- Proposed by Dylan Fettig
Thrown balls are live off of an opponent’s blocking ball.
All other rules would remain the same (ie thrown balls only have the potential to eliminate one player, team catches stay the same, etc.)
RATIONALE: There are many reasons this rule needs to change.
Reffing becomes much easier with this rule. If a player is ever hit with a ball before it hits the ground they are out and traps no longer exist since you can catch with a held ball.
Blocking as a skill becomes more valuable. It takes more concentration to block a ball away from yourself, and other teammates, than it does to just get a piece of the ball.
Speed of the game will be increased. Since a higher skill of blocking is required, more people will be getting out and games won’t be finishing 1-0 like they have been.
1.1 Proposed by Kyle Fitzpatrick
Thrown balls that are caught off of a block by the blocker’s teammate result in a team catch rather than a direct catch.
- Proposed by Zigmas Maloni
Similar to rule 184.108.40.206 Early Halftime, where a point is scored with less than 4:00 min at the end of the half, the half “rolls over” into the next period.
If a point has been scored with less than 4:00 minutes remaining in the second half, Overtime [220.127.116.11] will go into effect.
Officially and currently, teams must play out this remaining time and I always set up for the next regular point. However, I see this overridden a lot, so let’s go with the more natural thing?
- Proposed by Adam Pfeifer
“This would be called something to the effect of a kill/ hit catch. This would be mostly on the rush due to close quarters. If player A throws a ball and hits player B he would be out. If the ball thrown is in the air player A could catch that ball before it becomes dead to count as a catch for his team. This would give teams more incentive to throw on the rush and get teammates back in that got caught or thrown out right away. It would also encourage teams to throw at a target (a real person) more than just throwing a step and lunge away throw to restart their shot clock. Again I just feel like it’s another aspect of the game that would not drastically change it, but would add another element to game strategy.”
- Proposed by Adam Pfeifer
“I know there is a form of this proposed but I have talked to a few people and think this would be a better solution. We will call Akron team one and Baldwin Wallace team two. Akron can only bring 11 players to a tournament. Baldwin Wallace has a full roster + 2 so 17 total. Instead of Akron being four people down a whole match the rule would be as followed. First point Baldwin Wallace would still play 15. Akron would have 11. After the first point Baldwin Wallace would go down to 12 active players on the rush and have their other three players on the side line who can still get in the game if they get catches. The reason for this proposal is for two reasons. One we have had teams drop out of tournaments because they could only get 11 or 12 people. In their mind why go when you are at a huge disadvantage at the start. Two this would add to the level of competition at tournaments when teams cannot get a full roster.
Arguments for this. Teams with full rosters will still keep an advantage in these games. This will also help a lot of new programs with being able to actually play and gain solid experience. How does everyone feel about this rule?”
- Proposed by Zigmas Maloni
“Nationals is two things: the National Tournament (Section 18.104.22.168) and the extra-strength Non-Bracket Matches (Section 22.214.171.124). 126.96.36.199 is purposely written broadly, but for the time being we’ll refer to it as Saturday and Sunday. Currently, it defines that each team gets three unique opponents to play on Saturday.
I propose a less stringent definition of Saturday’s required games, a minimum of two. For Nationals 2016, I also propose that each team receives 2 matches on Saturday and at least one game in Sunday’s tournament bracket. This will guarantee that each team receives at least three matches over the Nationals Event weekend.
In a sixteen team bracket, Sunday’s bracket will result in the two Championship teams playing four games on Sunday, meaning they could play Seven 50 minute games in 45 hours over the event. That’s insane and dangerous. At least four teams will play three matches on Sunday, totaling Six games in 43 hours.
There have been 176 events this season. The average games played per attending team is anticipated to be 17.6 after this weekend. The median is about 15 games. We don’t need 3 games on Saturday to boost team’s match counts and give a more accurate seeding for Sunday’s bracket. That’s already been done to good effect in the regular season.
PSU (3 games), WKU (8), and UWP (8) have the least games played among the attending teams, so they would benefit from a third game to help boost the accuracy of their ranking. We could still schedule an extra game exclusively for these competitors. As far as the remaining 15 teams, they have played more than enough games to determine good seeds.
This frees up a great deal of time, which I believe we don’t really have to begin with. This will also allow us to Instead of needing to schedule 9.5 hours for 27 games and 7 heats on Saturday, we only need to schedule 7.5 hours for 18 games and 5 heats. Maybe 20 matches to give PSU a games played adjustment. This also saves us about $388 in officiating costs on this year’s increasingly tight budget.
This extra two hours gives us some serious advantages. We have actual time to host the All Star Game, Ladies Match and Alumni games. We can hold a decent Fastest Throw comp, and other amenities for team players. Gladiatorial series? Continuous / last man standing? We can schedule an hour for the entire Executive Board to meet and do work. We have extra time for a Captains’ Meeting where everyone’s not grossly tired and cranky.
I think this is going to be more fun, more healthy for our organization, more healthy for our collegiate athletes, and more fun.”
- Proposed by Felix Perrone
Two different options of sponsorship from Savage Ultimate Apparel; Official provider and preferred provider of the NCDA. More details at nationals.
- Proposed by Mario Romanelli
Consecutive Match Limit – During any official NCDA tournament, no team may be allowed to play no more than 3 consecutive matches without at least a 30 minute break.
The point of this rule is to protect the safety of players and to allow them a chance to recover from previous games.
This also makes sure that a home team won’t create a tournament schedule that may benefit them from playing a team that has played multiple consecutive matches; thus giving them an advantage over the tired road team
This does not put a limit on how many matches a team can play in one tournament.
Debate: Should home/away teams be allowed to play more consecutive matches if they want?
NEW YEARLY AWARDS:
1 and 2. Proposed by Dylan Fettig
In addition to the national champion trophy, I propose that the NCDA issues two new yearly trophies. The first to the team who finishes the regular season as the #1 overall ranked team and the second to the team that plays the most games during the season.
Since we do not currently have playoff positions to fight for to get into the national tournament, experience and tournament seeding are the only real things that motivate teams to play more games. I believe these awards will encourage teams to play more games and will produce higher quality games during the season.
- Proposed by Jeff Patrick Starr
The team that travels the most miles within the season receives a trophy to encourage matches to be played outside of each individual region.
2 thoughts on “Proposed changes for the 2016-2017 NCDA Season”
On Proposed Rule #1 (blocking rule) : I agree games would be much faster paced and wouldn’t be as low scoring. This, however, would be a massive change to game play if it occurs. This rule is already in effect in Elite Dodgeball, where there are only 6 dodgeballs and 12 players on a very small court. In comparison to our league, where we have 10 dodgeballs and 30 players on a full size basketball court. The size and number of players on our court in comparison to the scarcity of referees is the only obstacle I see.
-Subsection #1 of the proposed rule even furthers the need for referees if a blocked ball which is caught results in a team catch, which will likely stem from the faster paced play and the need for referees to pay greater attention.
A comment on Policy change #3: I feel this should be a common sense thing. However if a team such as Grand Valley is offering or is okay with playing three games in a row (especially if they are playing only lower tier teams), that should not be limited by the rules or policy. That is where communication would come in and teams would need to communicate this.
edit to line 6 of text- *number of players and size of our court*