Speeding Up the Game

[the deacon]

I was in London last winter at the Boat Show and watched most of the games that took place in the 2 day event. One of the matches in the semi's was very intriguing on a technical point of view.

Although the losing side was just a couple of goals down, they spent about 8 minutes of the game (I was keeping time) passing the ball amongst their team in the usual semi-circular attacking pattern, right up to the end, whenever they had possession, without ever throwing the ball at the goal.

Needlessly this tactic did not change the scoring and ultimately they lost the game. For us public watching, the game was slow and not logically played. I know that most of the teams do not play possession so drastically, however it is not uncommon to do so.

This brought me to ponder.... and what if the rules were such that whenever the attacking side crossed over the halfway line into 'offensive territory', like in basketball, they had a collective possesion time of 30 seconds to be able to go for a goal shot after which the countdown clock would stop?

I am sure that this will speed up the game and eliminate useless time wasting whatever be the score.

Lets hear some comments on this matter!

[Kohhal]

In basketball, each team could score 40 or 50 times in a game, in polo a couple of goals per team would be an average say.

If a shot clock was introduced, I think 30 seconds would be a ridiculous amount of time for a team playing polo to score - two or three minutes is more realistic to give a team a good opportunity to score. I don't think this would really speed the game up more either, you'd just see possession change more often in a game like you described.

And what's to stop the team with possession from keeping play in their own half?

A bad game is a bad game, changing rules for rare games like this would ruin what is a great game when played well. :twocents:

Previous threads: 1 (http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6037&highlight=shot+clock), 2 (http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7161&highlight=shot+clock), 3 (http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2713&highlight=shot+clock), 4 (http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=140&highlight=shot+clock), 5 (http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1100&highlight=shot+clock)

[Kajakske]

You can't really help this situation ...
As you mentioned, the team who held the possesion lost, so this wasn't a good tactic for them.

If it would have been the other way around (winning team holding possesion) the defenders will have to go 5-out ...
Our game allows that, good teams will also do that (they might still lose the game obviously, but not all the time).


What I didn't like at the last Worlds was that both teams did this ...
At a score of 0-0 they just held possession (or tried to) until there were only a few seconds left on the clock and then do 1 shot. The tactic behind this isn't bad, since when they miss, no harm done coz the half is over, and when they do score, well, they are winning ;-)
This is obviosuly very borign to the spectators.
The only team I saw going 5-out in this situation (0-0 first half) was the netherlands ... They lost in the end though ...

[batboy]

Presumably the losing side were hoping to draw out the defenders. If this doesn't work after a couple of minutes, common sense would dictate changing tactics. My point being that taking the ball backwards, playing a bit of posession can be a valid attacking play. On the other hand, playing posession from in front as a defensive play has the potential to make the game boring, though in practice it often incites a feirce "full court press".
Would it be too complicated if a cross court rule applied when a team was in the lead? (I think this would be a nightmare) What about a shot clock only applied in the last 5 mins? (again too complex) I think a 1min shot clock after crossing halfway could work, but probably only if you could afix clocks at each goal and have a competent time keeper to manage them- sounds way too hard to me.

i don't think it's possible to draft the rules to force a team that is behind to try and win- good ol' competitive spirit should do that.

[LJH#3]

im pretty sure the shot clock idea has been tried before, i wasnt playing when it was, but ive heard talk of it being tried, and as far as i kno, it didnt work.

if u watch a good hard game of polo, it can go 5 or 6 minutes without a shot being put up and it still be a good quality, fast, intsense game of polo.

look at it from the point of view of a team being pressed. ive seen teams get pressed for 8 minutes without putting up a shot, the games werent n e less exciting because of it. in fact most of these are good games because it means that the defensive team is doing a darn good job of pressing and the offensive team is taking it well.

i dont see n e way in which a shot clock would actually work, when it comes down to it. if a team wants to act like idiots, and play possesion when they are two goals down, let them, they will lose, and it should teach them not to do it

[Mark S]

A thing that I surely dont like about this timeclock thingy, is that it is rewarding a static, normal, borring defense, like the french! A dynamic, offensive defense is by far, the most injoyable to watch. I really like it everytime someone is going fiveout, way more fun and way more action, in my opinion!
I like the Netherlands for their offensive style, trying to win a game instead of borring it up with lame tactics. Just like the finals at this years WC. Going 2 times 10 mins, in extratime, and still no goal!!! That is surely something that I would call borring and sadly it was none of the most borring matches!
This golden goal business is a major flaw, some silly rule that we picked up from soccer... why?! It is turning the extratime into a borring tactical game, were nobody dears to take a shot. Even soccer removed this stupid rule, due to the obvious, it sux! big time!