|
Post by Zigmister on Dec 20, 2010 20:15:08 GMT -6
Proposed elimination of the Five Man Rule:
Previously there were about 6 people that agreed to eliminate, and about 2 people that said leave it the way it was. Fitz brought up changing it to the a one man rule, which could be nice.
To restart the conversation, here's my argument for removal:
Complications/Complexity: The Timekeeper has to keep the shot clock count, a count of the players, and watch where throws land. They have a hard enough time watching for legitimate attempts and watching the timing device. There seems to be a great importance you guys put on those close throws, and on consistent counting... so lets try to decrease the complexity of the hardest job in officiating.
Removing this rule decreases the complexity of the rules and the game - for both the player and the official. It may be just a little bit, but I think it will really do some good. From my past experience in explaining the rules, we always have trouble with explaining the 5 man rule.
Unnecessary? Bomis had some fancy math, which I can dig up if anyone needs it... 15 seconds gives you a couple extra minimum balls per minute. But I think the 10 second shot clock is like kicking a team while they're down. They have to fight harder and exert more energy, and almost further ensures a loss for the team already down in numbers. A lot have been there; because of energy reserves, the only thing they are able to pull are lackluster throws just to satisfy the shouts of the Timekeeper. There is already a stronger chance that a team under five people is going to loose.
Ask any of the oldies for their input. I'm not sure, but I think we went straight from a shot clock only in effect when you had all ten balls, to a conditional clock with a 10/15 second differential. I don't know if there was any previous play with a universal 15 second Shot Clock.
Possible Changes: FitzPa brought up a one man rule, which could be a comprimise, even though i still think we should go with the proposed elimination.
touchdown bears bytheway
|
|
|
Post by sweeter9 on Dec 21, 2010 12:49:19 GMT -6
I think it should be 3 man. Getting rid of it completely will make for too many stalemates. Making one team throw more often (although it may not be many) allows room for mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by bbabin001 on Apr 24, 2011 19:20:16 GMT -6
I am looking at both sides of this. Being a beginner in this sport, I am still learning all the rules. While learning the rules, I was exposed to the five man rule with the ten second shot clock. Experiencing the game for the first time a few weeks ago, the five man rule was detrimental to teams that were already experiencing great losses.
On one side of the spectrum, the five man rule should be eliminated because it does not allow those losing teams the extra time to get back into the game. On the other side, getting ride of the the five man rule would create too many stalemates as previously mentioned.
I would lean to amending the rule to three men instead of five as mentioned before.
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Apr 24, 2011 21:20:23 GMT -6
I don't get why people think that the five man rule needs to be changed so that teams that already have lost a lot of players should have an easier go. It's supposed to be a detriment to your team to get down to 5 players. It's one of the major strategies of our game, is to get the opponent down to 5 men (or women).
|
|
|
Post by savalleb on Apr 24, 2011 21:59:20 GMT -6
I would have to agree with Hiller on this one. I have been playing for three years, and have never seen any problem with the 5 man rule. I do understand that it is a tough job for the time keepers to be able to watch everything, but it is not impossible by any means. keeping a count is not difficult to do while watching to make sure the throw is "legit". Hiller I think that you hit the nail on the head with saying that it is one of the strategies of the game to get the opposing team down to 5 players.
|
|
|
Post by brianvanmeter on Oct 5, 2011 14:09:51 GMT -6
By saying it is a strategy to get the opposing team down to five players, you are basically saying that once a team gets down to five players they've pretty much loss the game. This is because they are down at an unnecessary disadvantage. Games would be much more exciting if a team of five could come back and possibly win, but the 10 seconds shot clock makes this just that much harder. I understand that the point of it is to make the games go faster, but having five people on a court still gives a great chance for a bad ass comeback. I throw my opinion in lowering it to a three player shot clock reduction instead of five player.
|
|
|
Post by mccarthy55cmu on Oct 5, 2011 15:34:28 GMT -6
Have you ever seen a game where one team is down to 1 or 2 guys against 7 or 8? I have and it's AWESOME. The 5 man rule does absolutely nothing to hurt the team that's down just helps the team that is up. They have every chance to stay in the game. LEARN HOW TO CATCH, that's the best way to fight the 5 man rule.
|
|
|
Post by brianvanmeter on Oct 5, 2011 16:53:10 GMT -6
The 5 man rule completely hurts a team, if one team has a 10 second shock clock, and another team has a 15 second shot clock, the 10 sec.SC team will run out of balls first. It is simple math, inevitably the 10 team with a 10 second shot clock WILL have 0 balls and the team with a 15sec shot clock will have all the balls. This will either happen because the team with a 10sec.SC will either be forced into giving all their balls away because they couldn't get to one on their side of a court, OR since they have to throw more often than the 15sec.SC team they will eventually have 0 dodgeballs. So yes, it does hurt the team that is down and helps the team that is up. It is an unnecessary unfair advantage. Additionally it is hard to catch a ball when all 10 are getting thrown at you at the same time.
|
|
cg
Full Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by cg on Oct 5, 2011 17:02:25 GMT -6
I'd be interested to see how many times a team rallied from a 5 v 6 or 5 v 7. We don't keep records on any of that, so no film review or crazy math from me.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Oct 5, 2011 17:54:31 GMT -6
I'd be interested to see how many times a team rallied from a 5 v 6 or 5 v 7. We don't keep records on any of that, so no film review or crazy math from me. not exactly a reply, but that's similar to what happened in the DePaul - NSULA game from Nationals, gameplay stalled because NSULA wouldn't throw (6-8 players) and DePaul constantly threw because we were stuck at 4-5 players. They'd arrange a team throw of about two or three balls every once in a while. Tat 25 minute point was forced into overtime because of this. It's the absolute worst theoretical instance of the 5 man rule, it happened in reality and it sucked dodgeballs.
|
|
cg
Full Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by cg on Oct 5, 2011 19:11:58 GMT -6
The original purpose of the shot clock was to prevent a situation where a team would not play in order to secure a victory. As stated in this thread, activating that shot clock is now the objective. I have no opinion on whether that is or is not a good transition.
As a possible alternative, what about eliminating the five man rule but in exchange lowering the shot clock to 10-12 seconds? Such a rule would not create an advantage from having an arbitrary number of men on the court, and you would see an extra 100-200 dodgeballs thrown over the course of a game, which probably makes for a more exciting experience for players and fans.
|
|
|
Post by mccarthy55cmu on Oct 5, 2011 20:18:18 GMT -6
The shot clock is perfect if we use actual seconds instead of this human count we currently do.
|
|
|
Post by brianvanmeter on Oct 5, 2011 21:16:07 GMT -6
That would be really interesting to see what the affect of having an over all increase of game play would be on a match. It could possibly make it harder for a team to stall if they have to throw 5 seconds more often every time. It seems like something that would have to be actually tested and played out to see how much it affected how fast teams played. If this worked out well, then I would be in favor of Ziggy's original thought of getting rid of the 5 man rule all together.
|
|
|
Post by hiller 87 on Oct 5, 2011 21:21:21 GMT -6
We voted on this last year at Nationals...and I'm pretty sure that it was a huge majority saying to keep it the way it was. I might be wrong but I remember this getting pretty clearly decided to keep it the way it was.
|
|
|
Post by stokesj on Oct 6, 2011 0:23:52 GMT -6
Regardless of how things were voted on last year, they still bring up valid points.
In my opinion the 5 man rule should be amended to a 3 person rule. Looking at team size if you still have a third of your team left 5/15 you get a huge penalty by having to throw every 10 "seconds." As stated previously the 10 second count is simply to make it so teams cannot stall for absurd amounts of time. If a team has 7 players, most of the time they are still heavily offensive, but once they get 5 players the team becomes so heavily defensive. With 5 players on a team left in they still have the man power to be fairly offensive, but with the current 10 second count incurred upon them they have no choice but to be defensive. If the 5 man rule is changed to a 3 man rule this would allow for more of a progression from aggressive, to neutral, to defensive instead of a jump from aggressive to defensive. I think getting rid of the 10 count would promote too much squatting on the balls and only throwing one at a time causing the game to slow down too much.
In summary I think: Amend the current 5 man rule to be a 3 man rule. Still retain the 10 second count instead of 15 second count once 3 people are left in play. 10 second count should remain to stop teams from hoarding the balls.
|
|