Nantes Bike Polo Easter #11

Tournies Upcoming Tournaments
, ,
#21

Perpignan was 18
We manage to make from 2 to 4 swap, I never played 12min with the stoppages, but from an organization point of view 16 with last 2min stoppage permit us to play 5 round on Saturday (30games) and dbl elim on Sunday, with 18min from game 15 (out of 23).
I think it went good on the timing for having 48 players on the same court, that is as always too much.
16 is not enough of course but last round on Sunday was necessary for me, that why I took this decision.
IMO 16min permit the game to not end up on a weird 1-0 situation but still keep the intensity I like to see in 3v3.
Tours 5v5 with 25minutes games didn’t make games much more interesting IMO than this weekend (but I don’t really like the format of Tours Bench Galette, that is at the opposit for me of the diversity of the team and draw system without any rules).

I can say I liked the format for this Easter weekend, but I was playing with my OG team, and organizing at the same time so it does influenced my point of view đŸ€·.

3 Likes
#22

Perpignan was 18 and I’m 100% convinced it’s the minimum duration.
16 min is too short to manage changes even if it’s more convenient for the organization.

3 Likes
#23

20 min minimum please! =)

1 Like
#24

Dixit le gars avec qui n’avait pas de 4e.
image

2 Likes
#25

C’est à cause des 16min que Dodi n’est pas venu !

EURO ET WORLDS EN 16MIN !

3 Likes
#26

Ahah,
L’annĂ©e derniĂšre on a fait Lyon en 16 minutes et Perpignan en 18. Je visualise trĂšs bien la diffĂ©rence.
Pour ce qui est de Nantes, globalement à 3, ça aurait été plus facile si ça avait été un peu plus court.
Je dis 18 car ça me semble jouable pour tous les tournois, 20 minutes c’est encore mieux.
S’il n’y avait pas de contrainte d’organisation, je dirai 4V4, 25 minutes.

1 Like
#27

Je vois pas vraiment d’arguments solides à propos de vos perceptions: “C’est trop court, parce que c’est pas assez long”

On a Ă  peine eu de golden goals, et on a pas vraiment eu de matchs qui se sont dĂ©cidĂ©s par des but chatteux tĂŽt dans le match avec une Ă©quipe qui tient le reste du match enfermĂ© dans leur cage. Pour moi c’est un clair indice que 16 minutes commence Ă  ĂȘtre un temps raisonable de jeu. De matchs plus longs c’est pas forcĂ©ment mieux et worlds Ă  Lexington en est la preuve.

Je vous accorde par contre que 16 min chrono continu, ça peut raccourcir beaucoup le temps de jeu s’il y a beaucoup d’arrĂȘts. Alors lĂ  je vous dirai, ok, 18 minutes, last 2 minutes on arrĂȘte le chrono. Mais j’adore quand le chrono s’arrĂȘte pas parce que tout le monde est prĂȘt avant et tu n’a pas Ă  demander 100 fois “ĂȘtes-vous prĂȘts?”
 vous voulez perdre du temps? c’est votre temps que vous perdez


Le format et le choix de format doit englober la totalité des matchs du tournoi et non pas que le vÎtre.

Je vous rappele que Quads reste du 3v3 traditionnel +1 et non pas du 5v5 -1.

#28

Google translate:
I don’t really see any solid arguments about your perceptions: “It’s too short, because it’s not long enough”

We’ve barely had any golden goals, and we haven’t really had any games that have been decided by lucky goals early in the game with a team that’s locked up the rest of the game. For me it’s a clear indication that 16 minutes is starting to be a reasonable playing time. Longer games are not necessarily better and worlds in Lexington is proof of that.

I grant you on the other hand that 16 min continuous chrono, it can shorten the playing time a lot if there are a lot of stoppages. _In that case I conceed, ok, 18 minutes, last 2 minutes we stop the clock. But I love when the clock doesn’t stop because everyone is ready sooner and you don’t have to ask 100 times “are you ready?”
 you want to waste time? you are wasting your time


The format and choice of format must encompass all matches in the tournament and not just yours.

I remind you that Quads remains traditional 3v3 +1 and not 5v5 -1.

#29

Mmm, je ne comprends pas trop cette phrase par contre ? C’est la dĂ©finition du 4v4 “officielle” ?
Je dirais simplement que 4v4 c’est 4v4, il faut assumer ce format et dĂ©finir une durĂ©e de match en consĂ©quence.
On a bcp d’expĂ©rience des 3v3 12min avec stoppage pour les 2 min.
Il faut “scaler” ça au 4v4 avec les nouvelles variables que ce format apporte: + un joueur, changement volant (ou non), etc.

Ensuite il faut setup un tournoi compatible avec ce nouveau format / durée des matchs.
Mais ça dépend du nombre de terrains à dispo bien sûr.

#30

Je comprends pas que tu dises que 12 minutes sans arrĂȘt c’est bien, mais 16 minutes c’est trop court.
C’est court, oui. C’est trop court? Pas du tout. C’est le minimum raisonable. Suffisant pour faire 1-2 changements.
Tu veux un maximum d’équipes? avec 16 minutes tu te demerdes aisement.

Ceci dit, la finale d’un tournoi officiel finirait probablement au golden goal si tu joues que 16 minutes. Ce qui a dĂ©jĂ  Ă©tĂ© le cas plein de fois avec de matchs de 15min en 3v3.

#31

Tu as raison j’ai confondu (mais ça change selon les tournoi): ce qui fonctionne c’est 12min avec stoppage en 3v3.

Je veux pas un maximum d’équipes je veux le bon nombre d’équipes par rapport au format et terrains dispo.

Peut-ĂȘtre que la solution c’est 16min dont 4 avec arrĂȘt ? Pour l’instant tout se fait de maniĂšre empirique (tout) donc bon, l’avis / ressenti des joueurs vaut autant que que des choix arbitraires, il me semble.

#32

Things I liked - longer games AND double elimination <3

Things I didn’t like - games not being long enough. We played as three and it was fine. Feel like to play with a sub would have been a disadvantage. Games have to be long enough to justify the + 1

1 Like
#33

The +1 is to address the problems of 3v3: injury of a player during the tournament (which was my case, and it would have killed my team, except they didn’t have to rely on me) and long stoppages.

I don’t have to state the delicate balance of players vs infrastructure available. I too wish courts were easier to build/have access and we could manage more court time.

What I don’t understand is players being fine with playing 12 minute games with a running clock time and time again, and suddenly 16 minutes feels like the world is collapsing.

Didier did a masterclass on live changes and strategic swapping. All within the same tight schedule.

16 minutes is not a lot of time. But it works if you want the maximum amount of people in your event.

Shoutout to Ivresse et Tendresse pour leur 5e place et nous avoir fait rĂȘver :heart:

1 Like
#34

i guess it’s the bias here: maybe it’s one of the theorical idea behind this format but the reality is that “the community” think about it like a mini Squad, or a new proper format. Not as a 3v3 with a guy making lemon tea on the bench.
So it’s 4v4 and players wants to play at least as much a 12min with stoppage*.
I mean every team expect Mongrels must have disrupt their lineup for this, it’s not a small thing.

Of course you could always says that an 10 or even 8 min game lenght tournament could work and could host a fair amount of teams : ok i agree and it would work for some tournament. But for major one i would way likely want less slot allocations, less teams and a good format.
But yes, 16min works.

Don’t know if i said it already but what about a middle ground : 16min with 4 stoppage ? could be more effecient organisation wise than a 18 with 2 stoppage but still offer more than 16/2.

*If you refer to me about the 12 running clock i correct myself already and said that i had in mind 12min with stoppage.

#35

Totally. Why do you think I’m spending so much time explaining that it is NOT the right mindset.

In any case, players will always want more playtime. Not a new thing.

#36

I know i know, what i say is: now it’s is THE mindset :slight_smile:
Like electric Bike are now “bike” and bike are called “muscular bike”.

It’s the new normal.

#37

Dont think we should compromise as far as stoppages are concerned.

All elimination games should have stoppages for the entirety.

It is absurd that different games will have the same clock but different playing time.

Especially if you consider how instances such as being scored on result in the extra penalty of losing valuable time.

And don’t get me started on the “ready? ready? ready!” rule.

#38

But i can see the logic of quads being 3v3 deluxe as opposed to squad lite.

And in that sense it is a more mature game - guess the issue is that we’re used to having all the players on the team getting pretty much equal amounts of court time each games and it is a bit late in the day for some of is to become mature

Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Still would like more time though :upside_down_face:

#39

ZĂŒrich final games had terribly long stoppages that killed the momentum of the tournament.
Bike polo formats should take in consideration what happens inside the court, but not forget the people that make that happen. Be it spectators, organisers or other players waiting for their turn.
They will all have their pros and cons.

If you hate the restart of the match, imagine what I think of it when I have to say it a thousand times during a weekend? And don’t get me started when I ask it and a get a snarky “no” as an answer. Ohhhh how my blood boils.
I’m all ears on a better dynamic proposal.

1 Like
#40

Agreed. I would suggest 15 seconds after a goal ref blows their whistle a second time and game becomes live.

No waiting for one team to cross the line etc