turf league - points vs. time

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Should we stop games based on points or time?

The rules currently say games are played to 17 points with a point cap at 21 (let's call this option #1). However, some games can go very quickly (i.e. in the first week, one team reached 17 points after 20 minutes, although not all are that quick - some took a full hour to reach 17).

Option #2 is to keep playing for the total allotted time regardless of the score. i.e. play for a full 50 minutes every game (assuming you start on time). They do this in the Indoor league. This will allow us to maximize playing time, which would be better than only playing for 20 minutes.

Option #3 would be to keep playing past 17 points, but add some sort of point cap in case the game is a run-away (i.e. 25 or 31 or 99 points).

I'd suggest playing for the full 50 (assuming on time). Even if it's a blowaway, it gives the trailing team more time to play/practice and figure out what's wrong and/or more time to gel, and minimize the disparity in the next game.

Games to time work very well in Indoor.

i agree that games to time work very well in indoor - but there are two major differences:

1. indoor uses a scoreboard (we were running out of shoes playing to 21 last night)

2. indoor has a big clock on the side of the wall - it both teams are playing with few subs, it may be difficult to have someone be the time keeper.

Playing to time could work by just having one or two people at the field each night be responsible for blowing a whistle at the end of each game.

I could see one other benefit of playing to time being that everyone would have a little extra incentive to start on time.

Let's not muddle the waters by thinking playing to time requires a clock or a whistle. We play
to time in the regular VUL leagues, and it works (it's organic, not exact, but it works). We
play to time in the turf league too (last week a game got capped before 17).

The decision comes down to: stop early at 17 or stop when time runs out.

Personally, I lean towards stopping early at 17 (or some other number). My primary reasons:

1) I don't like the idea that a team should be 'forced' to play beyond 17 if they're getting
shellacked.

2) If two teams want to keep playing past 17, they can (this has happened several times in
the first two weeks).

So, currently teams are playing as long as they want (but not past 50min). I see making a
change to the rule only causing teams to play longer than they would want.

I vote for no change.

rg By rg

Timed games for turf league are much better than games to a score. After driving half way across Vancouver to play, I want to do just that. I don't want a game taking 30 mins, then having to wait around for the next team.

If people are so concerned about blowouts, a mercy rule could be implemented. Something like this, "games are 50 minutes, unless one team builds a 10 goal lead, in which case the losing team will have the option to call the game or play to the designated time."

Why not keep it the way it is?

The way it is now games are capped at a score unless teams agree to keep playing.

A game will only end before the time-cap if one or both teams wants it to.

Is there a problem in that which I can't see?