Overtime

[bigdix25]

I like the idea of 6 vs 6 in OT with no set game clock and a 10 second shot clock throughout. Ball location should be 0-3-1-3-0 in my opinion, because i encourage the idea of making teams push forward to get the one ball that could give your team the early advantage. It's already been said but the game needs to keep moving for the sake of spectatorship and also to give teams that have players who get taken out easily a chance to fight back and not have time not be the deciding factor because the other team wants to stall.

As far as catches are concerned in OT, it should be kept the same with one in and one out. Otherwise there's no real reward or advantage gained by taking the risk to attempt a catch. This should go without saying but reserves ought to be lined up on the baseline in the order that they will enter the game after a catch.

[Phelps 2]

My parents were extremely confused after seeing the overtime match between us and GVSU during nationals and when I explained the rules to them they said that they were stupid. I also heard from a bunch of people that had watched the game, that the overtime was boring enough to make them want to leave.

Saying that, I agree with the popular idea of 6v6, no clock, and a 10s shot clock. Seeing the top 6 players from both teams go at it would really bring a lot of excitement to the end of a match, which would leave the crowd with something to talk about rather than them wanting to leave early because of how boring it ended.

[ssmith19]

Towson has discussed this and we decided that we like the idea of a 6 v. 6 overtime. Much to the point someone made earlier on here we are not a fan of having a staggared ball line-up for the rush.

Instead we thought a 3-1-3 line-up of balls would work so both sides have an equal shot at three, and a shot at one ball to gain an advantage.

Also, having the extra ball in may not guarantee that both sides always have at least one ball, but it does guarantee that one side cannot monopolize all of the balls and wait until the shot clock winds down to use them against a defenseless team.

[cg]

As the sort-of resident historian (read: old guy), the OT rule as currently implemented was simply the first thing the teams came up with to prevent a game from going on indefinitely. This was also before people discovered this thing known as 'defense,' or as DePaul calls it, 'blasphemy.'

[85sharp85]

I like the idea of 6v6 with a 10 second shot clock. As for ball placement id rather see 2-3-2 so that teams have to fight for the ball advantage. It also creates for more excitement for the fans instead of watching as the first six are grabbed and then the middle 7th gets picked up by the one or two who decide to go for it. Putting more balls in the middle makes players have to work harder and I think it will make for a better game from the stands to see 6 guys/girls tearing after the middle three. Just an idea.

[Zigmister]

We have about two days before the vote, so we should start singling out the popular options. Oh, and the vote will be of the instant runoff system, the same preferential style of voting we used on the opening rush last year.

We can let the teams decide on this, but i was thinking that we could rule out some of the internal options before hand, so that there are less options to choose from (thus less confusing).

I feel like based on the discussion, the Clock can be ruled out as either no time limit or a set 10 minutes. Possibly other options. But we could still include all the variations of these broken down options if no one agrees.



Concerning Rule 3.1.4.3 Overtime

Vote Options Thus Far:

• No Change - 15 on 15, 10 minute Clock, first team to score a point wins the Match.
  
• Proposed Change with internal options
  
  Amount of players
  6 on 6: chosen from any player on the maximum 20 player roster
  - Maximum of 6 on 6, no more than 6 players may be on a side for the point.
  - 6 on 6 to start Overtime, but the remaining 9 players may line up in the Jail and enter play via a Catch.
  
  7 dodgeballs
  - Arranged for an Opening Rush of 02320 with balls live on the whistle
  - Arranged for an Opening Rush of 03130 with balls live on the whistle
  
  Shot Clock
  - A permanent 10 second shot clock for both teams
  
  The Clock
  - No set time limit
  - 10 minute time limit, Rule 3.1.4.3.2 remains as is to decide a victor by count of remaining players.
  

Any other options you'd like to see included / options i missed?

[UMD Dodgeball]

The one other thing I think we need to address is when your team has 5 or less people in and then you make a catch with the rule that where catches can bring in more than 6 people. I just think we need to make sure that the original 6 players come in before the reserve players.
So for example, lets say my top six players are A, B, C, D, E, and F, and my reserve players are G through T.
If all my top six players are in and one of them makes a catch than G would come in.
But then lets say A gets out and then B gets out. A bit later C makes a catch. Then A should come back in and not one of the reserve players.
All I'm saying is the top six players in my mind should go to the front of the jail line instead of the end like they normally would in regular play.
Let me know if you guys agree.

[hiller 87]

Thats actually a really good point Chris, and now that I think about it, it's even more a reason that I think you shouldn't be able to catch in player #7, 8,9,10 etc. however, I feel that if we were to make it so that you can bring in those players, you should have to order them in 7-15 order in the jail so that there is a distinct order. I don't like the idea of continuously bringing in your elite players if we go the "bring in more players" route. The problem too with the ordering your players 7-15 is that it would take a decent amount of time before OT even starts.

[mgonzo46]

I agree that 6v6 with no game clock would probably be the best bet, but I think 6 should be the max. If one of the concerns is time, having players 7-15 being allowed to enter the game undermines this. Sam has a good point concerning taking extra time to order the reserves as well. Just pick the 6 best guys and gals from your team and put them on the court for overtime.

[peters27]

I'm also in the boat in thinking we shouldn't be able to bring in more than the 6.

This way, time constraints are (more than likely) not going to be an issue.

Furthermore, if we can bring in 7-15, you're putting the team that's losing at an astronomical disadvantage. If you get 2 catches off the bat it's instantly 8 on 4, and instantly puts the team with 4 at an incredible disadvantage. Then the team with 8 can sit on the balls (throw 1 every 10) until they get control and just obliterate the other team.

I don't know, this might actually help keep time constraints down as well the more I try and explain it to myself lol. I just don't think I'm in favor of bringing in 7 through 15. I know the rule works both ways but I just don't see it as being on the level.

I just see the perfect overtime scenario as being a 6 on 6 deathmatch style battle, not team A gets a catch off or 2 off the bat and team B is instantly screwed because team A gets to bring in bonus players. This way, the intensity of the game stays high because even though team B might be down 6 to 3, you can still see them having a possibility of coming back, and fans don't lose interest because of the potential lopsidedness and confusing rules where team A gets these extra players from nowhere, when the overtime match started off being 6 on 6.

[kentuckybrown]

I spoke with a handful of guys on my team about this today and here was a thought process that they pointed out: If two teams are playing and a team gets up by 1 or it is TIED with 15 minutes left in the game a team that has 6 solid players will probably start the stall and create a lot of "slow ball". Our team would probably benefit from only having 6-6 because of our team (helps when you have a guy throwing 82 (clocked him on Saturday I think that beats what he threw at Nationals)).

I think that some teams will take advantage of the overtime and stall from halftime on if they are up by one. Heck, some guys on our team were for it so they could have the opportunity to stall. I just don't think dropping the number of players will answer. If you want shorter overtimes cut the clock and shot clock. I know that Basketball, Football, Baseball and just about every sport I can think of goes to overtime with all there players, a normal shot clock and it works out fine. The only exception would be soccer and they only go to PK shoot outs if the score is tied AFTER overtime. Imagine what would happen to the NBA if you started playing 2-2 half court with only 10 seconds on the shot clock, or baseball with no outfield for overtime (extra innings).

If you all really want to change it to 6-6 I think more "stall ball" will come out of it.

[hiller 87]

The problem with comparing our sport with actual money making professional/collegiate sports is that they have unlimited gym/court/field time. We don't. That's the original reason why there is the 10 minute clock on the OT I believe, to keep it from taking up a ton of time in a tournament setting. That's why I'm in favor of a 6v6 rule. It keeps the original idea of the game in place, while taking a similar amount of time as the current rule.

I don't believe teams will stall more than they already do, especially early on in a half, just because they have an edge. I feel like those teams would realize they have an edge and go straight for the kill (at least that's what I'd do in that situation.) You're only playing with fire by choosing to play for OT that early on in a half. If it's later on in the half (last 5-7 minutes) then teams already do that, especially if they're trailing man advantage wise.

I don't quite understand what you meant by "cut the clock".

If you meant: Cut the clock in half/6 minutes/7 minutes you're just making it easier for teams to stall in OT even more. If you meant: get rid of the clock, then like I've said then you risk setting your whole tournament back, and that runs the risk of some games not getting played and thus making teams that travel upset.

In the distant future when dodgeball is a legitimate sport we can have 15 vs 15 OT with no game clock, but until then I personally feel like the 6v6 rule with no game clock, 10 second shot clock is the way to go.

[UMD Dodgeball]

See I understand all of you guys, but I still think a catch shouldn't be diminished in OT. If it gets diminished than it changes who I think my best 6 players are. Instead of getting 6 all-around players, I would likely get only the guys with the fastest arms.

As for the time concern, I don't think it would make the OT longer. For instance, if one team gets a catch or two off the bat than chances are OT will end very quickly since it would be 8v4 and the team should be able to go one by one and pick off the other team. Also, it would be extremely unlikely that more than 2/3 of the reserve players would ever come. Its not like it would ever be possible/probable that one team would have 8 or more players in OT. So there would be no need to try and organize the #10-15 players, since they would have as close to no chance of playing. Plus, I think if gives the reserves a chance/feeling to contribute so that they don't feel completely left out during OT.

Last, I don't foresee teams stalling in the 2nd half just because they want to go to OT. I feel like they would try to win because OT would be no guarantee for either team, unless it is 5 minutes or less left in the half, which happens now anyway.

[Zigmister]

Aug 20, 2012 20:08:20 GMT -6 UMD Dodgeball said:

See I understand all of you guys, but I still think a catch shouldn't be diminished in OT. If it gets diminished than it changes who I think my best 6 players are. Instead of getting 6 all-around players, I would likely get only the guys with the fastest arms.

I believe the issue is whether a catch would get in a 7th player or whether a catch would only get any of the starting six players. A Catch would still exist; a Catch would still cause the Thrower to be out, and one person on the Catcher's team would enter play.

I just wanted to make this clear, because I thought that you might be saying the Catch wouldn't get anyone in at all.

[peters27]

Aug 20, 2012 21:22:45 GMT -6 Zigmister said:

Aug 20, 2012 20:08:20 GMT -6 UMD Dodgeball said:

See I understand all of you guys, but I still think a catch shouldn't be diminished in OT. If it gets diminished than it changes who I think my best 6 players are. Instead of getting 6 all-around players, I would likely get only the guys with the fastest arms.

I believe the issue is whether a catch would get in a 7th player or whether a catch would only get any of the starting six players. A Catch would still exist; a Catch would still cause the Thrower to be out, and one person on the Catcher's team would enter play.

I just wanted to make this clear, because I thought that you might be saying the Catch wouldn't get anyone in at all.

I think he's saying the catch value gets diminished because if you have all 6 players in (say were playing 6 max and not 7-15 can come in), and you get a catch, only the thrower is out, you dont get anyone else in for your team.

I don't feel this diminishes the value of a catch in overtime at all. In fact, I think playing 6v6 increases the value of a catch. Say you are down to 2 vs 1, because we're again playing 6 maximum. If the team with 2 does a team throw, and the 1 guy dodges ball A and catches ball B, the tables have turned, adding to the excitement and drama of overtime.

I feel that if you bring in 7-15, you're never going to get that "down to the wire" feeling where it's 1v1, 2v2, 2v1, etc, type feel most of the time because there are more than likely going to be catches, giving team A an immediate big advantage over team B (MOST scenarios, of course).

The point of overtime is that the game was DEADLOCKED through 50 minutes of play, therefore we should get a highly contested, highly intense, very exciting FINISH to such a close and great game.

I think the discussion period ends soon doesn't it? I feel like we should keep this open for discussion for a few more days at least, people are making some great points and arguments for different styles of overtime to be played.