfect 20/20 vision, but they can only go a couple of degrees to either side with what we take for granted. Like I am sitting here, at my desk, and can see the monitor easily enough, but in my periphery, I can see a window to my right, which is slightly more than 90 degrees from my head, and across the room to the other window, which is slightly closer to 90 degrees from my head.

Also, it wasn't the blind firing rule that got the people to go against the paintball park. It was that they booked a group, got there, were told that they could not play because they were blind, appealed to the people, still denied, stated that it was a law in Maryland, still denied, called the police, and were still denied a third time, even when the police told them that it was the law that they should be allowed to play.

#79 MinnesotaPaintballer

MinnesotaPaintballer

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Minnesota


Posted 31 December 2012 - 05:22 PM

So glad I don't live in the USA. You guys can't take a sh*t without someone being offended and sueing!


I hear that! The popular thing to do these days is sue people. I just find it hard to believe that a paintball field could be sued for safety. Can you seriously imagine a paintball match with blind people? There's no future in that!

#80 PREDATOR 47

PREDATOR 47

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 31 December 2012 - 10:27 PM

I hope this case gets thrown out. I do agree that blind people should be allowed to attempt to do whatever they want to lead a normal life, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. They are blind for crying out loud. Where in the world did somebody think that allowing them to run around with paintball guns was a safe idea for anybody involved?

I believe that if someone walks on the field and they pose a significant safety risk to either themselves or anyone within range, and the problem cannot be solved reasonably, they should not be allowed to play.

The field owner did the right thing in looking out for everyone's safety, and I hope that fact is realized.

#81 paintballguy2255

paintballguy2255

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,027 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 January 2013 - 01:15 PM

Well,look at it this way:What other sports could they play?Pretty much all sports require vision in order to carry out a certain goal.Football,soccer,baseball,golf,and the list goes on.What if a blind kid had stepped up to a football coach and said"I wanna play!"The coach would have probably said(a little nicer)"You're blind,you can't play",then the kid would have gone home and told his parents,the parents would have sued the school,and the case would be plastered all over the headlines.This could happen in any sport,not just paintball.

Besides,a majority of the posts here happened 6+ months ago,so obviously this has been worked out.

#82 No Mercy Ever

No Mercy Ever

    Sophomore Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Federal Way, WA


Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:45 PM

Well,look at it this way:What other sports could they play?Pretty much all sports require vision in order to carry out a certain goal.Football,soccer,baseball,golf,and the list goes on.What if a blind kid had stepped up to a football coach and said"I wanna play!"The coach would have probably said(a little nicer)"You're blind,you can't play",then the kid would have gone home and told his parents,the parents would have sued the school,and the case would be plastered all over the headlines.This could happen in any sport,not just paintball.

Besides,a majority of the posts here happened 6+ months ago,so obviously this has been worked out.


Probably not. Have you had to deal with the legal system? Things take time. And this will be one of them.

#83 paintballguy2255

paintballguy2255

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,027 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 January 2013 - 04:53 PM

True,true.Does anyone know where this is at?

#84 No Mercy Ever

No Mercy Ever

    Sophomore Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Federal Way, WA


Posted 01 January 2013 - 06:09 PM

True,true.Does anyone know where this is at?


Lawyers representing a non-profit Maryland group are suing a White Marsh paintball park for not letting them play.


Paintball is a visual sport. But it’s doubtful that’s what lawyers for Blind Industries and Services of Maryland, a non-profit whose stated “purpose is to positively change people's attitudes about blindness,” were thinking when they filed the first-of-its-kind lawsuit against Route 40 Paintball Park in U.S. District Court.


From the original post. Pretty good guess that it would be in Maryland.

#85 paintballguy2255

paintballguy2255

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,027 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:46 PM

I meant in the legal process.Like,Has it been resolved?

#86 No Mercy Ever

No Mercy Ever

    Sophomore Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Federal Way, WA


Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:51 PM

That's a good question. I can't find anything beyond what we already know, so I have no idea. Maybe someone could contact the courts and see if they can get any info on this?

#87 III Kezia III

III Kezia III

    Lulzjustbeingacat :D

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 869 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:33 AM

That is so dumb. yea i get that this "Non-profit" organization thinks its "unfair" to not let blind people but its more of a safety issue than anything! the reason why i put non-profit in quotes is because these idiots - the non profit organization leaders are trying to make a quick buck off this guy. I get that they want to showcase that blind people are just like everyone else but the fact of the matter is that they are still handicapped in one way or another even if they can do all the normal things that regular people do they can't do it in the same manner as someone who isn't handicapped. I.E)it might take a regular person to do something in 5 minutes where as a handicapped person can do the same thing but in lets say 10 minutes. sure they can still do it, but it is not the same.

Lulzjustacat.png


#88 SCHULER

SCHULER

    paintball isnt just a sport, it a way of life

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,363 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:cleveland,tx

Posted 23 January 2013 - 02:09 AM

thats just crazy
Feedback>http://www.techpb.co...howtopic=210389
Gear bag>http://www.techpb.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=216345&st=0&p=3195781&fromsearch=1&#entry3195781

#89 unfated33

unfated33

    Punk Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 985 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:20 PM

Motions for summary judgment by both sides were denied in December. The case must continue in trial and perhaps go to a jury.

http://law.justia.co...03562/196585/32

EDIT: If you want to keep following this case, go to this link and look for "Available Case Documents". I've linked to the most recent document as of 1/23/2013.

Edited by unfated33, 23 January 2013 - 04:22 PM.

Happiness... is a warm mechanical marker

Mechanical Marker Fan: Azodin Kaos-D / Tippmann Crossover

#90 PandasEverywhere

PandasEverywhere

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NMB, SC

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:44 PM

I live in America and must say I am very saddened by these horseshit cases. My friend's father is a cop and he got sued by someone he arrested for being "too rough" when he arrested him. The hand cuffs apparently made the guy's hands get the feeling of "pins-n-needles" which is a sign of circulation loss so the asshat sued the Police Office for allowing this to happen. Nothing came of it but my friend's dad was under constant watch for 1 year as the case was worked out and finally just went away.

#91 ScaryfatkidGT

ScaryfatkidGT

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:44 AM

Next they will want guns, and a pilot licens

#92 Sin_Ister611

Sin_Ister611

    Dude with a gun

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:16 AM

How in the world is doing this sort of crap going to change peoples outlooks on blink people in a positive way?

"Blind-firing" also helps with keeping the paintballs within the confines of the fields, stick a marker out the top of the bunker and start firing while waving around, if the parking lot is out that way with UNMASKED, players, children, parents, the stands, my Bently (kidding, it's just a 'tang).....

I don't think it would be too far fetched to think the visually impaired are going to lose this one with mild reasoning to a judge; however most people will side with the blind people just because they're well, blind. People throw out reason when someone is disabled. In America we don't equal rights for everyone, everyone wants special rights per individual.

#93 Poopfairy35

Poopfairy35

    Providing useless insights here since 2013

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Potville, USA


Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:13 AM

My question is who's idea was this in the first place. Putting blind people on a paintball field was just a bad idea period, might as well have let the blind people drive to the field.
I am a raccoon.

#94 The Knife Crazy

The Knife Crazy

    Spray and Pray Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 467 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:57 AM

its like anything else, it requires eyes to play. You dont see them trying to go to the shooting range with real weapons...the field owner probably was rude and that set these people off.

If You're Not in the Front, You're Doing it Wrong

Current Setup:
Empire Axe in Gun Metal Grey with Matching Freak Barrel Kit
Dye Rotor
Ninja 50/4500


#95 No Mercy Ever

No Mercy Ever

    Sophomore Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Federal Way, WA


Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:48 PM

My question is who's idea was this in the first place. Putting blind people on a paintball field was just a bad idea period, might as well have let the blind people drive to the field.


At least a couple of the people claimed to have played, in their sight restricted state, previously.

#96 bmorepaintballman

bmorepaintballman

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:48 PM

its like anything else, it requires eyes to play. You dont see them trying to go to the shooting range with real weapons...the field owner probably was rude and that set these people off.

I live in Baltimore and have never been to route 40 paintball.No one have ever had a nice thing to say about the place. The refs at the place are suppose to be horrible they go on the field and play on phones and do not actually ref games. They have shields and hide in the corner behind the shield not doing anything from what I have hear it would seem very possible that route 40 was very rude to them. I live in Baltimore so route 40 is pretty close to me but I drive 45 miles to paintball adventure park because we like it their so much better.

#97 Ironchefxingba

Ironchefxingba

    Local Gun Whore

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Aberdeen, Maryland


Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:34 PM


its like anything else, it requires eyes to play. You dont see them trying to go to the shooting range with real weapons...the field owner probably was rude and that set these people off.

I live in Baltimore and have never been to route 40 paintball.No one have ever had a nice thing to say about the place. The refs at the place are suppose to be horrible they go on the field and play on phones and do not actually ref games. They have shields and hide in the corner behind the shield not doing anything from what I have hear it would seem very possible that route 40 was very rude to them. I live in Baltimore so route 40 is pretty close to me but I drive 45 miles to paintball adventure park because we like it their so much better.


Ive played once at rt 40. wasnt impressed. there seems to be a general lack of professionalism at that field so its highly likely that the situation was handled poorly and spun out of control. but none of us where there when it happened so until someone who was speaks up its a moot point. personally I believe in the end the case will be dismissed but hey nonprofit groups somehow can afford the best lawyers so who knows.
Empire Events, 65/4500 Ninja pro reg. Black/slime Luxe 1.5 w/ 2.0 board, Virtue Spire, critical stealth pack.

#98 AmateurBaller

AmateurBaller

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:03 PM



its like anything else, it requires eyes to play. You dont see them trying to go to the shooting range with real weapons...the field owner probably was rude and that set these people off.

I live in Baltimore and have never been to route 40 paintball.No one have ever had a nice thing to say about the place. The refs at the place are suppose to be horrible they go on the field and play on phones and do not actually ref games. They have shields and hide in the corner behind the shield not doing anything from what I have hear it would seem very possible that route 40 was very rude to them. I live in Baltimore so route 40 is pretty close to me but I drive 45 miles to paintball adventure park because we like it their so much better.


Ive played once at rt 40. wasnt impressed. there seems to be a general lack of professionalism at that field so its highly likely that the situation was handled poorly and spun out of control. but none of us where there when it happened so until someone who was speaks up its a moot point. personally I believe in the end the case will be dismissed but hey nonprofit groups somehow can afford the best lawyers so who knows.


You guys are making some pretty wild assumptions. I go up to Route 40 as much as I possibly can? Why? Well yes, its true, the refs do sometimes play on their phones, but go ahead and tell me that you haven't while working your job? They have installed multiple safety nets and are really on top of their safety, giving safety orientations, making sure masks stay down, etc. The refs do not hide in the corner with shields. They make sure everyone is safe and having a good time. Make sure you actually visit the place before you cast your judgment.

#99 Ironchefxingba

Ironchefxingba

    Local Gun Whore

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Aberdeen, Maryland


Posted 20 February 2013 - 11:12 PM




its like anything else, it requires eyes to play. You dont see them trying to go to the shooting range with real weapons...the field owner probably was rude and that set these people off.

I live in Baltimore and have never been to route 40 paintball.No one have ever had a nice thing to say about the place. The refs at the place are suppose to be horrible they go on the field and play on phones and do not actually ref games. They have shields and hide in the corner behind the shield not doing anything from what I have hear it would seem very possible that route 40 was very rude to them. I live in Baltimore so route 40 is pretty close to me but I drive 45 miles to paintball adventure park because we like it their so much better.


Ive played once at rt 40. wasnt impressed. there seems to be a general lack of professionalism at that field so its highly likely that the situation was handled poorly and spun out of control. but none of us where there when it happened so until someone who was speaks up its a moot point. personally I believe in the end the case will be dismissed but hey nonprofit groups somehow can afford the best lawyers so who knows.


You guys are making some pretty wild assumptions. I go up to Route 40 as much as I possibly can? Why? Well yes, its true, the refs do sometimes play on their phones, but go ahead and tell me that you haven't while working your job? They have installed multiple safety nets and are really on top of their safety, giving safety orientations, making sure masks stay down, etc. The refs do not hide in the corner with shields. They make sure everyone is safe and having a good time. Make sure you actually visit the place before you cast your judgment.


that's cute. as I said I have been there and while I was there Safety was the last thing on the list for them, they constantly had masks up on the field with live markers, allowing live markers to be brought outside the nets into the staging area without barrel socks this is the refs im talking about not the players. if this has changed since my visit then good for them glad they got their act together. but at the time of my visit they were not on top of their safety game. so while its great you want to defend the place, you have to realize just because they do the right stuff now doesn't mean they always did.
Empire Events, 65/4500 Ninja pro reg. Black/slime Luxe 1.5 w/ 2.0 board, Virtue Spire, critical stealth pack.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users