A whole other ball game...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Yes, quite literally.

I got an question that I felt like wondering out loud: Why do team ball sports which have designated goalies only have one each, and why is that goalie always at the short side of a rectangle?

Imagine that one would have a square ice hockey/soccer/whatever field, and that one team would have its goals one the north and south side, with one goalie in each goal. The other team obviously having its goals and goalies in the west and east sides. Would it not create far more close-shave situations, especially if the sport has boards around the sides which create rebounds? Look at soccer, Italian style. They are masters of the art of scoring one goal, and then burn the clock in a way that is quite boring for the audience. With a 4-goal layout, there is no place on the field which is safe, and you can not put your entire team between the ball and your own goal when you are not in possession of it.

One could also imagine some other layouts - the 4 goals in the corners of a square, or have them facing outwards while situated fairly close to the middle of the square, with a symmetry line of the square bisecting the goal. In that way, the goalies would not be able to see most of the playing field, and a lot of attacks would come right out of the blue for them! If, however, their outfield defenders manage to get the ball sideways, the table will turn really quick.

Should this not be the perfect team ball sport layout for Americans with an attention span of a few seconds?

Just imagine the playbook of this kind of sport!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Should this not be the perfect team ball sport layout for Americans with an attention span of a few seconds?

As Americans, we totally resen----oooh, look! WWF is about to start on TNT!!

[Neinteen]

Then why don't we have 4 way fence offs.

and make the strip a square mat.

[chefencer]

kosho - although there aren't any goalies or balls, it is strangely assymetrical.

[Rabid Monk]

I say put the two goals back to back nin the middle of the playing area.

[Epee_Pox]

Or just get rid of goalies in the first place.

[Timo]

Why not fuse lacrosse, polo, and fighter jets?

[Epee_Pox]

Soccer would be better if it had a shot clock. Once you've crossed the center line into the other side's territory, you have 30 seconds to make a shot at the goal. If the clock runs out, the other side gets the ball.

Don't start the clock until the ball's out of your own territory, because you're still technically defending at that point. If you want to dawdle with the ball in your own side, that's your problem.

This would force action, rather than unsporting time-wasting strategies that the game sort of encourages.

[darius]

Probably because it wouldn't be very spectator-friendly; generally you can tell who is better in these team sports by who is advancing the ball/puck towards the opposing side. Lateral play confuses Americans, thus our general disinterest in rugby or knowledge of blocking schemes in American Football.

However, multiple goals always make games fun. We play a game at NWFC called "Cone Game"; the goal is to knock over 2 cones at the opposite end of the field with a bean bag.

There are some minor crease rules which inhibit excessive goaltending, but what's fun about the game is that both cones are accessible from all sides, meaning that there are some pretty interesting defensive strategies (making folks who can straddle the crease area quite valuable). Also, offensively it's often useful to pretend to attack one cone and then pass sideways to somebody in good position to knock over the unguarded cone. Good times!

darius

[rburch]

This is one reason Quidditch would be the greatest ball sport ever...

You know if magic were real

Or if they ever figure out anti gravity tech

Okay, fine I admit I may like Harry Potter a bit more than is heathy...

[latenight]

Hi!


Yes, quite literally.

I got an question that I felt like wondering out loud: Why do team ball sports which have designated goalies only have one each, and why is that goalie always at the short side of a rectangle?

Imagine that one would have a square ice hockey/soccer/whatever field, and that one team would have its goals one the north and south side, with one goalie in each goal. The other team obviously having its goals and goalies in the west and east sides. Would it not create far more close-shave situations, especially if the sport has boards around the sides which create rebounds? Look at soccer, Italian style. They are masters of the art of scoring one goal, and then burn the clock in a way that is quite boring for the audience. With a 4-goal layout, there is no place on the field which is safe, and you can not put your entire team between the ball and your own goal when you are not in possession of it.

One could also imagine some other layouts - the 4 goals in the corners of a square, or have them facing outwards while situated fairly close to the middle of the square, with a symmetry line of the square bisecting the goal. In that way, the goalies would not be able to see most of the playing field, and a lot of attacks would come right out of the blue for them! If, however, their outfield defenders manage to get the ball sideways, the table will turn really quick.

Should this not be the perfect team ball sport layout for Americans with an attention span of a few seconds?

Just imagine the playbook of this kind of sport!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Peter, this would be pretty interesting for floorball.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

This is one reason Quidditch would be the greatest ball sport ever...

You know if magic were real

Or if they ever figure out anti gravity tech

Okay, fine I admit I may like Harry Potter a bit more than is heathy...

There is already a 3-dimensional ball game. Their catchphrase (on the ads I have seen) is:

you can´t run
you can´t hide
You can´t breathe!

Yes, it is underwater rugby. A sport where the goals are buckets on the bottom of a 3.5-5 meter deep pool, and all playing takes part underneath the water surface. Once down there, it can be a bit rough. Look at the picture halfway down this page:
http://www.ssdf.se/t3.aspx?p=342742

BTW: imagine 3D fencing!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Redblade]

How about a long, wide open goal that runs the length of each side of a rectangular field, with about five or six designated goalkeepers per team? Think of the excitement as diving keepers collide head to head for the ball! ... Even better, put two balls into play at a time. Six field players and six keepers to a team.

[Redblade]

But I've always supported the idea of timed, full-contact tackle golf, too.

"That shot looks like it's well within birdie range. Truly a beautiful swing-- Oooh! Johnson has taken Smith down at the knees. That's going to cost him valuable time to reach the hole..."

[freerider258]

Soccer would be better if it had a shot clock. Once you've crossed the center line into the other side's territory, you have 30 seconds to make a shot at the goal. If the clock runs out, the other side gets the ball.

Don't start the clock until the ball's out of your own territory, because you're still technically defending at that point. If you want to dawdle with the ball in your own side, that's your problem.

This would force action, rather than unsporting time-wasting strategies that the game sort of encourages.

This wouldn't yield more exciting games, rather, really sloppy ball playing. The number of goals does not have a direct correlation with the intensity or excitement of the game. If you think it does, then you're watching the game the wrong way. There is a shot clock in basketball because it's extremely hard to have a guy wide open for a breakaway just because there's not as much room asa soccer field, and you have all 10 guys clumped down at one end.
The thing about soccer is there's suspense building up to the shot on goal by by passing, and beating each defender like a 1-on-1 game.