|
Post by Josh Raymer on Nov 23, 2010 19:12:39 GMT -6
We've got some heated discussion going on right now in our "rules" section of the forum, so let's put it to a vote!
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on Nov 23, 2010 20:16:15 GMT -6
I would say no. Better education of players and making them understand the risk of running for balls is needed though.
|
|
|
Post by fishercmu23 on Nov 24, 2010 19:53:13 GMT -6
I also vote no on this issue. Other than people getting hurt, which is a major problem dont get me wrong, why should teams with fast players be punished for such a thing. It gives that team an advantage and I don't see why we would change this after it has been in the league for so long. It's almost like punishing a team with fast players if we are to change this. I agree with Spencer about educating players. Let's face it, were college dodgeball players and we love to hit people in the face with rubber balls anyways so thats just as big as a risk as running for balls on the opening rush. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stokesj on Nov 24, 2010 21:58:29 GMT -6
Raymer, can you post the document I made on here? I feel like if people looked at it they would realize that you can still get all 10 balls.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Raymer on Nov 24, 2010 22:04:58 GMT -6
Here is the rule change that Stokes suggested. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Nov 24, 2010 22:24:08 GMT -6
i agree with pat and spencer...plus in my three years now of dodgeball i've never personally witnessed anyone get hurt on the opening rush, even in practice. maybe MSU is just lucky, but i dont think that there's enough injury to warrant a change.
and i think there's no point debating it now, because we're just going to have the same debate at nationals this April. especially because as far as i'm aware, we can't change the rule until then.
|
|
|
Post by trippiedigv12 on Nov 24, 2010 22:44:55 GMT -6
Regardless of whether it is/is not changed next year, one thing that this rule doesn't affect is the competitive balance of the game. Fast teams without offensive or defensive skills are still going to get blown out of dodgeball games no matter how many balls they can grab on the opening rush. It's absolutely not an equalizer.
Being an athletic team is a really, really big advantage in college dodgeball. If you remove the opening rush and just go right into actual dodgeball...it's still a really, really big advantage to be an athletic team. You're still going to get more balls and make more throws than a less athletic team that needs to work together to survive.
Eliminating the opening rush just makes the dodgeball game begin eight seconds sooner. There's no slippery slope here where the NCDA is going to say to three CMU players (for example) "you're too athletic to play". That would be retarded, and I'm pretty sure no one supports that.
|
|
|
Post by fishercmu23 on Nov 24, 2010 23:08:11 GMT -6
I agree with some of your points trippiedigv12 (sry dont know your real name), but I still dont think the rule will change this year. There's plenty of people for and against this rule. Im simply stating that I think obtaining majority balls on the opening rush really can benefit a team. Say for example CMU is playing GVSU. Both teams are full of good, athletic players and it would be essential to get the majority balls on the opening rush. I can see where its dangerous to players, but what other cons does it bring into the match? I just think if we changed it now, that dodgeball wouldnt be the same.. but I suppose you could say that for any rule change.
|
|
|
Post by fishercmu23 on Nov 24, 2010 23:25:56 GMT -6
Well I guess we have to experience it in practice first hand to see if the new "proposed" change works.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Nov 25, 2010 1:19:19 GMT -6
Getting hit right after the rush sucks. Almost once a week DePaul will have someone new, who doesn't really know to take the balls back because we always forget to explain that rule, and they always ending up clocking someone in the face at point blank range. Not that fun tho
So keep the ball activation as it already is - 10 seconds or back to the baseline
edit: Also, I wouldn't encourage any more close / point blank style throws. With bomis' post above. You guys throw way to hard in that situation. You can't turn it off
Also Also, couldn't the old thread be turned into a poll instead of creating a whole new thread?
|
|
|
Post by kentuckybrown on Nov 25, 2010 2:07:06 GMT -6
I have been on the receiving end of a hit during a rush against UL in a scrimmage(After I had a ball and was on my way back). I was fortunate enough to only be unable to walk for a few weeks.
The only reason I vote for a change is to increase punishment on those who slide-in or cause a collision. If there is a collision, the player who is the culprit for it should have to sit for multiple points without replacement. That would penalize the team and the player enough that it might help out to some extent.
This also wouldn't hurt the teams in general as the rush will still exist.
|
|
|
Post by BigBird on Nov 25, 2010 2:11:56 GMT -6
What if the balls placed at mid-court had to be taken back to the baseline or were activated after ten seconds , and the balls placed on the neutral zone lines were immediately active? This would eliminate the point blank faceshots at mid-court, but it would be difficult for officials to follow certain balls. Maybe they have to be taken back to the neutral zone line? Just thinking out loud.
|
|
|
Post by stokesj on Nov 25, 2010 18:46:30 GMT -6
I was thinking that ALL balls had to be returned to the baseline. With a good relay I think you could get the ball back before mid court gets the ball. You could do something like have the runners go for the balls and the balls at the free throw line get relayed to the guys at mid court.
|
|
|
Post by BigBird on Nov 25, 2010 19:16:32 GMT -6
I think that as it stands all balls will need to be taken back but someone was kicking around the idea that all balls could start active.
|
|
|
Post by trippiedigv12 on Nov 26, 2010 19:51:22 GMT -6
I agree with some of your points trippiedigv12 (sry dont know your real name), but I still dont think the rule will change this year. There's plenty of people for and against this rule. Im simply stating that I think obtaining majority balls on the opening rush really can benefit a team. Say for example CMU is playing GVSU. Both teams are full of good, athletic players and it would be essential to get the majority balls on the opening rush. I can see where its dangerous to players, but what other cons does it bring into the match? I just think if we changed it now, that dodgeball wouldnt be the same.. but I suppose you could say that for any rule change. I think the result of the opening rush does provide a potentially large competitive advantage as to the result of the first play of the game. But, when you consider how many loose ball situations there are in a game that can completely swing a ball advantage in one way or the other, I think only a team with the highest level of discipline could possibly maintain a ball advantage from the opening rush to the point of the game which one team is on the 10-count. Essentially, to do that, you're playing the solo style of dodgeball, power arms/limited team throwing/protecting and sitting on the balls. And if that's your team philosophy, then winning a 7-3 ball advantage on the rush is a great way to set up that style. But if you began instead, say, with a 4-6 disadvantage, you'd still have the ball advantage 90 seconds into the game. The only skill you would need to teach is how to block a ball so that you 'catch' the momemtum instead of knocking it back at the throw. In other words, the reason that a highly skilled, highly disciplined team can maintain the ball advantage for a long time is because of skill and discipline way more than the ability to beat the other team in a race to those balls. Ball advantages matter. A lot. But most teams don't play a ball advantage strategy anyway, and that leads to a lot of transferring of the ball advantage. For example, in the first half of the SVSU-GVSU game, the ball advantage switched sides 17 different times in the first half alone. The result of the opening rush(es) was practically meaningless.
|
|