I think this is an interesting debate, one in which I’d like to hear more about what the pros and cons of timed and five goal games are, something I haven’t read anywhere here or elsewhere, until Kevin corrects me. I know we've had at least part of this discussion before.
The issue of how we define the structure of a match is very important for bike polo as it has the potential to change the entire nature and focus of the game. I understand that timed matches are essential for tournament round-robin Saturdays and opening elimination-round matches Sundays, but I'd like to hear both sides of the argument for playing timed matches all the way to the final versus games to five starting with the top 16 teams or so.
Here are my arguments for +/- 5 goal games as the best polo format there is versus timed matches in round-of-sixteen final games.
In timed games a team can sit on a narrow lead and slow the game down, trapping and obstructing for a one-goal win, sticking two people in net while boring the crowd and themselves to tears. A team that is not trying to score goals is almost impossible to score on, they can jam their net and dump the ball repeatedly until the clock runs out.
In games to five both teams must press for the entire length of the game to score all five goals, there is no passive sitting on a lead. A team that isn't trying to score loses.
In timed matches the players can game the clock, using it instead of the ends of their mallets to decide the outcome of a match. Without offensive rules like icing in hockey or the shot clock in basketball forcing players to move the ball up court, games degrade into boring low goal affairs, with perma-style goalies protecting small leads while using possession or dumping to waste time. Timed games end promising come-backs via the clock instead of a the end of a mallet, prolong slim leads via defensive polo, ending in dissatisfying ties. If you are going to play overtime in a final you might as well just play to five to begin with for all the time you are saving.
In games to five both teams are required to stay offensive and play remains lively for the entire length of the game, from the opening joust to the winning goal. It is common to see teams rally from three and four goal deficits, something that would become far more rare in timed games where it is easier, smarter, and less skillful to just park on the lead.
Each and every game to five carries the potential of becoming a beer-point match with a thrilling sudden-death game-winning goal that is the most exciting thing in sport. Players like games to five, it allows them to decide the course of the game, not have the clock decide for them.
At tournaments everyone is pissed when time runs out, but no one complains when the fifth goal goes in. The crowd, polo players mostly, love games to five. I don't know one person that is happy at a tournament when they lose 2 -1 in a game on time.
Games to five all have at least five goals in them, sometimes nine. Both final games of the World's and one of the North American's went to beer point. Timed games may only have one goal in thirty minutes of play.
Games to five generally last from between 10 to 15 minutes, perfectly reasonable for top-sixteen tournament finals.
I’m all for 12 to 15 minute timed games during round-robin at competitions until the quarter finals, but after that point I want to see beer-point final matches that reward goal-scoring prowess, not the ability to sit on a two-goal lead for ten minutes.
One argument for timed games is that it helps for scheduling. If organisers want to keep a tournament on schedule, is changing the very structure (and focus) of the game the best answer we can come up with? More courts, better scheduling, and better facilities for players (bike racks, better info boards, entries and exits, viewing areas…) would solve scheduling issues better than changing the nature of the sport would. Seattle put on a fine tournament last year, they took care of the little things, they played all the quarter finals to five goals and the players preferred it.
Too many sports to mention do not have time limits and benefit greatly from the drama that is provided by playing out the score instead of playing out the clock. Basketball and football, for example, both suffer greatly from players gaming the clock in the final minutes of play. Bike polo has many of its own conventions and I think games to five is like nine innings or double match point or 3 downs, all part of the unique nature of a sport.
Would you rather cheer for a final goal or the clock running out?
Let the players decide the games, not the clock.
Those are my opinions. I'd like to hear from everyone about the advantages of both 5 goal games AND timed games. What is the best length of a timed game? Is five goals too few? Seven? Should timed games allow for unlimited goals? At what stage should five goal games be played at a tournament? How would timed games make the polo being played better? At which point should tournament organising trump on-court play? Can anyone imagine an entire tournament being played to five goals from start to finish?
"I’m all for 12 to 15 minute timed games during round-robin at competitions until the quarter finals, but after that point I want to see beer-point final matches that reward goal-scoring prowess, not the ability to sit on a two-goal lead for ten minutes."
This is pretty much how most of the tournaments I've been to have worked...
"In bike polo there are two general forms of play, pick-up and tournament games. In pick-up the teams and the players on the teams change at the end of every game, the people waiting to play get a turn and some of those who just played wait to play again. The games are not exceptionally important, everyone waiting to play will get more games in, there are no prizes, there is no scoreboard (other than calling out the score). And there is no set allotted time, at least not if the game ends before the crowd gets too impatient. In pick-up, games are played first to 5 points wins.
In bike polo tournaments the games are played first to 5 points wins. I think this has carried over from the majority of games being played as pick-up and never really making the move to a more legitimate time structure. But if one were to think about this in relation to nearly all other sports, our method seems out of the ordinary. Lets take polo for example. In polo the matches are played in chukkas and the score has no impact on the length of the game. Same goes for traditional grass bike polo, soccer, hockey, basketball, football and the list goes on. Even in roller derby, a sport that hardcourt bike polo has a lot to learn from, they compete for two 30 min periods.
The other day Adam put forth the format he purposed to be used at this years East Side Polo Invite 5 in NYC. A noteworthy change is that all games will end at time (that will vary depending on the round) and the widely accepted “first-to-five wins” rule is being abandoned. I think this is a good thing. It’s an absolutely necessary change that will, eventually, have to come into effect.
I’m going to end this short but there are many points to make. And I hope Adam does not mind that I post this quote from a club email.
“first-to-five is going the way of the circle-out. you heard it here first.” Adam Menace"
What a debate. I have mixed emotions on this. If the sport was raking in millions off of sponsors and televised I feel timed games could be necessary. I agree that polo could get boring to watch if your not watching Team Smile and Balls Deep go at it. The reality is we are still self supported and we all love this game. As a player I think playing to 5 is the only way to effectively and fairly play the game.
Have to say if I put the timed sports in one column and the untimed sports in another, I'd probably choose the timed camp.
I really very much prefer untimed games. No question about it. But that's as a player and not an organizer. As an organizer I have the exact opposite disposition.
I have made the mistake (twice, actually) of forgoing the timer and paid the price. That price is a crappy ending. Not having a timer creates the exact opposite of what we want in a polo finale.
Here's what happened at a small Oakland event when two games ran longer than anticipated relatively early in the day:
- people got bored and drifted away
- everyone else screamed for the teams to score and get it done
- the teams turtled the goal because they did not want to lose after playing so hard
- a time limit was forced upon the remaining games because the sun was going down and no lights were going to come on
- there was no celebration at the end, everyone scrambled to clean up and go home before night fell.
I've heard you before on this Pieter. It sounds perfectly grand...polo to 5 points with the best teams and no timer distracting the play. I love it. However, to do this in a formal tournament I imagine I would have to make it a very selective invitational, with a hard limit on the number of teams. The sentiment on tourneys seems to go the opposite direction: larger events, more teams, more inclusive.
Jackal, all of the points you raise sound and seem perfectly legitimate, however I have yet to see anything play out like that in a timed game.
I'm all for the timed games, we've started doing timed only for our league here in Chicago and it's been some of the best games I've ever played, all of them (I mean literally every single game we've played in league so far) has been won by a single point, and I can't recall a single one having someone "run down" the time.
Your points may have more weight in a large tournament, but I'd want to see it happen before conceding to it.
You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.
i am talking about large tournaments in this post rob, not pick-up, not league. i'm all for people playing however they want at home and i like that there is geographic variety in the game. i'm hoping that polo decides to keep the game offensive and that a standard can be found through discussion for which method is best for the game going forward.
NSPI 2008 had timed final rounds that featured all teams gaming the clock. menace and i dumped the ball constantly and sat on leads to get to the final even though we weren't very good. all teams do this in their timed games at tournaments, it's how you win games.
Interesting, colorado springs is also talking of timed games for their tournament next month.
So far proposed and tested, at least with den, 3 five minute periods, with a 30 sec break between each and a rejoust at the start of each period, unlimited goals possible. One of the points brought up is that timed games would possibly bring more legitimacy to the sport. I hope it's okay to prematurely bring it up, George and Adam I think our the masterminds.
I like the timed, bc it makes goal differences less significant, but imho quarterfinals should always be to five
Yeah, exactly. The top 16 (8, 4, whatever) of the elimination round should remain untimed to five or be timed as longer matches.
But in holding time constant with no score limit during the round robin play, every team is guaranteed a certain amount of time on the court. The match can develop. An endurance team will have the chance to be rewarded instead of getting slammed by a team that knows how to come out strong for a quick win. And though a team might try to sit on the clock, that other team will (ought to) be putting on crazy pressure. That'll keep the game moving.
I can see where two mismatched teams playing out something like 12 minutes could be excruciating. But what sport doesn't have it's routs now and again? A goal differential, say a lead of 8-10 - at which point the match is declared over - isn't a bad idea either.
Anyway, yes untimed games are the best. But for tourney play, as long as we keep those final games untimed or significantly longer, this is a legitimate way to help the organizer, no question.
I agree with Pieter. I like playing to 5 better. One of the last tourney's I was at we got down a couple goals early against a team I'm pretty confident we would have beaten in a game to 5, but the games were quite short, and we ran out of time with a 2 - 1 score. We controlled the ball most of the game and dominated the play, but they held onto the lead because they had a great goaltender. In a game to 5 even a great goaltender can't help you forever if all of the play is in your end....that being said, as an organizer of tournaments you have to have timed games in the early rounds.
Are you coming to Area 51 this year Pieter? The finals will be to 5. (maybe 11 for the final match). One thing that definitely helps keep things on time though, is players getting onto the court promptly when their game is called. I think this year instead of calling out "Pieter!!! Get on the court!!" over the mic, I'm just gonna call out "3 - 2 - 1 - polo!!" instead, and see how quick you can get to the court then.....
I favor a situation where the tournament organizer decides, communicates, and leads with their rules, and tournament suck is limited. Minimize bitching. Maximize play. You'll never get rid, or all of it. Distribute prizes while the lights are on. Start (continue) drinking.
I like the consensus that seems to be forming here - and at Doug's site.
Now for the boring stuff. Statistically, it doesn't matter what the format is. When you win a game, there was some chance involved. Same when you lose. If two teams repeated a match lots of times, a clear picture of who the better team is comes out. Maybe the better team is more better at timed games than they are better at games to 5. But I'm guessing that they're better at both. Sounds like Pieter thinks chance favored him and Menace for a game. We could know for sure if that final was replayed and replayed. So we can't. So statistics are are boring even when you can measure something.
"One of the most important things I learnt from Bobby Robson is that when you win, you shouldn’t assume you are _the_ team, and when you lose, you shouldn’t think you are rubbish." Jose Maurinho, current Inter Milan coach speaking about his former boss at F.C. Barcelona.
i agree devin, i'm looking for more of a north-american tournament standard that minimises bitching. i don't care which system gets picked as long as it is the best system.
i didn't think menace and i got lucky, i think we gamed the clock in a way that made for boring polo to play and watch, even though it almost won us the game. it wouldn't matter if luck had anything to do with it, it was my intention to waste time off the clock and keep the game close when we were clearly the inferior team on the court.
I haven't been playing long, but I know I play different in a timed vs. untimed game. I am aware of the clock and once we are up by a few points in a timed game I will sit back and let time run out. I switch gears to defense and wait for the seconds to tick away. We get the win and it helps conserve my energy for the next round.
In every tournament there are strong contenders toward the title, and those that don't have a shot. Early in elimination or in Round Robin this takes care of itself. It doesn't matter if you have 10mins or 2 hours, the good teams will beat the weaker teams. The time becomes a serious factor in a game where two teams are evenly matched. At this point in polo there are a handful of teams that need to be allowed to battle it out. The teams who make the quarter finals are good enough to be there, and deserve a chance to lose completely, not be beaten by the clock. If I remember correctly, Balls Deep would have beaten Smile a couple times if time had been called on those games. Let them fight it out, let them win completely. No one can have excuses later if you played to 5.
It is my observation that much of the new polo regime is drawing heavily on hockey. While I love hockey I do not wish to play it on my bicycle. We are our OWN sport, and we need our OWN rules.
If you are worried about timing your tournament, I think you can estimate your last set (top 16, 8, or 4 whatever) of games 30mins each and you will finish ahead of schedule. It can be done, and has been done. Most of the late finishes I've seen are more related to late starts, then long finals games.
Kiersten, you said, the new polo regime is drawing heavily on hockey.
That may, in part be true. And we are on opposite coasts and I'm not sure if I even know you but I can say that some long time (5 years+) players are in the "timed game camp". Myself, Ben S, Adam, and more. Just saying that to balance the perception.
Also, for anyone else who might feel this is a direct hockey to bike polo rule adaptation, I am curious if anyone knows of, and can name a sport where both teams are in live action with the ball at the same time, such as football or soccer, and the games are NOT timed.
I'm not interested in baseball or tennis or other games where the teams basically take turns at the ball. My point is that timed games are used as the standard in a game play format like bike polo has. Or to put it another way. Live action from both teams simultaneously = clock. Taking turns AT BAT = no clock. Am I wrong?
Doug, I'm not sure if we have met either, but I hope to soon. I'm coming out for ESPI and Ladies.
I'm also not sure I could name another live action ball sport that isn't timed. I'm newer, but I feel like in Seattle we try to keep things as simple as possible. We do our best to keep the game flow moving and constant play happening. This means minimal rules and interventions from time clocks, refs, and other distractions. I personally feel like many of the new rules will compromise the flow of the game. At some point the rules get in the way of the sport and you can no longer play without a ref standing on the sidelines watching a shot clock. I think American Football is a good example of this. There are so many rules that even experienced sports casters get confused with whats happening on the field (and yes I know we are a long way from that, its just an example). We run the risk of getting a massive rule book set up that you need special training to ref games. I like it simple. We love this sport and just want to play. I don't want someone yelling that the new shot _______ just pulled off doesn't meet some sort of vague sub requirement buried deep in a rule book.
My issue with the hockey thing is simple. We are not hockey. We are not soccer. We are not grass polo. We are not horse polo. We are Hardcourt Bike polo. We need rules that work for US, and make sense to US. I know the East has more ties to hockey then the West does, but I feel like we are borrowing from a rule book that wasn't designed for us. I'd like people to quit turning us into bike hockey, and take a moment to let us evolve into bike polo. Basically I am frustrated by the immediate leap to all things hockey related.
Volleyball? That's live action, right? I actually don't think tennis is that bad of a comparison, especially doubles tennis.
I don't think games have to be timed to make the logistics of tournaments work. I'd prefer to change the logistics to fit the kind of game we want bike polo to be than change bike polo to fit logistics.
The club where I'm from never uses a clock and all games always go to 5 but recently I played in another city where pickup games were stopped every 10 minutes. One night there was about 10 of us and it was even stopped for mostly the same players to re-throw. I'd be really into the game and we might even have 4 points but it didn't matter. This was just pick up so it doesn't relate to the logistics of a tournament but I kind of thought people on the sideline felt their right to play was more equal than ours on the court. One of the nights I'm pretty sure that they didn't even have a clock people just yelled out, "thirty seconds" then shortly the game was over. I've heard people yell out two minutes in other places but I've always hated that. Like where do they get off just arbitrary calling time if they're bored?
In pick up it seems newbie games drag on because no one can really score. That's okay because those people need the extra game time. Also really nicely balanced games can last a long time. I never mind that. I can understand using a clock to bring fairness to a situation where there are lots of people that want to play and time is short but in those cases maybe to five points should be thrown out and teams should play the full time regardless of the score.
I liked timed games pretty well in tournaments but I'd like to see a tournament with premiere teams playing all untimed games to see how that goes.
People yell out random countdowns all teh time here in portland. It's always a heckle though. I'm sorry to hear that you played in a city where they listened to that.
____________
West and East squash the beef
That shit 's legit as fuck!
Or how about at midwests when people did it for one of the last games causing one team to actually stop playing and get off their bikes before realizing the crowd was full of shit. Not saying it effected the game, but I'm not saying it didn't.
They had called the 7th and 8th place on time, not sure what they did on the 6th and 5th place, but overall it wasn't made very clear if the final games would be timed or to five points. The best part of the Midwests in Como was how exciting the final eight games were on that big court under the lights. I thought having all courts the same was a good idea but after the finals I was left wishing there was one super court. A great court, stands or nice walls for the fans to lean on, and an announcer with a mic to bark out what's going on would make a big difference. In that final game I think the ref was actually keeping time so who knows what the intent was. I was yelling for them to keep playing but I wasn't sure because I saw some of the organizers yelling time. If games are going to be timed a clock on the court should be standard at big tournaments.
Yeah, exactly. The top 16 (8, 4, whatever) of the elimination round should remain untimed to five or be timed as longer matches.
...
Anyway, yes untimed games are the best. But for tourney play, as long as we keep those final games untimed or significantly longer, this is a legitimate way to help the organizer, no question.
"Also, for anyone else who might feel this is a direct hockey to bike polo rule adaptation, I am curious if anyone knows of, and can name a sport where both teams are in live action with the ball at the same time, such as football or soccer, and the games are NOT timed."
I can, Bike polo. You said it yourself, you've been playing this game for a number of years and you've, probably, been playing it first to five for that amount of time. Why do you want to see it changed?
I understand that tournaments are different. Seeding would be obnoxious to have to play all the games to 5. I firmly believe that the last 8 elimination games the teams should have the opportunity to play to five points. And if we need to drive the Trucks on the courts to let the last game happen we will.
I think that, especially in light of the ESPI 5 rules, there are a lot of changes that are being propsed. Changes that are being drawn from other sports. I think they're interesting, certainly, but I'm begining to believe that the opinions, and acceptance are being formed on wether or not we want to see these rules brought from other games into bike polo or not. The rules that I see added to polo that I agree with are based on what we encounter, such as the ball joint and scoop, like contact, and capping your bars and mallets. I think we should focus on evolution out of neccesity and not make changes to the basic rules of this game based on others. Interference, is a great example of a rule that I do not understand the origin of in relation to Bike Polo, honestly I don't understand the rule in any sport.
The game has been going on for 10 or 11 years now on hardcourt and we've done fine so far. I think that the evolution of the rules is going wonderfully. Why not Keep playing and letting the sport move like it has up until this point?
____________
West and East squash the beef
That shit 's legit as fuck!
I don't understand the whole "beaten by the clock" axiom that most of the con-clock camp is relying on.
In sports, the clock is a legitimate factor a team has to work into their strategy, it's not some random outside factor that arbitrarily imposed.
Piet, you said that a team that isn't trying to score is almost impossible to score on... maybe some of the factors that make it "almost impossible" to score on them should be adjusted (like they've done in other sports, eg the shot clock). I'm a big fan of K.I.S.S. but there's more than one way to skin a cat and maybe the same end of making it exciting etc can be had without leaving the door open for games that are potentially an hour+ long.
i wouldn't say that i am relying on "beaten by the clock" as much as i am using it as a supporting argument for the type of game flow i think is more beneficial to the playing and watching of polo. timed games do allow for terrible things in sport like the endless fouling in the last minute of a basketball game, something that could be likened to dumping the ball in the final minutes of a polo match when only one team is trying to score.
the clock *is* a legitimate factor that teams can (and do) use to win a game in sport. it's more of a question about whether we prefer having a very simple game structure that effectively keeps the game offensive because both teams are always trying to score (games to five), versus a more complicated format (timed games) that allows for teams to strategically delay the game and remain defensive playing out the clock while nursing a lead.
match play with a clock will eventually require the same rules from pro sport for exactly the same reasons that other pro sports have instituted them: to keep teams offensive so the games don't become boring as hell to watch or play in.
games to five offer many advantages in rule simplicity. first they require no clock whatsoever and do not concern themselves with stoppages in play (equipment, injury, delay, intentional delay of game) because the game goes to five, not some time period that is in reality very difficult to keep track of (watch any pro sport and they argue over seconds on or off the clock, while we can't even get people who have watches to show up at polo). when time cannot be kept accurately, it does become "some random outside factor that [can be] arbitrarily imposed."
most importantly, games to five do not require offensive rules to keep the teams from dumping the ball (like icing in hockey) or making a play (the shot clock in basketball) to keep the game moving. in timed games teams can endlessly cycle the ball, dump it, delay the game needlessly and stick three people in net to protect a one-goal lead for ten minutes. polo does not need that level of complexity, it has a built-in solution already.
games to five are not the perfect answer for everything-- but i don't see timed games offering more simplicity or better games, which should be goal of any rule change. if people think that the difference is just that one has a time limit and the other doesn't are kidding themselves: the two are essentially widely diverging ideas on the spirit of the game of bike polo. timed games would require more rules to keep polo offensive and require actual timers who know when to start and stop the clock. who's to say that team x didn't delay the game for a minute while putting that chain on after a goal? in games to five it's putting the ball in the net that matters, not the time on the clock. let the players play each other, not the clock. it makes for better polo, and it's easier to govern.
just in case you are wondering doug, ultimate frisbee is a fine game that has no time limits. it doesn't even require referees! 4.5 million americans can't be wrong.
I like a clock and the difference in play in creates, whether up or down in score. I prefer having one for pickup as well, it helps games rotate better and in my opinion makes the games faster paced. Perhaps not all the time, and perhaps not always to ten minutes, but for whatever it matters I prefer the clock.
I feel that last years NA's went really well, and one of the things that made it such a fun tournament to compete in was the structure. Timed games till the quarter finals and games went to five, tied games went right into sudden death. If every tournament I play at goes as smoothly as that one, I'd be a happy monkey. Also last year at the East Van Crown My team and Balls deep had an epic game that lasted 28 minutes, during that game we got up 4 to 1 in the first ten minutes, and then balls deep turned on the rocket sauce and fought it out for the next 18 minutes till they finally won, during that 18 mins I blocked 19 shots on goal, unfortunately they also put four past me. So I can see how some people who play an endurance game want all games to go to five with no time limit. Again I am for the timing of games till the quarter finals.
Yo Dawg I heard you like redundancies so we got a PIN number for your PIN
hmmm maybe we should keep all the games timed....At the first Ramsay Bowl, our final match, we played almost 10 minutes before the first goal was scored. (and that wasn't any slow conservative play by either side....) As I recall that first goal was by us, In a timed game we would have taken it 1 - 0. Or at the East Van Crown, when we were up 4 - 0 on you....I would have loved a timed game that day!!! Seriously though I prefer games to 5, and those were both really fun, really good games, even if the wrong team won them.... ;-)
The reason we have time limits is to accommodate a large number of teams in a tournament with a fixed amount of total tournament time. All tourneys have a stop time -- when the sun goes down or the lights go off or the park is closed. There's also a start time which is when you can realistically hope to have teams on the court playing. An organizer must get through the final game or everyone is disappointed. Thus, a tournament is timed by nature. The clock rules the day and that's life. If you're running an event, ignoring the clock can be your downfall.
In SC this last weekend we ran a 15-minute limit. Around 4:30p with about 4 games to go we let go of the time limit. I heard nary a complaint. In fact, I believe people in those final games would have been perfectly OK with a 15-minute limit. They were tired. If it had become relevant a time limit would have allowed more pickup to happen.
I don't think games have to be timed to make the logistics of tournaments work. I'd prefer to change the logistics to fit the kind of game we want bike polo to be than change bike polo to fit logistics.
I agree with this in the context of timed or to five.
We're talking about rules for major tournaments here, not the Santa Cruz Cold Water Classic Open with <15 teams. The fact is, major tournaments are going to need / already have the kind of infrastructure to support games after the sun goes down, which effectively harpoons the logistical argument in favor of having timed games (which is just as shabby as the "beaten by the clock" argument from the other side) and makes it non.
I still think there are valid reasons for timed games, but this isn't one of them. Pack up, move on.
something was pointed out to me by Marco from NYC on wed night at polo. NYC doesn't have lights on their courts. this in itself is a strong argument towards timed games for regulation play. Other city's as well have had trouble with lighting at tournaments and time and daylight running out towards the final games. East Van last year Seattle last year, Boston as well, and I'm sure other tournaments that I didn't attend. All those who think that tournaments shouldn't be timed should consider this, or consider start times that are earlier in the day say like 8am? but since that will never happen in a million years timed games or more courts if possible would also resolve the issue, yet often more courts are not possible.
Yo Dawg I heard you like redundancies so we got a PIN number for your PIN
I'm going to go ahead and play the "Even Ryan Saulsbery Can Do It" card when it comes to lighting argument. If that fool can organize lights on a god-damn beach, then no capable human being, or group of capable human beings has ANY excuse at all... at all... at... all.
This post is more about what is good for tournament organizers rather than what is right for the sport. At this point in TIME there are too few teams for major tournaments...something sinks about the way this discussion was started.
I didn't really liked the way that timed games worked at MWBPC8. It isn't really that fun to play games that go to 11-0. I didn't see the benefit of this for organizing either. I loved it at bench minor but it was used for games where the competitive level was very high at all times.
I kind of thought playing out the full 10 minutes was pretty cool. It's a long drive to these events so it's nice to get the full 10 minutes on the court. The problem I saw with the time keeping there was that it was sometimes difficult to get a time update while you were playing and occasionally no one on the court heard time being counted down or when the game was over. If time is going to be what ends the game there really needs to be some kind of clock visible to the players.
I believe the main ref keeps the sole official game clock on his person and is the only one who knows the exact stop time. Everyone else can guess but not exactly since they don't know exactly when the clock was stopped/restarted.
the clock is on the scoreboard in soccer matches for everyone to see, it is the referee who decides how much 'stoppage' or 'injury' time is added at the end of each half, also displayed for the spectators and players. they also decide when the half is over-- they won't call it finished if a scoring play is developing, only after it played out. is there a benefit to no one knowing the time joel?
I once played a game with one of my soccer teams where we played so solid as a team that we had no trouble completely shutting out the other team and beat them by 14 points. My coach after the game told us that we were not allowed to leave until all of us had completed 20 laps around the field because he thought we should have passed more and that we were showboating and just trying to score goals. It made me think a bit about our sportsmanship. It also made me think about how much conditioning and skills training we did. In reality he was a great coach and we were a great team who worked really hard and was able to out run and out pass other teams with ease. We won the final for our league that year in a long hard match and the score was 5-0. When it came down to it it was our goalie who stopped all of their shots from getting into net, our Coach was very proud and explained why he wasn't upset with that shut out, but why he was earlier in the season. It was about skill level he said, when the other team is beat and you know you have them beat you shouldn't keep on beating them, you should give them a chance to play better and learn something. He was also mad Because not one of us had encouraged the other teams players when they did something well. in essence we could have been better sports and upheld better spirits for the other team but didn't.
Yo Dawg I heard you like redundancies so we got a PIN number for your PIN
I played at ESPIs this weekend. And my final thought on the situation is this:
Timed games are great for the elite players. You can show boat, try new things and get super flashy without breaking a sweat. You get to feel like a polo god.
From the losing side of one of those 12-0 games, its frustrating. I know Smile was going to beat us (that was never a question). But in a normal tournament they would encourage us, give us learning opportunities, and advice (Balls Deep does it too). This weekend they couldn't. They had to keep drilling the ball in for 15 mins straight.
Imagine it is your first tournament, and you are getting annihilated by some showboating assholes that already know they will smoke you out of the water. Would you really feel encouraged to continue in the sport? Why not let the newbies learn a little bit. Give them an opening. Why not show a little consideration for your opponents.
Part of what I love about bike polo is the community and encouragement of the players. Its for the love of the game not just for the love of winning. At what point does "sportsmanship" quit being involved in "sport?"
why did the timed game force them to keep scoring for 15 minutes as opposed to encouraging/giving you learning in a 5-goal game? if anything 15 minutes seems more of an opportunity to get playing time for new players than if the game would have be over in 5-10 minutes in a game to 5...
i am thinking that it was because ties in the tournament were going to be broken by goal differential. all it takes is one team to run up a score and then everyone has to follow suit.
Yeah, that was it. Based on a lot of the groups having one, maybe two, really really strong teams and the rest not so strong, there were predicted to be quite a few teams who would go undefeated in their group and had to make sure they beat the tie with the differential... which is why we saw stuff like 12-0 and 18-2 etc.
if you won all your games on saturday you didn't need to run the score up, you were in. the second round had a wildcard spot to win, so i could see people running the score up on sunday morning. there was no seeding, differential was just a tie-breaker.
Ok... the point was: the potentiality existed for a lot of teams with the same W:L record. The only way to move on if there were eight undefeated teams and 20 teams with a 2-1 record would be with goals so all those teams were hedging their bets to make sure they got in if it came to that point.
Had there been a a giant lighted board that indicated to teams their statistics and that "HEY! BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF THE PREVIOUS 50 MATCHES, YOU COULD LOSE THIS AND STILL BE IN" then people *probably* wouldn't have run up the score... people were just playing it safe, within the rules established I guess...
I don't know... I really don't understand the problem... If I got beat 18-0 I don't think I'd be upset (all our games were within one or two points and I still wasn't upset), I'd look at it objectively and laugh, knowing #1 that there was absolutely nothing I could have done to prevent it and #2 that the reason they kept running up the score was because that's what the format dictated, not because there was some malicious intent behind the other team's actions or that "If only I'd prepared a little more, I could have won." Then again, I'm too pragmatic for my own good sometimes...
My opinion: first to 5 for Round Robin, 15 minutes (or more) with no time limit for elimination. My team got crushed by Machine Politics in the elimination round at ESPI5 but i definitely wouldn't have wanted it to end any earlier than it did.
i like the timed games. it really made it more of a chess match. Teams had to make adjustments and counter the adjustments from the other teams. It wasn't just about who could score quickly, but which team was better over the given time.
I also liked the longer games because it made endurance crucial. I saw many good players wilt after ten minutes under the hot sun. The games were often won by whoever had the lungs and legs and could keep hustling in the final minutes.
Seeing the tournament games in action at NAHBPC gave me an interesting chance to look at this.
I think that we should stick with games to five. The final of NAHBPC this year is a great example because in 20 minutes the final didn't reach five points. I think the unique progression, Equal possesion oppotunities/no time limit, of polo makes for interesting games. I think that both players and spectators can agree on that. The untimed final games I've seen have been some of the most epic and interesting games I've seen.
I fully admit that the final this year was a great game. Chris, Nick and Mark played a great game and smile put up a hell of a fight against the forces of Jah but it was a very dissapointing feeling for me to know that the game had been lost before the time ran out. It wasn't as exciting. I think that we have a great opportunity to explore our unique aspect of polo by continuing the "game to five" instead of timed games.
I'm interested why people feel that changing that aspect of polo would make it more sepctator friendly. I've seen games of hockey, football, basketball and Soccer(football) all end in similar ways to the final of the northamericans this year and it's one of the least fufilling feelings I've experienced as a spectator. These are games that I don't play and it still makes me feel this way.
____________
West and East squash the beef
That shit 's legit as fuck!
the final score was 5-2.
I personally thought watching Capriotti chase down that ball for the fif goal was plenty exciting and a fitting end to the game.
this isn't to offer a counterargument, mike. it's just to say that the particular game you mentioned actually made it to a score of five.
No worries Chris I thought the final came down to 4-2 my mistake.
It was very exciting to watch Mark put in that final goal and fitting in my mind that it won the game, also funny to hear you say "they don't want me up there" when people would heckle you about being a goalie. Great game.
____________
West and East squash the beef
That shit 's legit as fuck!
"I’m all for 12 to 15 minute timed games during round-robin at competitions until the quarter finals, but after that point I want to see beer-point final matches that reward goal-scoring prowess, not the ability to sit on a two-goal lead for ten minutes."
This is pretty much how most of the tournaments I've been to have worked...
Pro-friendly bike polo!