Rule 2 - Playing Time

[troy]

Issue – 4 quarters x 10min, 2 halves x 10min, 3 thirds x 10 min ??

[vish]

I strongly disagree with 40 minutes, and here is why.

We have our own rulebook that clearly defines our interpretation of ICF
rules and their appropriate significance to the New Zealand canoe polo
environment. If we look at our rules, we can see the corresponding ruling in
ICF and the actual practical application in NZ. What of the 40 minute rule
then?

This is a defining factor in the sport. It is the basic definition of the
game- not the same as the finer points in outlining fouls and the various
actions that can lead to a sanction. 20 minutes is a primary factor in
defining our sport as canoe polo. When you play rugby with only 7 players
and a shorter time, you don't call it union, you call it sevens. When you go
on a 20 km race you call it a half marathon, not a marathon. When you play a
canoe polo game in New Zealand however, it's a 40 minute game, according to the NZ rules. By definition, the game is supposed to be 40 minutes and 20
minutes is an abnormality.

Hence, I now look to the definition in the NZ rule book. Far from being a
practical application that is currently in use in New Zealand, it is in
actual fact irrelevant. Nobody plays it, and those few that do are
advocating a change that they have not convinced the rest of the world to
even consider. It is in my opinion, a training exercise and an experiment.
Canoe polo by it's very definition was, and always has been 20 minutes. You
can change it around to suit your league or for variety but call it
something other than canoe polo- enduro polo or three-a-side. Do not make
the rules of New Zealand unrecognisable from ICF.

Furthermore, I suggest that the primary tactics involved at Worlds were
one-on-one and outright muscle. Get someone in the middle in front of the
goalie or box in the defence on top of the goal keeper. You have twenty
minutes to make your point- get used to it. If you can't do it, it's not the
definition of the game that's at fault.

[troy]

Background -
In its inception (ie its original first publication), we did actually call it by a different name (ie National KayakPolo League ("NKL") Rules). It was a few months later later that it was adopted as the NZ Canoe Polo Rules (and it was done by a fairly wide concensus of the Ref Council, Exec and Board at the time).

Part of the reason why we considered a change wasn't inappropriate was the wide range of time periods being used in NZ at the time - games (at a national level) ranged from 14 min to 30 min to 40 min.

And now some people have introduced 3 x 10 min thirds????

[becks.c]

2 x 10min halves.

Why should our playing time be any different from the internationally accepted standard game length?

What benefit is there in deviating from ICF rules in this instance?

Over the last few years players and competition organisers have shown their preference for the 2 x 10min format, lets bring our rules back into line with the majority of our players and administrators expectations.

[Juno]

2 x 10 minute halves,
We want to be competitive in international competion what is the advantage of playing 4 ten minute quaters, this will change the whole game. Anerobic to aerobic, it will slow the game down considerably players will not be in a hurry to move the ball up the court and you will end up with a less spectacular game. Why is it that we have to deviate from the rest of the world?

[James]

I agree with players pushing for adopting the 10-minute half format. The game is about making the best use of the 20-minute you have at your disposal.

In NZ our games are based around tournaments, having run many over the years, I would say that having a 40-minute format would be hugely difficult to organize. There just wouldn't be the opportunity to have round robin play with the longer formats.

If there are benefits from the longer game formats for our elite players, surely our coaches can ensure that we play this during training sessions. I believe playing the 20 minute game is of more benefit to our inter-national game.

As a player, I enjoy playing both forms of the game. But for a national rule of such significance, lets reflect what we and the world play! Troy.....Just have a comment line allowing us to play 40mins by discretion

[Nick B]

I agree with James's last sentence.

National Leauge provides game preparation and build up for our top level players going to compete internationally. It is important that this playing time promotes maximum game speed and intensity. I believe 20 minute games promote this far more effectively than a 40 minute game can.

Although 40 minute games may be considered (by some) to better promote tactical structure there is a definite risk of teaching teams to be "slow starters".

Please note my comments are from the perspective of a national coach seeking the best possible build up for national teams competing in six months time. I realise that our domestic competition caters to more than just these players.