|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on Apr 22, 2015 5:54:48 GMT -6
Per Aleks Bomis, Felix Perrone
3.3.4.1 Shot Clock Definition - Ten second shot clock is consistent throughout the game.
Rationale: Speeds gameplay up. Prevents stallball.
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on Apr 22, 2015 17:12:47 GMT -6
I'm not sure about this one, because I believe this would lead to an increase in the number of balls over calls drastically.
|
|
|
Post by GVSU-Bailey on Apr 22, 2015 18:35:15 GMT -6
It also will wear out arms much quicker. And too many throws will be just shot clock resetting throws rather than throws made with the purpose of hitting someone.
|
|
|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on Apr 23, 2015 16:59:29 GMT -6
Also, no one will want to be the shotclock official haha
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on Apr 23, 2015 19:40:00 GMT -6
What about a connection to a shorter game: 40 minutes, no halftime, 4 timeouts, 10 second shot clock.
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on May 11, 2015 8:45:18 GMT -6
Another topic for debate, though I don't know how practical it would be to translate it to our game, is Elite Dodgeball's "Burden Ball" rule.
Basically, they play with 6 balls, but every ball is the same color EXCEPT for 1. This is the burden ball. If teams have an equal number of balls, the team with the burden ball MUST throw, or otherwise it is the throw of the team with the majority of the balls.
It would be a little tougher to officiate with our 15 on 15 (instead of 6 on 6) with 10 balls (instead of 6, and on a much smaller court), but in theory I think it's a fantastic idea and a great way to be rid of stall ball, which everyone hates.
|
|
|
Post by colemanmy12 on May 11, 2015 10:03:45 GMT -6
This will likely lead to more injuries overall but especially in the case of newer schools where a smaller portion of the team has a pinch or reliable throw.
Regarding the burden ball rule, I think that breaks the natural flow of the game that comes from having two independent simultaneously running shot clocks
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on May 11, 2015 14:02:05 GMT -6
This will likely lead to more injuries overall but especially in the case of newer schools where a smaller portion of the team has a pinch or reliable throw. Regarding the burden ball rule, I think that breaks the natural flow of the game that comes from having two independent simultaneously running shot clocks True, but it is a great way to prevent teams from relying solely on ball control to control the tempo of and dominate the game and turn the match into a snoozefest (EX - JMU vs GVSU day 1 2013 nationals [1-0 JMU]). Just something to think about
|
|
|
Post by GVSU-Bailey on May 11, 2015 16:34:44 GMT -6
Wes: JMU actually beat us 2-1 in that game.
But overall burden ball isn't bad for Elite Dodgeball format, but for the NCDA I don't see it translating well with us playing on a larger court and 15 on 15 instead of 6v6.
|
|
|
Post by colemanmy12 on May 11, 2015 17:27:38 GMT -6
Wes, I agree with your point about snoozefest games and I want to state that I like the proposed change. It suits my natural playstyle. However,one of the things that distinguishes the ncda ruleset from other dodgeball leagues and rules is that it's not as chaotic and is more strategic. Do we want to trade tactics for playmaking?
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on May 11, 2015 22:06:35 GMT -6
If we want to trade tactics for playmaking, the Clock should be shorter, and eliminating halftime would decrease the chances that a teams and players can play the Clock to the advantage of denying points to the other team. For example, trying to deny a team a point by stalling for the last 2-3 minutes until the halftime buzzer.
A halftime break, or even a quarter break, is one point of reprieve that encourages milking the Clock, denying your opponent a point if you're down and waiting out the Clock. My main point here is that we should focus on a tactic that does not focus on this milking the Clock or the Shot Clock at it's core. Instead, limit the number of opportunities where it could become a problem.
I get that it's a strategy to deny a team a point by refusing to be eliminated. Our current rules use a Clock to define the period of the whole match, but I would expect better play when those situations focus more exclusively on survival. Or eliminating the other team. Or from the heart, seeing how many awesome things you can do before sheer numbers of dodgeballs end your run. In the situation of a team being down in numbers, the Shot Clock is a game balancing mechanic to prevent either team from stalling until time runs out. Historically it was put in to make sure teams were playing dodgeball rather than standing on the Court for 50 minutes. But teams have now milk it prevent playing, to not be the player to make a mistake and cost their entire team a point.
The Shot Clock is a flawed mechanic that too easily allows teams to focusing on making a Legitimate Attempt, rather than throwing, catching, or dodging. It's all, "It's their turn to throw!" Even more importantly, the Shot Clock needs experienced officials to keep proper time and enforce violations... in many cases veteran officials keep the game clean and efficient. Enforcing the Shot Clock at a predictable 10 counted seconds is 10 real seconds pace does a great job keeping the pace of the game.
If we keep this style of Shot Clock, we need to revise how it operates. It can't be such a focus of our game. Timekeepers need to be more veteran, timing needs to be actual seconds, Attempts need to be made and reinforced. There can't be any throwing a ball consistently three feet in front of a player in order to buy more time.
(The Burden Ball is an incredible rule, but there's a serious fallacy in how it defines the Elite game as well.)
|
|
|
Post by cobrien18 on May 12, 2015 0:00:13 GMT -6
Two reasons why I dislike this potential change.
First, throwing every ten seconds is significantly more exhausting than every fifteen. The rationale I hear to defend this is "good, it will make the game more active as people will have to throw better and people will catch more." However, I feel it is not a quality improvement in active play. How many times do we see a point end because a player is tired and leaves a throw up for a person to make an easy catch that they could do with one hand? All the time. Making it a ten second shot clock throughout would only lead to more easy catches that aren't a testament to skill but instead to fatigue.
Second, it is very easy to defend with a blocker. The end of points could take forever under this setup. The only reason I think teams are able to eliminate teams fairy quickly once they get them down to low numbers is due to the discrepancy in the shot clocks between 10 and 15 seconds. This point is evidenced by the fact that if both teams are on a 10 second shot clock, the games can take much longer to close out. When the losing team for the point is on the 10 and the team ahead is on the 15, the winning team does not have to worry about the team that is down to merely block every throw directed at them. The discrepancy in shot clocks gives them the option to wait until the losing team is out of balls to block and then make a team throw in hopes of eliminating the player. Some might say this is boring and a waste of time, but this waiting period run effectively would take a minute or two at the most. I would be very interested to see anyone try to eliminate Kevin Bailey at the end of a point, or anyone else especially skilled in surviving, without the aid of the discrepancy in shot clocks.
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on May 12, 2015 8:34:18 GMT -6
Bringing up the burden ball thing was just food for thought, I agree with you guys saying it wouldn't translate well to our style, and it would take a lot of strategy out of the game, as well as screw over a team who has a significant ball advantage, but is at a significant player disadvantage.
I don't think a permanent 10 second shot clock would be beneficial either for a lot of the reasons you guys listed. I also saw Zig's "stall clock" in the other thread, and I'm not sure that would work well either. But I do think we're at a point in our league where either this is the way it's going to be, at least for top echelon teams playing one another, or we're going to have to sacrifice a bit of strategy and skill for more action.
|
|
|
Post by colemanmy12 on May 12, 2015 9:48:14 GMT -6
Off topic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but concerning the courts zones, shouldn't the neutral zone ALWAYS be the biggest zone according to 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.2.7? Pretty sure it's been the exact opposite in every match I've seen. Wouldn't simply enforcing stricter court markings put more throwers closer to more targets leading to more kills and counter kills?
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on May 12, 2015 9:51:15 GMT -6
You're right, on most courts the neutral zone is what gets sacrificed since you have to have the two outer sides the same. Changing the throw line to be closer would be like slaughter for the team throwing. There wouldn't be a need for a counter, since you can causally walk up and be 20~ feet from your opponent when they're on their back line anyway.
|
|