A while ago I posted publicly a net article about a specific indoor paintball field. (If you're that anal retentive, go look it up on Deja News. Out of professional courtesy I won't mention the field name.) In it, I criticized the field's policy about face masks.
This indoor field does not require it's walk-on players to wear full face masks. I was given two different reasons why at the time, but it boiled down to them not wanting to require them and / or enforce their use. As a result, I graded them low on the scale for safety.
Some weeks later, I received a phone call from the owner of the establishment. This person was rather angry at me for giving the field a bad rating for safety. I won't deny that my article was harsh, all my field reviews I put on the net are. But what this field owner did got totally out of hand.
I was read the riot act, in no uncertain terms. I was quoted, chapter and verse, about how the 'no mask' policy has been adopted and is accepted in the NPPL and the APL circles. Thereby comparing the recreational game I was playing to professionaly ranked paintball. I was also informed about how JT was producing a half-mask, so it was objiously an industry acceptable norm. I was informed that players were required to wear at least a nose piece (which was in the article to begin with...) And how it was only the walk-ons with own equipment who were allowed to go maskless. ("[Rental players] are not allowed to modify the equipment." End quote.)
I was then basically asked "How dare you say my field is unsafe if I am following precedent set by the NPPL and the APL?" I was in a hurry at the time, and couldn't spend time debating the person on the phone. However, I believe that any debate like this should not only BE in public but REMAIN in public.
The field owner told me that they preferred to deal face to face in questions like this. I find this commendable that the person is willing to talk about the issue to my face. However, I also believe that in debates and arguments (of which this is still the former) what isn't documented isn't done. (And in dealing with this person in the past I would rather have proof of opinion than hearsay of what I said or didn't say.)
The debate is 'mask or no mask', when you break it down. When all is said and done, the only piece of required equipment that a player or referee needs is a pair of paintball approved goggles. The rest is optional, in the basic form.
I don't care WHAT reasons you have not to wear one. "It lets me breathe." "It lets me communicate." "I get more bouncers off my face." I don't give an airborne reproductive act with an over-torqued piece of pastry. (Look it up folks, this is a family forum.) What I do care about is injures and paintball's image.
Outdoors, I couldn't care less if you go with or without. You don't wanna wear a mask? Fine. It's your face. However, at outdoor fields my average elimination is made at about 100 - 200 feet away (I believe in range over brute force) or 50 - 75 feet away. At those ranges, a ball has less velocity, and chances of hitting the face are less.
Indoors, my average elimination range is about 10 - 40 feet, and occasionally it can be point blank range around a blind corner. "Longball" isn't possible when there's not enough room for a longball! Granted, velocity is lessened to about 250 FPS for indoor play, but this is meaningless at point blank ranges of the arena. And it's possible to rupture an ear, or damage cartilage or what not.
My point is that I maintain that a face mask (and ear protection as well) should be required head gear for indoor play. I went out of my way to call all the fields in the midwest (I would name them, but that would compromise the name of this particular field). All but this one required the use of a full face mask. And out of them, most also required (in print) full ear protection / ear covering.
This tidbit of information puts the field owner I mentioned above in the minority.
As far as face masks in the outdoor environment go I could care less. There are fields that come to mind that I would require face masks on. ("Nick", Paintball Sams, Racine WI. for example) These fields are outdoor, but are house to house action intensive. Therefore, your elimination range is shortened.
Other than those examples, I hold to my outdoor opinion on face masks. "It's your face." I referee without a mask in the outdoor arena. That's for a few reasons, communication, ease of breathing, the fact I run the field length 5 to 9 times a session as a referee and so on. But I would never (NEVER) imagine playing without a face mask.
I remember when most players only HAD goggles, and were happy to get masks. Command Post had, for a while, these 'animal masks'. 3D sculptures that were sheer artistry. I heard about them, then the Command Post (FL) folded. And I couldn't get a tiger mask. (I still do want one...)
There were the full face masks that were vacuum formed to look like a "skull", a "wolf man", a "space alien" and a "Wild Man" (I looked it up!) There was cosmetic mask modifications too. We had no end in sight about it.
Now the trend is to remove the masks. And, as I said before, it's your face. But your personal freedom stops when it affects another. The freedom to swing your fist ends when you hit my face. Let's follow a worst case scenario. (AND I MEAN ABSOLUTE WORST!)
The indoor field I mentioned above does not require a face mask to be worn by walk-on players. Let's say that some trigger happy newbie with a semi-auto gets lucky, or the player gets stupid, or something similar to it. Newbie lays down a rope (too many shots to be a 'string'. It's the rope!) of paint at point blank range.
Walk-on player gets plastered in the face a dozen times. Let's ignore the potential of a paintball strike to the frame making the goggles clear the eyes. (I personally doubt the validity of this ever happening, so I'll ignore it.) However, let's examine something here that's very plausible.
At close range, hits to open flesh can become open wounds. So our walk-on player will probably end up being cut up pretty badly. Not to mention bruising in the face, which can be a pain when trying to eat or shave (or even kiss the hubby...) Without required ear protection the walk-on player my become disoriented and fall to the ground (If the player is hit in the ear from point blank range to 10 feet away.)
This could happen in outdoor as well, I will concede that. however, because of the sheer volume of area involved, it's not likely that it will. Also, any player in hiding will aim for a spot not on the face (the back, foot, whatever) if the player isn't wearing a mask. They will, generally, be aware they're coming. (Assuming no building-type areas on the playfield, which then becomes indoor style play...)
Indoor is a faster, leaner beast. You don't have a chance to set up an ambush. You don't have that opportunity to organize that swiftly in the game setting. You're moving so fast you can't really aim your shots. Point : Getting hit in the face is not only a possibility, it's inevitable.
Which is why I believe face masks should be mandatory equipment for indoor play. But that's one Tyger's opinion.
Back to Tyger's Homepage
Back to Tyger Talk Main Page
Across to the Splatterzone
(C) 1996 Panther Free Press, All Rights Reserved