|
Post by heroofvcu on Feb 21, 2013 13:20:51 GMT -6
Alright, if I remember this correctly this is what we agreed on last time we talked about it. If a player has a ball and makes a catch and the thrown ball clearly does not touch the other ball then it is considered a catch, the player that threw the ball is out and the player that caught the ball gets a teammate in. However, if the player catches the thrown ball in a simultaneous motion using the ball they already had in their possession it is considered a trap and no one goes out or comes in. Regarding the team trap rule. If a teammate uses their ball to make a team catch then the player who was initially hit is out and the player who caught the ball remains in. I completely agree with McCarthy with this. That is okay by me.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on Feb 28, 2013 14:39:59 GMT -6
Okay here's something a little crazy so don't tear me a new one, but after watching videos of other dodgeball tournaments here is my proposal.
Eliminate the trap rule as far as the ball is concerned. Any catch completed by a player, if it was a trap off the ball or not, if he has a ball in his hand or not, what ever it may be. It is ruled a catch. (Meaning if player A throws at B, and B catches the ball with his body and ball, it is ruled a catch. Or A throws at B, it skims his ball into his chest and he makes the catch, player A is out) Even if it may of skimmed his ball coming in. What this does is eliminate a judgement call from refs who have would have no clue how to rule if a ball made contact coming in, making it a much easier call to make of catch/no catch instead of "Well his ball wasn't far enough away from his body," or "It may of hit his ball!"
Blocking rule's don't change, traps regarding the floor and other things don't change either. This new rule will increase catching in games, eliminate the impossible judgement calls with refs, remove arguing over ball contact, and allow players to make slit second catches instead of the drop and catch method players have had to use.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Feb 28, 2013 15:57:21 GMT -6
What about a clear bobble? A Thrower makes a direct throw, it bounces off a blocking ball, high into the air, and the Target catches it when it comes down later?
|
|
|
Post by JMUDodge on Feb 28, 2013 16:29:45 GMT -6
Jardine's idea will cut down a lot of confusion and debate in close call situations, I support his thoughts
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Fettig on Feb 28, 2013 17:39:23 GMT -6
No, that's the opposite to what it should be.
Cut down the confusion by not allowing any catch to count if someone is in possession of another ball. A ball is dead when it comes in contact with another ball and changing that will lead to more confusion.
|
|
|
Post by shackapalooza on Feb 28, 2013 21:57:54 GMT -6
I agree with Dylan. I don't think the league should be moving toward balls being live off other balls.
|
|
|
Post by mccarthy55cmu on Feb 28, 2013 22:57:14 GMT -6
I personally agree with Spencer. I like the idea of it being a catch. It is harder to catch a ball while you have possession of another ball. Regarding what Zig said I think if there is a clear bobble then that is when the ball would be considered dead.
However, it needs to be one of these two options. Either a catch or no catch. As a ref I hate the idea of having to call something based on the ball being in another hand or what night. It's a nightmare to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on Mar 1, 2013 1:46:03 GMT -6
I like the current trap rule, where if you have a ball in your hand and you make a catch nobody is out. There is no discrepancy because it is clear the player has control of another ball. If they want the catch, they should drop the ball they're holding. We can't cater to those few missed opportunities when a trap is made and it could have been a catch. It's the same thing as when we go for those blocks that could have easily been catches and we all go "Ahhhhh!" after the block is made and we realize what we did. If you want to make the catch, drop your ball.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on Mar 1, 2013 15:06:44 GMT -6
I like the current trap rule, where if you have a ball in your hand and you make a catch nobody is out. There is no discrepancy because it is clear the player has control of another ball. If they want the catch, they should drop the ball they're holding. We can't cater to those few missed opportunities when a trap is made and it could have been a catch. It's the same thing as when we go for those blocks that could have easily been catches and we all go "Ahhhhh!" after the block is made and we realize what we did. If you want to make the catch, drop your ball. The thing that kills me though is I see guys make incredible one arm shoulder catches with the ball no where near being in contact but it ruled a trap. At JMU Felix one of your players pulled one of these off. Now if he where to get hit in the shoulder he would of been out. It doesn't make sense to me a player who is forced to defend themselves with a one armed catch and pulls it off is punished for it. Players don't get rewarded for making legitimate plays. And let me clarify, the ball is not live off the ball if it is bobbled up or deflected to a teammate. It has to be a single catching motion by the player who was thrown at. In what Felix said, heck yes there are those instances. But the trap rule prevents players from being able to make those split second decision catches. Half the time those kind of throws are just BS kill the clock throws that we all hate. If a player can make a play on the ball we can possibly cut down on shot clock "killers" who just throw to reset the clock. Like I said, its a suggestion, and we got 2 months to debate and fix the rule. I'm confident we can find a definition that eliminates judgement calls for the refs and is good for the players as well.
|
|
|
Post by vanerme3 on Mar 1, 2013 15:32:42 GMT -6
I really really really don't like this new idea.
I feel that if a ball that has previously skimmed off another ball is going to be ruled a catch (provided it is still within the same motion), it would just encourage people to go for catches that they can't get out on.
Imagine this scenario.
If I'm a good catcher, and I have time to work on this, why wouldn't I go for these "skim/trap" catches all the time? If it skims off my ball and I catch it, it's a catch. But if I don't catch it, I'm not out because it would be considered a normal block. It would allow me to go for catches without the risk of being out. I feel like while this definitely is a grey area, it's more beneficial in my opinion to have a judgement call from a referee than blur the lines of when a ball is dead. I personally don't like the idea of saying "a ball is dead when it hits anything but a person except for a ball being caught in a single motion". I much prefer saying "a ball is dead whenever it hits anything but a person".
I understand these types of catches are hard to make, but we've got some amazing athletes in our league. Give them time, they'll figure out how to exploit that rule change.
I would rather keep it the way it is (you can still catch with a ball in your possession, as long as the two balls clearly never touch). If we need to stop play so that refs can discuss what happened, so be it. The important thing is getting it right. I would rather take the 3 minute conversation over being able to go for catches without the fear of being out.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on Mar 2, 2013 2:50:12 GMT -6
I really really really don't like this new idea. I feel that if a ball that has previously skimmed off another ball is going to be ruled a catch (provided it is still within the same motion), it would just encourage people to go for catches that they can't get out on. Imagine this scenario. If I'm a good catcher, and I have time to work on this, why wouldn't I go for these "skim/trap" catches all the time? If it skims off my ball and I catch it, it's a catch. But if I don't catch it, I'm not out because it would be considered a normal block. It would allow me to go for catches without the risk of being out. I feel like while this definitely is a grey area, it's more beneficial in my opinion to have a judgement call from a referee than blur the lines of when a ball is dead. I personally don't like the idea of saying "a ball is dead when it hits anything but a person except for a ball being caught in a single motion". I much prefer saying "a ball is dead whenever it hits anything but a person". I understand these types of catches are hard to make, but we've got some amazing athletes in our league. Give them time, they'll figure out how to exploit that rule change. You proved my point though. We WANT to encourage catching. Catching ends games and increase's scoring. There is no gray area with the rule change. Its a clear catch or not. Even if players get used to catching with a ball its still beneficial. It forces players to make legitimate throws instead of just tossing sofies at people to kill the clock.
|
|
|
Post by vanerme3 on Mar 2, 2013 10:11:20 GMT -6
I don't mind encouraging catching, but there should always be risk involved. Catches offer too much reward (opponent out, guy comes in) to allow people to go for them without the risk of being out.
In my opinion, you need to risk yourself when making a catch so that if you mess up, you're out. I currently like the balance of throwing/catching in our game, and I feel like this would shift it.
Are people opposed to the rule that you can still catch a ball with another ball in your possession as long as they clearly never touch? (legs catch, one armed catch, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Dylan Fettig on Mar 2, 2013 22:44:22 GMT -6
I like the proposed rule, but it is a pain to ref and one team always complains about the call after it is made either way.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on Mar 3, 2013 19:15:58 GMT -6
Are people opposed to the rule that you can still catch a ball with another ball in your possession as long as they clearly never touch? (legs catch, one armed catch, etc.) Thats the problem though, if we change the rule to that definition it is a judgement call for a ref. Was the ball far enough away? Maybe it skimmed the ball? We ALL pregnant dog about reffing in the NCDA, we want to take away as MANY judgement calls as possible. And if you think about it, its not like the balance between catching and throwing is going to be thrown off the bridge. How often do you actually see trap catches a game? 2-3 times max. But how many game killing momentum killing fan boring discussions will take place over calls because of these 2-3 catches? With the new rule there is no discussion. Let me know what you think. The more we pick at this the better we can fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on Mar 3, 2013 19:17:59 GMT -6
Andddd shout out to Proboards for giving me my daily NCDA Forums chuckle with the pregnant dog word change.
|
|