|
Post by Dylan Fettig on Apr 14, 2014 19:36:41 GMT -6
Alex Swedowski proposed that the sidelines of the court be similar to the throw line where if you step over the line at all then you are out.
My opinion of the boundaries are that everyone (players and spectators alike) would rather see someone get "out" from dodgeball plays aka getting hit by a ball or throwing a catch. That is why the boundaries are the way that they are now. Stepping out of bounds through the sidelines/baselines gives no advantage to a player unless they are dodging a ball.
Stepping over the throw line gives an advantage because it allows you to get closer to the other team when throwing the ball. That's why you cannot step over the throw line.
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on May 5, 2014 9:31:18 GMT -6
I agree. While this rule change would be simply one less judgment call a referee has to make, I think the one body part rule is one that needs to be kept in, it allows teams a lot of flexibility in terms of strategy, such as stacking people to block in the corners. This also allows more flexibility to try and dodge a throw, or team throw, being that all you need to keep in to successfully dodge 3~ balls at once is a toe in bounds. It makes it more exciting in my opinion and I don't find anything wrong with the rule as it is.
|
|
cg
Full Member
Posts: 194
|
Post by cg on May 5, 2014 11:20:32 GMT -6
If the number of players on a side is reduced to 10 or so, it might be appropriate to bring boundary lines in conformity with that of most other sports (i.e., any point of contact out-of-bounds or on a line results in the elimination of the player).
|
|
|
Post by cobrien18 on May 5, 2014 20:42:15 GMT -6
After playing under this format in my first Elite tournament this weekend, I feel that a change to a hard boundary would not be ideal. Perhaps I was just used to the NCDA format, but I found myself getting out far more by stepping out of bounds than by being eliminated by a dodgeball play. Furthermore, I found the hard boundary created far more circumstances where my body took a beating in an effort to stay in bounds. With the NCDA format, an airborne body is far safer when landing, as only one body part needs to stay in bounds, even though it must come down first. With the hard boundary, I found myself trying to land both feet in bounds and taking a hard fall as a result. For these reasons as well as those stated by Dylan and Wes, I feel a change would be unwise.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Sept 10, 2014 23:48:15 GMT -6
A hard boundary line determines that a player must be aware of his or her surroundings at all times, even in the heat of dodging.
I've said that the NCDA's (i think unique) soft, one point of contact, boundary leads the focus on getting hit to go out.
The point being that on a hard boundary, its worrying about keeping all points in bounds. With a soft boundary, one point of contact, it's worrying about just keeping one foot or finger in play. Its the focus of dodging the ball, not the outline.
Another mild point i've always been fond of making is that it helps 15 players sit on the baseline more comfortably, a small safety concern so people aren't totally bunched up. I've considered the soft boundaries more friendlier to team play, and hard boundaries more dependent on singular players. And from this rational, i would enjoy keeping a soft boundary.
|
|