Opening up the Game

As Guilly suggested, here is a new thread for us to discuss ways to open up the game.

Suggestions have included reducing the number of players and/or increasing the minimum depth allowed. There have been other ideas tossed out there as well but I don't remember most of them or don't want to encourage them so I won't post them. But you all are more than welcome to. Keep in mind that this idea is for the high level games.

Depth increase: May or may not solve the problem. Certainly you could go deep enough to have an affect but that would probably slow the game down too much and it would go back to the old game where the free diver with long bottom time had the advantage rather than those with skills and teamwork. So assuming 3M as the limit for the minimum you won't get much better. As Sheffield videos will verify there were still many times that 6 or more players were within a couple of meters of the puck. With stops in play you will get a regrouping of players with a bit of rest which allows for more scrums around the puck. At times it will be more open. But will it be enough?

Reduction of players: May or may not solve the problem. As with the increased depth you could decrease to the point that the game just ends up having someone wait out their defender and then you have a quick 3 on 2 or 2 on 1 (note there is no 4 on 3 in this example). Not the best for the game and also reduces the number of players that can compete. But if you drop to 5 a side, there is one less player to pass to and one less to shut you down. Will this create different strategies or just refocus players roles to continue with the same old same old?

First thought that comes to my mind is to combine the two. You will still end up with huge bunches at the goal and sometimes along the wall but in general that should make the game more open. Players would have a bit more time, okay a bit of time, to look around and make a play. Perhaps easily finding the best option rather than the first option. And the depth wouldn't have to go to 3M. It could be 2.6M or 8 feet or whatever the most common depth is in that range.

__________________
Just in case you weren't sure, it's official -- CMAS sucks.
Oh yeah, and now they're broke.

...mmmm. newsflash? though those of us who have been catching up with the top level of competition over the last few years can definitely see that OUR level of play is rising, the fact remains that at the highest level, surely for 15 years or more we have seen the same intensity on the puck, the same amount of bodies on the bottom, the same depth pools and the same physical ability of players.... i know the same amount of training goes in as it used to, and players are not genetically becoing faster. in fact the biggest changes apart from the tactical are changes in equipment, which have helped to bring skill levels up. i've seen footage from 92 etc.... not too much has changed.

which leads me to my point.... sorry, what is wrong in the first place? lets just identify the areas people are concerned about.

1- reffing, and the ability of refs to pick the fouls through lots of bodies
2- ....some people feel there is not enough space in the game?

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

i always thought that's what seperated the better players - their ability to create space for themselves

Make a differents.
1.Real better players. Who indeed does not need these tricks
2.And players who think they are better and must use these tricks.

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..

i obviously ment the better clean players ;P

I dont really understand you, except for the part where you ask "whats the difference?". If you really see the 92 worlds the same level where your play is now, than I think we cant have a reasonable discussion. Further, you found the second biggest change from 92 onwards in -I dont get this - equipment!?!
Fins, masks, snorkels, pucks, sticks and gloves are more or less the same, or maybe only that some pucks are not as bad as they used to be... really confused me with that statement about equipment. I get the feeling we dont play the same game, so it must be me then...

Anyway, If you trully see the game of uwh without a major problem on how its defined, thats ok with me. As you asked for, I'll just run it over again for you.

1. Ref's are not able to see what they need to see. At any point on the wall, and several times in the open game when the rush or "traffic jamm" happens and it happens more and more often since 92. Not only that, but refs cant see the goal clearly, more often than they can. Those are facts, for anyone that is critical of the job of referee. With putting less players on the field, one can change this MAJOR problem. If there is another solution to this - I'm all ears! We can also forget about refferee's problems, but that is already how we behave now. If a ref cant see all of the game, then this is not a game but something else. Thats my main issue.

2. UWH should be non-contact sport, something thats been lacking for long time, and is getting worse, primarilly for the same reason - too many players on the field. Injuries are more and more often, dirty play can be easilly hiden from the eyes of reffs, all that becouse of too many bodies in one mass of water.
You know, when they breed Tuna's in the cage, they have a standard on how many they can put in one cage, and how big the cage should be. When tuna's get too big, they just kill and sell them. But I dont belive thats viable solution to our problem.

3. Manouvering the puck and skills are getting less prominent in the game, becouse there is just not enough space to perform them frequently enough, and thats becouse players are just too many times bunched together as pre-mentioned tunas. Fast swimming, and good strong hand is the prominent factor now.... a bit dumb, isnt it? But true, its not yet as dumb as american football... so maybe we should do nothing for now.

4. In explosive and highly phisical sports like Ice hockey and basketball there are several players for each position. Strange enough UWH is in my view THE most explosive and physical of all sports, but have only 4 subs for 6 positions. I'll wait and see what answers that statement brings me...

5. Many times happened, that on big championship there is this "cool" refferee, that calls some 15 or so advatages and the game gets shortened from 15 down to 10 minutes. How about a time stop for a faul play? And offcourse, faster re-starts. At least on big champs, where it can be logistically possible. Small tournaments are hard pressed for time as it is, but continental and worlds shouldnt be.

Thats goes for all pools, its just that in " <2.5m " it gets more nasty, and the problems are more intense. And no please, I'm not trying to completly change the game, I just stated all the issues I have, when re-thinking what we play. I'm in no ilussion that any of it will change - Its highly unlikely. But I still say, that I'm a bad ref and I'm not able to do my job like I should!

interesting... The sport will be a soft-contact sport forever, unless someone figure out a way to flick longer and longer, maybe 10 meters ??? Maybe a slipping puck will help a lot more than turning the game into a one-on-one sport, with a lot of refs, where the only two players will be closer and touching each other anyway...

if you were to give even more subs then the game is going to be EVEN more cluttered then before

it would make it so much easier to constantly have a relatively fresh team in the water, meaning more players are going to be on the bottom playing the puck

surely this would only help to congest the game further?

Moderation completed... here's the new thread for discussion about "opening up the game"... continue!

__________________
i [heart] porridge

Thanks for moding, I did hijack the other thread, and I'm sorry for that.

Todd, thats true. But in my view, the game of UWH should be played with no more than 4 players, having the team of 12 active players 4x3. Subs should be anywhere on one defined side of the playing area, negating the unfair advantage of the defending team.

But.... . You know whats behind that "But",