mtrip8
Junior Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by mtrip8 on Aug 13, 2012 11:29:51 GMT -6
Just so everyone is clear you need to respond to the email not through the fourms
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Aug 14, 2012 0:15:18 GMT -6
We achieved a quorum of 14 teams agreeing to vote on a rule change. There's one week allotted for discussion and the vote commences on and after the 21st. While not a voting member, it is also noted that upcoming team UNT agrees to a rule change, and their discussion is recognized. And now the Popular opinions thus far:A maximum of 6 on 6, of any player on the full 20 player roster; 7 balls, arranged for an Opening Rush of 02320 with balls live on the whistle; a permanent 10 second shot clock for both teams. Variations on this include: no game clock or a overtime clock of 10 minutes, or variations on the amount of balls
|
|
|
Post by JMUDodge on Aug 14, 2012 0:25:53 GMT -6
My opinion would agree with the popular opinion.
I'd definitely say no more than 6 v. 6, no less than 5 v. 5. Permanent 10 second shot clock sounds right. I think if I wanted anything different from this it might be beginning ball location and ball count, just to avoid any injuries that occurred from the old set of rules, where ball was live on whistle during play. I'd say a 3-0-0-0-3, live at whistle could be solid alternate. Not refuting what was said, but just providing an additional option.
|
|
|
Post by KSUshackapalooza33 on Aug 14, 2012 9:42:59 GMT -6
I agree with the popular opinion as well.
Concerning ball location, I agree with Chris. I don't think there should be any balls in the very middle at the start of OT. The heightened sense of competition and agression that happens during OT should be considered. There will be a greater chance of conflict with competitors ripping balls from one another and fights/unsportsmanlike conduct reflect poorly on this organization. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on Aug 14, 2012 10:11:10 GMT -6
6v6, any man/woman on the 20 player roster is available, 0-2-3-2-0 is fine, permanent 10 second shot-clock with no game clock. Must be an absolute winner.
You could probably talk me into liking a different ball set up with a convincing enough argument though lol.
That's my opinion.
|
|
tk2
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by tk2 on Aug 14, 2012 14:33:47 GMT -6
I don't like the new proposed rule change.
By changing to 6 v 6 it can cause some animosity between teammates. What about the other 9 or more players that have played in that match? They helped you get to that point in the game let everyone finish.
You're going to to have to decide between 15 plus people about who those 6 players are going to be. If the captain chooses those 6, there's going to be people who get mad at the captain because they didn't get picked. If the team votes on a top 6 to play in OT, that will take time and people will get mad because they didn't get picked. Most teams know their top 3 or 4 players but when it comes down to 5 and 6 it could get hard and feelings are going to get hurt. You will have the one guy (or girl) pregnant doging on the sideline because they aren't in.
If the reason for the proposed rule change is to speed up time, just shorten the amount of time in overtime.
If the reason for the proposed rule change is to make the win in OT more exciting, I don't understand. I would get excited if my team won in OT.
If the reason for the proposed rule change is to help the crowd understand who wins, explain to them the OT rules.
Bottom line, I don't see a that big of a problem with the OT rule as it is.
|
|
|
Post by UMD Dodgeball on Aug 14, 2012 15:48:04 GMT -6
I agree with most of the popular opinion, 6v6 to start, 10 sec shot clock, and 7 balls. But I think the balls should be lined up 03130, that way the opening rush is similar but not too chaotic. I think there should be no overall clock timer so that people don't sit on the balls if they have more people left. With 6 people to start this shouldn't take longer than 5-7 minutes.
Also, I think you should be able to bring in more than 6 people if you catch a ball and you already have 6 people already in. Without this it renders a catch less valuable and I don't think that is right.
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Aug 14, 2012 17:04:40 GMT -6
here's my feelings on your points Thomas (which I feel are very well thought out)
The people getting angry thing- you get that with going into OT the way the rule is now, only now its going to be 14 angry people instead of 5. As a captain, you've gotta make some tough decisions that aren't always popular with everyone. To me, I feel like there'll be the same amount of people (at least on my team, there's a definite top 4 or 5 and then I'll go with the hot hand for the last spot or two probably) that'll be upset. There'll be four or five players who feel they deserve to make the top 6, and then the rest of the people will be understanding. At least that's what my presumption is.
I feel like if you were to cut the time in the current rule (for the sake of the argument we'll say 7 minutes, since that's the length Chris Via said most a point would take the match probably) then the current OT would be way worse. Which is saying something because I feel like it stinks now. Say for example school X is playing school Y. School X gets to a 13-10 advantage in 4 minutes. Now they can basically sit on the ball for 3 minutes and OT is over with, just because they got to a quick lead in the point. The quick lead could come from any number of situations, whether its getting a couple people out on the opening rush, somebody throwing a catch/team catch, just generally better play, whatever. But a school for example like GVSU (not saying you guys would do this!) with their great blocking techniques or a school like SVSU (not saying you guys would do this either) with their great ball possession could throw one or two balls every 15 seconds and sit on the lead. This already happens in the current OT set up, which is why I think the game clock needs to go away for OT.
I'm not saying that the individual teams aren't excited after an OT win, I feel like from a crowd perspective OT can get rather boring. No offense to either GVSU or SVSU, but after how great their semifinal match was at Nationals this year, even though OT was hotly contested it was kinda boring, and the end of the match came down to a count.
I also feel its more fair to both teams if you have to eliminate the other team rather than just coming down to "oh I have one more player than you, sucks to suck". It's definitely more fair to the losing team, because you can know "yeah we deserved to lose that one" as opposed to "well it was 9 vs 8 at the buzzer, so I guess we lose?" And as a winning team, I'd want to eliminate the other team as opposed to having a slight advantage over them.
We (meaning the remaining MSU players) tried to explain the OT rules to the SVSU/GVSU faithful at Nationals, and while it helped a little bit, from what I've heard from people is that the fans think it's dumb. SVSU and GVSU also went to OT at the MDC in February, and as I explained the rules to my friends who were there, they all thought it was a dumb ending to what is usually a great match.
That's just my personal opinion on the subject.
Also, I kinda like your idea Chris Hess (about the ball lineup) but for a different reason. It seems like with the new opening rush, there's always one or two people who get eliminated right off the bat. With a 3-0-0-0-3 or with Chris Via's idea of a 0-3-1-3-0 there would be less of that.
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on Aug 14, 2012 22:54:16 GMT -6
The rule change needs to happen (imo) because as it stands now, it is BORING and none of the fans understand or think the rule is reasonable. It is dumb. Sam said it perfectly, I'd rather want to get the satisfaction of actually beating the team rather than stalling for 10 minutes with a 1 or 2 man advantage just throwing balls at peoples feet hoping I'm not the one that messes up, or the ball sails on me.
With a 6v6 game, with no clock, you HAVE to eliminate the full team, which A) prevents stalling and B) creates a LOT more excitement I believe.
As far as it creating animosity between teammates, it really shouldn't. It's going to come down to the captains selecting the 6, and usually you're either going to go with your 6 overall best players, or maybe who's playing extremely well in that match/on that day.
|
|
|
Post by JMUDodge on Aug 15, 2012 7:14:41 GMT -6
Couldn't agree more with Wes.
Rule does need to be changed, we had our fair share of OT games this year and I still think this would be a great change.
It wouldn't create any more animosity to what your team already has. Especially for teams that have a bigger program than others. Hell, it's hard enough choosing our 20-man from 55 players but everyone on our roster seems to agree with what we do.
|
|
|
Post by kentuckybrown on Aug 15, 2012 7:55:33 GMT -6
What about the idea of 15-15 with no game clock and you have to eliminate the entire team to win the point, you have one timeout a piece and a regular break...It would make things easier to understand for the fans, changes less rules and animosity shouldn't be a problem if it is an entire starting line-up(except for massive teams like JMU). This suggestion might open a can of worms...but I also think that the "away" team should choose the side of the court that they play on in overtime. (or in tournaments the team you go to the side you had in the first half)
I agree that regardless of what we do it should be a complete elimination. Should a change occur in the rules...probably. Does it need to be dramatic? I am not sure of that. Overtime doesn't really deal with injuries which is what was a big proponent of the push to change the break. The push for overtime seems to focus mainly on prevention of teams "sitting" on the balls and to make things easier to understand for the crowd. Are we also trying to make a push to speed the game up as well?
Our team has our bi-semester meeting on Monday. I'll make sure to bring all the discussion points from what everyone is saying and let democracy win for my team's vote.
|
|
tk2
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by tk2 on Aug 15, 2012 9:58:00 GMT -6
Thanks for your feedback Sam.
Whatever the final verdict will be, I just want it to be best for dodgeball and the league.
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Aug 15, 2012 10:52:55 GMT -6
Zac, I like the idea of a coin flip of something to determine which team gets which side...especially in some gyms where there are definite rebound advantages/disadvantages (for example, Depaul.) Or we can just go with your suggestion of sticking with the side of the court you had in the first half. Either way.
I think the problem with a full 15vs15 OT with no game clock is that it could literally take a half hour, 45 minutes. There's always a handful of 2-1 games every season, and there's even been a 1-0 game. For an individual match, this might be ok. But in a tournament setting you're pushing matches back a half hour, which means maybe you don't have the gym long enough to play the championship match or the last round of a round robin.
|
|
|
Post by msiler38 on Aug 15, 2012 14:12:49 GMT -6
I also like the idea of no game clock, 10 sec shot clock. Even though it worked to our advantage in our semifinal game vs GVSU, I absolutely dread when a team sits on a one or two man advantage and runs out the clock, whether my team is winning or not. When that happens, it basically comes down to how well the team can waste a ball and reset the shot clock, which I believe is not how the game should be played. Granted, we have used this tactic, and so has just about every other team at some point, but I believe OT needs to be quick, especially since, as Sam noted, teams can only reserve a gym for so long. Plus, from a first-time fan's perspective, a slow pace can really make the game quite dull and boring, which could leave them quite disappointed and they might not come watch again.
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on Aug 15, 2012 17:56:13 GMT -6
I'm definitely opposed to a 15 on 15 overtime. 6v6 is a superior concept in my opinion because
A) i think it would be more exciting to see it all come down to the best 6 on 6 for each team B) the time limit (as sam and others have said) if it's 15 on 15, it could definitely go 30 minutes, and teams would have more incentive to stall until they can get a ball advantage/control C) It's not as exciting!!!! XD nothing creates more fanfare and interest in a sport/game than EXCITEMENT!
and i'm not trying to crush your idea lol i definitely want a big discussion about this, because this is an issue that we need to get right. like i said before; a great argument for another alternative could definitely sway my opinion and im sure others too lol
|
|