On March 22, Water Polo Planet published a public survey to solicit input on rules changes being looked at by the NCAA. The survey allowed people to enter comments and rationale for their opinions.
As of the time of this article (03/27/2011), we have received 375 responses. Below are the raw results as well as selected comments made for the individual questions.
The purpose of this article is to make the raw data available around the world and open up discussions. Water Polo Planet is soliciting articles that respond to this data from fans, referees, coaches and/or spectators. Anyone who wishes to submit an article may do so either anonymously or under their own name. WPP will publish anonymous articles with only the writers position (player, masters player, referee, fan, coach). Interested people may submit articles to joan@waterpoloplanet.com
As you go through this data, I ask you to consider one question: How many of these proposals and subsequent responses have been made as a remedy to referee quality/consistency?
Has water polo honestly attracted every village idiot in the world to officiate or is the problem perhaps deeper?
Proposal #1: Reduce the length of field for Men from 30m to 25m
Rational – The intent of this proposal is to increase quantity of front-court possession a team has, which should result in greater scoring opportunities and thus higher scoring (more entertaining) games.
Proponents for this proposal argue that the shorter course will increase the conversion rate of counter attacking opportunities, by limiting the probability of a fast end-to-end player of catching a counter attack. Due to the shorter course, counter attacking opportunities will favor agile and mobile players who can transition from vertical to horizontal positioning and create opportunities for themselves, instead of just relying on end-to-end speed.
Rational against this proposal - Opponents of this rule change argue that the shorter course and increased front count possession will increase the level of physicality at center. There is also a lack of consensus of if this proposal will increase of decrease counter attacking opportunities.
Comments:
At the D1 level, players are fast enough to play in a 30m pool. D3, College Club and others who follow NCAA rulebook should limit themselves to 25m... but that may be out of scope for this survey.
I have varying levels of agreeability with this proposal . For one, no other high level competition in the world plays at 25 meters. It's all at 30. Secondly, I agree that a shorter pool will cause more counter attacks to be converted, which I believe is a good thing. But, it will p[lace too great of an emphasis on size in center, rather than speed. There isn't much smaller players can do in a front court offense and they need a counter attack to be valuable.
This takes away counter attacking to a huge extent, if you knew how collegiate polo worked you would know that it is usually the first three strokes (the most agile and quick players excel at this) that usually define who is ahead on the counter attack between offense and the defense. moving the course shorter would take away a huge portion of the game and cater the game more towards immobile big players, thus increasing physicality to a certain degree.
A shorter field will eliminate any counter attack tactics and amplify the importance of a pressing physical defense.
Don't do this! Water polo is game of toughness and speed and if you make the pool shorter conditioning has alot less to do with it therefore making less athletic people more competitive
The counterattack should be considered an art. While speed is a factor, so is body positioning and tactics and we should use a big canvas. At the HS level I have seen many counterattacks killed because a goalie had to chase a ball off a post or bobbled a ball from the bench. A defense might eat up 5-10 yards of space in this time.
I think it will decrease counter opportunities simply because there is less room for the person countering to separate from the defender, and also increases the chance that the ball will be turned over to the opposing goalie.
Lengthen the course to 40 meters. This will lead to more fast breaks and less fighting at 2 meters. More scoring too. And fast break is more about knowing when to go. Also the extra length will make the 'long bomb' 1 pass fast break very risky. Teams will need to have to run the fast break, not just swim away with one pass.
it would completely change the game and make the US even more insignificant in the international game.
The recent success in the 2008 Olympics showed that the United States is catching up to the world in terms of competition level. By changing the length of field for men from 30-25m, this puts players at a disadvantage while they are in college. By training in a smaller course, the players in the United States will not be competing at the same level as international players. We are behind in our development because we lack the academy system of grooming young players. This will cause a large gap
It's not just the center position that would become more physical, the perimeter would as well. If a typical counter is 20 strokes and you lessen that by 6 or so, you will have more players looking for an advantage by cutting off and digging into each other at mid pool. All 6 positions could get locked up like in the women's game and we have that dreaded "play on" hand motion all over the pool.
Perhaps at the Club level. But at the Varsity level the players need space to play the game properly.Strongly disagree. Squeezing good players into a smaller space is a referees nightmare as it makes the game far more physical and the ref has to find the right balance so they can play without being overly physical and this usually entails a lot of major fouls that you don't see in a larger field of play.This change would certainly see an increase in major fouls.
Proposal #2: Increase ejection time to 35 seconds
Rational for this proposal- The current punishment (20 seconds) for committing exclusion fouls does not reward the offensive team enough, and is not a big enough deterrent against “negative” tactics (e.g. intentionally committing an exclusion foul to stop a high percentage scoring opportunity.. An increase in the length of ejection time will increase the time an attacking team has to create a high percentage scoring opportunity and serve as greater deterrence for committing exclusion fouls.
Rational against this proposal – Opponents of this proposal feel that 35 seconds in an extra man situation is too much of an advantage for the attacking team that punishes the offending team to harshly.
Comments:
Good teams can convert in 20 seconds, bad teams tend to give the ball away in less than 20 seconds... more time won't help them. If conversion rate for winning teams is near (or above) 50%, no need to change the rule.
A 35 second exclusion is way too long. It would make scoring far too easy. Every ejection would basically be like giving a team a free shot on goal that should almost always be converted. That’s what 5 meter penalties are for. Choosing to take the exclusion as a strategy doesn’t happen as often as the rational for this proposal makes it seem and even then, tactics like this are seen in basketball too. It's part of the game. 5m penalties are there for a reason. They restricting the "negative"
One bad pass and the extra man advantage is over. This will have one unintended consequence: referees will raise the price for an exclusion. They will not call them as liberally. So two meter play will escalate in physicality.
This is a game of roughness and honestly referees aren’t good enough to be trusted to make good ejection calls. It’s unfair to punish a guy who is playing good defense in set for 25 seconds of a possession and gets ejected for a 1 second mistake and has to sit for 35, 20 is more than enough.
A more rational proposal would be increasing the time to 25 seconds, allowing the offensive side to properly set up and execute a play without using too much of the time to only set up. Additionally, 25 seconds does not significantly punish the defensive team in the same way the 35 seconds would. 35 seconds is simply too long for a mid-level foul.
Its how you play the game and everyone plays it the way that when you can’t turn around and get in the lane for defense you try and get to foul, and if the ref calls it a kick out the other team has and easy shot with a 6 on 5 offense, and there is probable a WHOLE SHOT CLOCK left with a 6 on 5 game.
I don't dislike this rule as much. 35 seconds would give the offense more of an advantage in scoring opportunities and may discourage fouls that eliminate likely "natural goals." But it seems to just be added to increase scoring. Shortening the course, adding more point values to goals, and increasing ejection time, all encourage more scoring but is that what we really want? The 20 second limit adds a strong anticipation to the defense being even and makes the 6 on 5 attack more exciting.
If the idea is to make the game more exciting, keeping the ejection time at 20 seconds would encourage more total shots. Bumping it up to 35 seconds could increase the conversion rate considerably but could make it boring for fans as the offense passes more to wear down the defense and goaltender. Many ejections are a result of good play and positioning by the offense, not by the physicality by opposing defenseman.
With kickouts now becoming even more of a scoring opportunity, referee's will likely call less of them. Think of the 5m direct shot rules. It is nearly impossible to earn a 5m direct shot from center cage. Would the same happen to perimeter and back court KO's as well? Now we have a more physical game that we are trying to avoid.
Maybe not 35 seconds, but increasing the ejection time makes it a more legitimate penalty
Question #3: The Following changes have been proposed: A) Extend the direct throw line from 5m to 6mB) 3 points for goals scored beyond the direct throw line C) 2 points for goals scored inside the direct throw line Goals scored from beyond the direct throw line shall only count for 3 points if both teams have their full complement of players, so as to prevent teams from playing for the exclusion and then setting up the 3 point shot.
Rational for Currently teams rely too much on scoring from center (or by drawing exclusions from center) that outside shooting has disappeared except in 6on5 situations. By increasing the reward for scoring goals from “outside” this proposal hopes to encourage more outside shooting and give teams other options instead of relying so much on exclusions from center. Rational against this proposal – Opponents to this proposal feel that this will make the game too much like basketball, and together with the shorter course feel that this would produce excessively high scoring games.
Comments:
While I liked the 2-pt shot in the past (7m), I think a 6m line for direct shots creates a Penalty area that is too large and inconsistent with "probably goal" advantage.
Possible alternative I would support is... 2-pt shot from outside 5m EXCEPT on a direct shot after a foul.
This isn't even water polo anymore. if you want outside shooting, just make outside 7m or 8m worth 2 points. It should be hard enough if you're playing in college and shooting on a real goalie. i'd prefer to keep it the way it is but if you need to change it, just do that.
This proposal is absolutely ridiculous. The sport is unique because of the difficulty in scoring a goal and earning a point for your team. Making it so that players can have such a great affect on the game takes away from the actual value of a goal.
We are again putting even more "gray matter" in the hands of the refs. "Was it inside or outside the line?" This call would instantly affect the number on the scoreboard. Both coaches would now yell at the refs about whether it was 2 or 3 points. More focus on whether the refs are good or bad and less on the athletes.
That's right. Our sport is not basketball. These rules are nothing more than an excuse for poor shooting skills. Respectfully, I must say... you must be joking.
6 meters is too far to make an educated, precise shot. at 6m, only elite players will make consistent goals, actually decreasing the shot occurrence from this point rather than encouraging it. Many shots will turn into low-chance, high-gamble shots.
Didn’t play basketball.
This would really hurt "sets" or centers. It is still the hardest defended position, and you still have to work the hardest for a shot. More teams would just shoot off of a foul outside the 5
THAT'S ALL STUPID.
What happened to 4m shots?
If you want to open up the game. Make zone defense illegal. I like the 5m line and no other lines to confuse fans. B and C sound too much like basketball
If you want to encourage outside shooting, make the cages bigger. 1.5 meters high?
Are players not shooting outside shots, or is good defense and a good goalie preventing good opportunities and offensive players are making that observation. After an exclusion, whether at 2m or from a perimeter position, the opportunity percentage changes for the the outside shooter and they make the choice that it is a high percentage shot.
I do see that if a point change were to be made, changing from 1-2 to 2-3 would make the opportunity percentage 50% rather than 100%.
Once again I think that it is unnecessary to change this rule at this time. Yes it will make the game more high scoring, but does it add that much more to the game than just putting larger numbers on the scoreboard? No. I think that also will make games into a shooting fest from the outside and it will take away from the actual strategy of water polo; entering the ball into 2 meters, or forcing the defense to drop of the 2-meter man. Adding different point values makes the rules very confusing.
I like the 3:2 ratio for scoring vs. the old 2:1 ratio for goals outside the 7m line in the late 90's. See you later to everyone's scoring records! All the missed shots will result in more counter attacking where more of the injuries and tough referee decisions are handled I feel
proposition A, might be interesting, but maybe also to give 2 points for goals scored beyond that line. This to me seems reasonable, not 2,3 pointers....too complicated (especially because there is no real line to prove the actual distance...)
Why shouldn't you rely on your center for scoring? He's got the best opportunity to score from anywhere in the pool. This is a philosophy that hasn't changed in all the years that water polo has been played. Bringing an extra-point outside shot adds more isolated play at the Center, as the defense may opt to respect that shot and mark it. It doesn't change the level of physicality at the Center at all, which is one of the main goals of this effort.
Can't we please change the width and height of the cage higher and wider (especially for the men's game)
Doesn't this make more sense than all of this bizarre pointage?
Question #4: Reduce the penalty throw line from 5m to 4m
Rational – The intent of this rule is to reward the offense more with a higher scoring opportunity.
Rational against this proposal – Opponents of this rule point out that the original penalty throw line was moved back from 4m to 5m, because refs were reluctant to call penalty because the scoring potential was so great.
Five meters gives the shooter a fair chance to make the shot while still giving the goalie a chance to block the ball. While 5 meters are meant to compensate for guaranteed goals, there is no such thing as a truly guaranteed goal, and shooting from five meters gives as fair a chance as one would have on any goal that looks guaranteed.
4 meter would extremely limits goalies abilities to block the ball, who are not the player being punished.
If a probable goal was truely taken away, than 4m is great. Re-enforcement of the circumstances upon a PK is awarded would need to be taken with all officials, particularly distance outside the post and shoulder position if offensive player relative to the goal.
But i do suggest making it a direct shot with no rebounds. cut down on refs making players move away from the shooter. if the shot is missed, then you line up at half. Soon a team will just leave the player to shoot and hope for a miss or block and then be up on the counter and set up 6/5 while the shooter has to compose himself and swim 30m to defense. A missed penalty shot can actually hurt you more if you are down on the counter, and the opposite team sets up 6/5 while you swim down
Men might be able to handle the 5m penalty with their strength but for women it is a much tougher task. I would bet that the men have a conversion rate much higher than the women.
The field of play will have to be investigated should an extra-point line be brought into play. If a 6M extra-point shot and a 5M penalty line, to the observer, this is an imbalance with reward for effort, and a 4M would "sound" and "feel" more appropriate to the observer. That being said, I like the penalty shot from 5M better, as I think the shot becomes more interesting. However, the penalty shot is awarded for taking away a probable goal. Shouldn't a probable goal attempt be awarded?
Let shooters prove they can shoot
Question #5: Any foul inside 6m, must be put in play where the foul occurred and only by the player who was fouled.
Rational – The intent of this proposal is to align water polo with other “main-stream” sports like soccer. This rule makes it easier for everybody (particularly fans and spectators) to know what is going on.
Rational against this proposal – Opponents of this proposal feel that this will slow the game down, and limit advantage.
Comments:
Why do proponents of these changes feel that it is necessary to submit to the hubris of "mainstream sports"? This wouldn't be a huge deal to change, in my opinion, but it wouldn’t make the game any easier to understand by spectators/outsiders
Rational - Actually, half of this is not like Soccer! When a soccer attacker draws a foul he leaves the ball for a defender to enter the offense to take the kick. The defense has time to make a wall. The whole play slows down. I am amazed that the "rational for" missed this.
Why cater to the fans, it is unprofitable anyways
Once again, the sport is for the ATHLETES, not the audience. while they contribute to the atmosphere, water polo players enjoy playing in an empty arena as much as a full one, because they love the game. this rule in particular could potentially do some severe damage to teams who use the anticipation and skill of each player to their advantage in order to create more complex and sophisticated plays.
This is just ridiculous. This putting the ball into play thing is ridiculous, simply because there can be a turnover for not letting go of the ball or even a ref having an oversight
It's the other teams fault by fouling a player and rewarding the defense is not the way it should be.
Quite a bit of confusion occurs (and advantage gained or lost) when the balls are repositioned in this area. If it MUST be put in play by the fouled player it makes a lot of clear to all who has to put the ball in play. Outside of this area there is not significant advantage gained or lost.
I think this rule change would be unnecessary because it would just be confusing and slow down the game. Just adding more complex rules makes things more difficult for fans to understand. I know its supposed to simplify things but if you start changing rules it confuses the players, the coaches which then in turn will really confuse the fans.
I say let anyone take the free throw in a certain amount of time so like the old days player A can counter and player B can come up to the ball for the free throw and throw a live ball to the player that was fouled and countered in the offensive end. More o!!
What confuses fans the most is when there is a whistle and the refs indicate that a player either needs to back up or throw the ball out etc. This will slow the game down and I believe will confuse fans even more. I BELIEVE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE SHOULD BE FOR OFFENSIVE FOULS. I HATE WATCHING AN OFFESNSIVE FOUL LEAD TO A COUNTERATTACK THE OTHER WAY. I THINK AN OFFENSIVE FOUL SHOULD RESULT IN THE BALL OUT TO THE REF AND A RESTART ONCE THE TEAMS HAVE RESET.
A player fouled out on the wing at 3 meters and the ball goes out between 4 and 5 meters has to bring the ball all the way back to the spot of the foul and will give defense a significant improvement of position and incourage them to foul to drop and double up the center.
Question #6: Any foul is an ejection (including minor fouls)
Rational – The intent of this rule is to align us with other sports like basketball and punish the defense for rules violations. Takes subjective calls out of the hands of referees
Rational against this proposal – Opponents of this proposal feel that this denies teams any opportunity to play defense.
Comments:
Are you kidding me with this? whoever wrote this rule has obviously never played water polo before. Sure, lets all just go out there and do shooting drills with a field blocker because that's all this game will become with this rule
Intriguing for a guy who grew up playing under the "basketball rules." I would like to see this rule experimented with more widely before deciding.
But I do I think it would speed play and make the game easier for spectators to understand. While it appears it might limit physicality it might also make referees reluctant to make certain calls.
It was like this 40 yrs ago...relied too much on officiating.
Fouls will dry up, so the ball will die on the perimeter...teams will either press weaker teams or Zone against better 2M teams. Both slow the game down.
The concept is removing the benefits to defense of minor fouls which is good but this would have unintended results. Change the impact of a minor foul no requirement that the ball be moved and allow the fouled person to shoot have putting ball in play will open things up more. No hands up for foul outside 5 will also help
Never do this ever! Water polo is supposed to be played aggressively and toughly its not a sport for the weak or timid. Making this a rule would make this game like basketball where even touching a person is afoul and that’s just plain ridiculous. You would be punishing good defense the ejections should stay as they are or even decrease the amount of ejections as there are too many. With this foul there would be a ejection nearly every possession. Stay with the Olympic and Fina rules please!
Create an environment where players do not want to foul, major or ordinary. This change would, again, put more emphasis on a ref's judgment. A player should be forced to disengage upon fouling an attacker but, the attacker is live and free to shoot at any time. Focus should be on solid defensive hands-up fundamentals at this point.
Fouls are a part of water polo. We are a contact sport. If you make ordinary fouls ejections, everyone on the team will be ejected and no one will be able to play. further this will cause everyone to drop. and what about set guard? Will we not be able to guard someone at 2 meters?!
This is a ridiculous proposal to even consider. it would make water polo an entirely different game that honestly, i would not want to play. it completely denies the notion of defense and makes even offense boring, because there would be no need for any real skill- anyone who can pick up and shoot would become an elite player.
Better training for refs on how to apply the advantage rule should mean less whistles (specifically ordinary fouls). Above I mentioned reducing the number of exclusion fouls to 2 (when you get 2 you are out of the game). I think that having all fouls be exclusion is too much. I assume that would be offensive fouls too since that is what is written in the suggested rule change.
In basketball a foul is not an ejection. Hockey yes, but as all hockey fans know, hockey is NOT a mainstream sport. I know, lets have the refs call the rules as they are written! How about calling 2 meters like it was in 1986 when the rules first changed. No over the shoulder fouls. No two handed fouls. And so on...
I'm sorry. This just seems juvenile and trigger-happy.
Get real, then the offense will spend all their time trying to draw ejections on key defenders.
I think that this will be a problem because the physicality of water polo will be eliminated. If refs now in turn allow players to be more physical that may make this rule work, but it will slow the game down if every time a person commits a foul in the game you have to record the person's cap number and see how many fouls they have. Unlike basketball, water polo has the underwater factor. If physicality above water is called like basketball then will increase where the refs can't see it.
I cannot stress this enough, NO, NO, NO, a thousand times NO!!!! This is part of what makes water polo UNIQUE among sports. It is I was first told when I began to learn water polo: when other sports STOP because a whistle is blown, that's when water polo STARTS!!! Do not change the most unique part of the game. I don't care if we are different from other sports; as the only water-based sport, WHY should we be like other sports???
Interesting. I would love to see this in action. However, it seems like increasing the allowed foul total for individual players would need to be increased... I fear that this rule may also result in an extreme amount of time played in 6 on 5 play. Overall, I trust refs to make consistent decisions about what is and isn’t exclusion -- leaning toward "no", but then again, it might be fun to trial run, if it can lead to some publishable results and data for comparison.
Seriously? can't we have our own identity? it would be smarter and more fun to let the offense have ordinary fouls but then to let the offensive player be live once the ball has been passed, shot or back into play. In other words, let the offense do more with the minor foul.
Question #7 Players who commit an ordinary foul must remain where they are, and cannot interfere with the free throw.
Rational – The intent of this proposal is to lock down the defender and reward the offense with attacking options that the defense tried to deny. Proponents of this proposal feel that currently defenders gain advantage from fouling.
Rational against this proposal – Opponents of this proposal feel that this denies teams any opportunity to play defense.
Comments:
i could understand the rational with this one. People would be more hesitant to foul. It would create more scoring opportunities and not change how one would play too drastically. This one is actually okay.
Rules already don't allow interfering with free throws.
As written, this rule would be impossible to call consistently: how much movement is too much movement, what if the fouling player is under water, on top of, behind, or in any number of undesirable positions?
Too many players are allowed to foul, then move the ball away- which eliminates any advantage. The fouled player has to get his bearings, re-collect the ball and many times, gets repositioned by either the referee, the fouler, or both. Solution is simple: eject a player who continues to foul after the whistle and moves the ball away.
Again, more judgment calls by the refs. I used to foul, stay in place, and grab the shooter's off hand under the water. Is this a benefit to the shooter? Nope. If I move away by a foot do I get called, or is it a yard. What if I start swimming on a fake pass or shot? More Ref judgment calls.
This would be incredibly subjective and hard to enforce. Because the sport is played in water the players are always moving, and telling someone to stay still would be futile.
If you get a block that's good defense and bad passing on the offense's pass. If you cant throw a good pass in NCAA, I think you should have the ball taken from you.
Fouling is a defensive strategy and it is the offense's job to get the ball around while taking defensive pressure. Defensive players also have to be able to drop on set!
I'm ok with fouling as a legitimate tactic.
Defenders are already not allowed to interfere with the free throws. Not allowing a defensive player to move will be hard to enforce (what is too much movement?). Further if the offensive player is allowed to move, it will allow offensive player to gain positional advantage that the player did not have before the foul.
After a foul, players should not be able to interfer with the free throw, or shot. Defense should move back and provide the offensive player enough space to make an effective pass/shot. The "this is my space" after a foul does not work, and this seemed to reduce the outside shooing opportunities. Punish the defense for fouling and reward the offense....move the defensive player back
The proponents should have a problem with the referee and not the rule. It is the referees responsibility to give back what was taken away. If more than possession was taken away, then there should have been more then possession returned to the offensive team.
I just think this idea can be confusing because what does interfering actually boil down to? If the player has to completely move away from the place where the free throw is committed stalling will still occur to give the defense time to reset. I don't think that can be completely eliminated especially if the fouls limit would be put in place. IF there was more of an emphasis on ordinary fouls than refs may swallow their whistles when calling small/minor infractions.
We already have a rule that says players cannot interfere. ENFORCE IT! Do not enact more rules when there is already one on the books.
You have to have the referees with the stones to make this call. If a referee will make this call, then it will work. People refer to playing defense in today's context of the game. You can still play defense, you just can't foul. This becomes a non-issue is 6 is passed.
Question #8 Please identify your role in water polo
Overall Comments:
Change the rule of when a goalie has to put the ball in play. It is tough at times for an official to keep an eye on the goalie putting the ball in play and keeping an eye on the counter attack. Keep enforcing the rule for field players when placing the ball in play within a reasonable amount of time.
i understand that the motivation behind these changes is to make water higher scoring and better for spectators to watch but with some of these changes it seems like we're trying to make it more similar to other mainstream sports> I don't want to lose the essence of what makes water polo water polo. Easier to understand doesn't mean better.
Some of our current NCAA refs think the fans come to watch them. They are arrogant, never wrong, and make the game difficult to enjoy. They are inconsistent and they don't work as hard as the players and coaches. The refs of the 70s and 80s(Bernard, Sayring, Hermstad, Frady, et al ) worked college and national team practices and improved.
The refs are a tool of the game. Like a ball, goal, or pool. New rules should decrease their need to make "judgment" calls and/or blow the whistle.
1. Take a contra-foul from anywhere. I hear so many whistles after a contra-foul just to inform a player where to start the foul.
2. No penalty shots. Keep the game moving.
Keep the game the way it is. Waterpolo is a different sport, but we all love it for what it is.
Take more to heart of what the older generation has to say
Please don't ruin our game for the sake of your spectating of the sport
Swim, pass, shoot...swim, pass, shoot...boring. The rules need to create some excitement and mystery. Thanks for trying. Waiting patiently.
Those proposed changes are ridiculous. I think that NCAA should follow rules of professionals not make up their own. If we take into account that quite a few people (who are in charged for NCAA water polo regulation), never played water polo then it is clear that this not a good idea.
