Jump to Navigation

Login / Register

St Cago bike polo mallets DZR bike shoes for street and bike polo Velolocuma bicycles

Restructuring the Time Out

Do people like the time out the way it is currently written? Should “mechanicals” and “time outs” be different things? Should we continue to associate a time out with a penalty served as a ball turnover? If someone’s bike breaks in an incidental collision and they must fix it, does conceding half court create an unfair advantage? Should teams be allowed a break of determined length without having to give up possession? What should the restart look like? Is it okay now? I don’t know what a solution would look like here but I feel like it could be better than it is now and I want to know if people agree with me or if it’s okay as is.

Current Form
§3.2.9 – Mechanical Timeout
§3.2.9.1 – A timeout can be called by a player for mechanical issues by yelling “Time Out” to the referee.
§3.2.9.2 – Any player having the mechanical problem has the option to call a timeout or “mechanical” only after their team takes possession of the ball. After fixing the mechanical problem, the ball is turned over to the other team and play will restart according to §3.3.

I'd like to see it explicitly defined as to whether teams can call timeouts when they've just scored. I see it happen from time to time, and when I'm reffing, I'll call play on, as the team gave up possession when they scored.

In my opinion, if they needed a timeout, they could have chosen to do that before they scored, doing it this way means they get the best of both worlds.

In addition, it removes the advantage the scored on team has, in that they aren't able to restart straight away, and surprise the scoring team.

I agree with you that a scoring team should not be able to call a timeout, at least so long as we keep to the notion that calling a time out forfeits possession. (The latter part being up for debate.)

I disagree fundamentally that "surprise" should play any part in the restart after a goal. Being conceded the ball and half is already plenty of advantage to the scored-upon team.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Scoring team should not be able to call a timeout, but play cannot restart until all of the scoring team returns to their defensive end. 1 player stays in offensive zone to hold restarting of play. Scoring team then has whatever minimal amount of time they need (at ref's discretion to ward off tactical time delays). Zero surprise when player crosses back into defensive end to signal readiness.

Fine, but if all 3 players go back to their own half, then one person gets of their bike and starts fixing it, then the other team can just start play, right?

That's how i've always reffed that.

according to the current ruleset

3.3.3 - The referee establishes both teams are ready by recieving a verbal aknoweldgement.

So no surprise element there...

This surprise element and rule 3.3.3 deserve its own thread. Let's not digress.

Restarting Play After a Goal

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

We're talking about after a point is scored. Seldom is the ref involved in resuming play after a point. In my scenario i mentioned, a player would stop before crossing to their defensive end as to delay restarting of gameplay to buy his teammates time for whatever reason (again, within means, we're not talking change a flat here, more of "does my shit work, yes/no assessment" boundaries). This would not require a timeout, allow a moment for scoring team to do whatever to prepare.

To answer Jon, yes, if all 3 crossed into their zone, they have acknowledged they are ready to play and the offense now has full reason to begin the next play. If that player got off his bike for mechanical after crossing and offense brings the ball into play, he's foot down and it's up to his teammates to recover that ball to call for the timeout.

On the subject of turnovers, I don't think it does make sense in most situations to turn over the ball on a timeout.

The only thing we would have to consider is if we want to allow teams to effectively call tactical timeouts. For example, 2 players are down, and the third player is in possession, but at risk of losing the ball, and conceding a timeout.

Currently, as a player, I would think about calling a timeout, but I would consider the risk of a turnover. If I didn't have the threat of a timeout, I would call timeout every time. Even if there was a rule banning tactical timeouts, you can always make up some mechanical, which refs actually check that?

I'm a bit torn on the subject of turning the ball over for a timeout. If you have possession and stop play, why should you have to give up the ball to catch your breath or talk with your teammates?

At the same time, if your opponents are driving deep in your defensive zone and threatening for 30-90 seconds and then you get the ball for a second and call a timeout, well, is it OK/fair to keep the ball thereafter?

I'd say yes. Timeouts should be used for strategy.

i thought about this a little bit too. it was always weird to me that a team could be a threat in the zone, and then all the defending team has to do it touch the ball for half a second--even if it's right in front of their goal--and say time out, effectively killing the momentum.

i've thought maybe that if the defending team wants to call a time out and they're in the situation you describe then maybe they'd need to get it to at least half court (or if we end up doing other markings that are less like 1/3 of the court, that would work too since half court's probably too much) in order to demonstrate possession. or, maybe that you can't call a time out in your defensive 3rd of the court.

i don't know the reasoning of the original turnover-after-timeout rule, but maybe it's to balance what we're talking about; killing a scoring threat by simply having the ball on your mallet for a split sec.

maybe this isn't really even an issue and it's fine how it is. i'm not sure.

This is also what I was sort of thinking about - time outs only allowed in the offensive half, but you get to keep possession afterwards. Needs more refinement though, I think.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

So is it too simple to suggest this?

-If you take a timeout in your defensive zone, you turn it over. Your opponents return to their defensive half and play restarts when they cross half into your offensive zone.
-If you take a timeout in your offensive zone, you keep the ball. However, you have to return to your defensive half and play commences when you cross half.
-If you call a timeout after your opponent scores a goal on you, you still get the ball and play commences when you cross half.

I like this.

This sounds good, can you take a tactical timeout or only mechanical?

2 and 3 look good

with one there's still that thing where you can kill a threat to your goal by just touching the ball for a split second even after they've been taking shot after shot with two of your team mates down (like in John's example above), and then send the other team all the way back to their half. it's like some kind of reward for simply touching the ball--i think you should have to work a little harder--or *at the very least* have to turn the ball over at the spot on the court where you called time out in your defensive zone.

like i said, maybe people aren't concerned with this, or it just doesn't happen often enough to matter in which case... yeah... it doesn't matter. anyhow, looks good.

but does the current ruleset allow for tactical timeouts though? I think only mechanicals are allowed, or am I reading the rules wrong? if you take a timeout as a defensive tactic and you have no mechanical issues, then that team can be penalized accordingly...

"my brake's loose, i'm not stopping like i usually can, i need a time out."

"my tires too inflated, i'm slipping out, mechanical."

how are you gonna argue with shit like that? there's effectively no difference between tactical and mechanical.

that's true, but then you can take any number of time outs during the game for all sorts of BS reasons...

Timeouts should be limited. I'd say 2 per team is a fair number for a 12-15 minute game.

Timeouts after the initial 2 can only be taken after a goal. This means if you blow your 2 timeouts on "tactical" BS reasons and then taco a wheel, you're gonna have to sit there feeling like a jerk until you get scored on, THEN you can try to fix it.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Is two too many? We have schedules to keep. Maybe it's a number that could change as a tournament dwindles to fewer teams or maybe its something that could change depending on if it's an elimination game or not. Should we worry about someone having the ability, on saturday, to hold back the progression of the tournament because they're a primadonna and need a bunch of stoppages for minor issues?

Or maybe one two-minute time out and one 30 second one? Just brainstorming.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

seems like a lot. two at any time, then potentially dozens more if you're allowed to take them after each goal (depends if the games are to five or timed). for every round of the tournament i like the idea of keeping it uniform, rather than giving less to the lower games or whatev.

i know other sports use timed time outs, but seems like a pain to enforce... unless you're going to further penalize a team that isn't ready by the time the clock runs out with further sanctions... then we have to come up with and enforce those. in other sports they're better equipped to solve mechanical issues more quickly with spare equipment lying around or other team members able to rotate in, we're DIY teams of three so we don't really have that luxury.

maybe there shouldn't be "mechanical" stoppages except in the case of crashes where people taco their wheel or bend their fork and they eat shit (can be judged by the ref) and only allow stopping after a goal...

llIIlllIIIllIlIIllIllIIlIllllIIlIlI wrote:

...then potentially dozens more

If that were going to happen - People calling unwarranted mechanicals after every goal - it would be happening now. It's not.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Secondary Alex wrote:
llIIlllIIIllIlIIllIllIIlIllllIIlIlI wrote:

...then potentially dozens more

If that were going to happen - People calling unwarranted mechanicals after every goal - it would be happening now. It's not.

i try to take care of any mechanical i have in game. calling time outs over stupid shit is stupid.

but outside of that have we tried to discuss a difference between control and possession? control, in my understanding, dicatates the person in possession has the ability at that time to dictate the rate of play. the ball is removed from a "danger" zone and is un complete possession of a team. where possession is catching a rebound and the ball being a bit squirelly and play still moving fast and hard. this would allow any tea in actual control of the ball to call a time out if needed. if the team in control of the ball is in their defensive side, its a turn over. if theyre in their offensive side, it's not. either way they are given half court and play resumes. it's how we treat such plays here, and out of bounds balls.

well i understand your point. but i didn't say anything about every goal, i said potentially dozens; and that was in relation to the amount of times that are *already* available to players for stopping play at their own discretion so the need for two more discretionary times, during the heat of play, may be too much. i wasn't really commenting on the fact that people may get all whacky and start stopping the game every single goal--but i might have phrased it wrong.

on another note, taking advantage does happen now. not after every single goal, but people use more timeouts and for way longer than's specified in the rules because nobody enforces the rule (I played a game with a 10+ minute mechanical at Eastsides and then other games with multiple mini timeouts, not that I care)--which is fine, i understand why--so you're not seeing distinct time outs after goals because it's happening in the middle of the games now. at hockey town after some goals we'd sit for a minute or two (or not take the ball across half) because my/our hands were cold or asleep, many other teams did too... again, don't care, but it is happening.

I don't think two is two many, just my opinion.

If peeps are trying to milk the time after goal to a silly amount of time call on them to start the game by crossing half in thirty seconds or whatever you want, if they don't then call 'em on 5.4.4 delay of game with ball turn over. That's how i'd handle that.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

1 timeout. That way you only use it if you absolutely have to. Minimize tactical timeouts. Not saying it would eliminate them but it makes you wary to use the one.

2 timeouts i would use the 30 second as the tactical timeout if i had my defense falling apart.

I was on the fence regarding 1 timeout or 2. I think 1 in-game timeout is fair, and then only after-goal time outs once you use it.

I think it is important to allow fixing mechanical issues after goals because there is no tactical advantage to be gained by "gaming" the after-goal timeouts (except maybe if you're just gassed and want a breather), and to only allow one mechanical fix per game would be unfair to people who get their wheels tacoed.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Ah yes, in the result of something like a tacoing, there would likely be a stoppage of play/turnover (because there was more than likely a penalty that caused it). This turnover stops the clock, allowing for switching of equipment. You wouldn't be using a timeout there.

I like the different length time outs, what ever they may be. 30 seconds and 2 minutes sounds good to me, or one minute and two minutes.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

1 tactical timeout per team, meaning a timeout for any reason. Tactical timeouts can only occur at natural stoppages in the game (goals, ball over the board, etc). Possesion and space given afterwards would keep with reason play was initially stopped. 1 min max.

1 mechanical per team only with possesion and when the mechanical has resulted in a player's inability to move their bike (dropped chain, flat, tacoed wheel, etc). Possesion would then go to the opposing team. Somewhere between 5-10 max. Ref may call delay of game if he/she rules the mechanical was not serious enough or nonexistent.

The ref can stop play for mechanical whenever he/she sees fit. Possesion and space given would be at his/her discretion. Still should not exceed 5-10 max.

I think there are stoppages in a game that should only give the team with possesion half court until the whistle is blown to start play, then the opposing team may cross half whenever and however they choose.

Just my thoughts.

the dark end (aka Bobb Todd, Marzipan, B.R. Fuck Face)