Free Subbing at All Times?

...it would actually solve the too many bodies on the bottom problem, if it is a problem (im still to be convinced)

but it would also detract from the intensity and quality of the game by having players unable to finish breaks and take gaps etc from being too tired.

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

Sorry for not responding sooner, I’ve had time to read but not write the last couple days. I like the conversation on the topic so far though.

Basically I’m not all that sold on the to many bodies on the bottom issue. The only place I see a problem is in front of the goal tray and even if you made the game 4 on 4 +3m depth, with no subs you will still get a mess of bodies and it will be hard to see the puck in front of the goal. Might just be my opinion but I think I’m correct there. If the puck is near the goal lots of bodies are going to be around it, period.

Some of the issues with subbing in general is when the puck is near the sub area it is chaos anyway, and even with end wall deck subbing this was the case, subbing violations happened but there were so many people coming and going and splashing and the refs are moving around it was impossible to see. Same thing now with the in water side subbing, when the puck is close by there are so many bodies and heads bobbing up and down even players accidentally surfacing in the wrong sub box it is near impossible to tell. I agree that with what I proposed it would not make the situation better when the puck is near the box, but it couldn’t make it much worse.
But damn sure if when the puck is at the far end of the pool and someone has swum all the way back and two players accidentally go under, even if only one enters the play it was seen and gets called. Same as with a fin tips in the water call with deck subbing.
With what I was suggesting there were a few things that made me think about it. It makes the sub box it self a little less crowded with players coming and going, if multiple players sub at once. That’s not a big deal but just a point.
5m radius is ridiculous, way too far it was just a number I threw out. 1 meter is probably much more realistic. But I would still want to extend the distance some when the play has stopped for an advantage puck.
Big things happen and the puck moves when a fresh player enters the game. It happens all the time, a player subs in and is the perfect outlet to get a stalled puck to zip across the pool opening the game up, making a big offensive push or a heroic defensive stop. This just allows that person to get in the play a touch quicker. Whether that is a good thing or not I guess is personal opinion. I can respect thinking that it is a very tactical point looking for those openings when the opponents are subbing.

The big one though is when the puck is stalled in the defensive end. When it is on the sub box side, the defensive team is able to put in huge efforts and stall the puck or support their players and sub very quickly and often without opening up a path to the goal. On the far side however, subbing can lead to an immediate score, even in a narrow pool the little bit of distance from the play to the sub box seems to make a difference. Again maybe that is just a personal thing and as part of the game is a tactical point I just thought it could be balanced.

I dunno, it was just a thought I had since we play this way at club level a lot and it seems to work ok; not because we want to thumb our nose at the rules but just out of laziness really. It was getting a bit out of hand with people jumping in to stop beak-aways, but that was squished with a simple spoken rule hey they have to at least be close before you sub in. I thought it would be ok for subbing in UWhockey as well. Ice hockey being the only other sport that allows on the fly subbing I considered it as an example. Maybe we should switch the subbing for this game to more like basketball or soccer, only on stoppages and the coach has to request it from the ref? Seems like a decent compromise between No subbing and on the fly subbing.

__________________
An aquifer is a water bearing layer of rock or soil. Aquifers are separated by impermeable layers of rock or clay called an aquitard. Aquitard, however may sound a bit offensive to some, and therefore we will be changing the name to Aquachallenge.

Not necessarily - it would mean that you need to be very fit, and would add another dimension to tactics. For example, holding a player out from working on defence so that there is always a player able to go goal to goal. (I want to be that player!!!)


I get where you are coming from Tuck, here is another idea: only 6 sticks allowed per team. The stick then becomes a baton to be handed off to the next player.

__________________
Faster than a speeding puck...

No, it wouldnt. But I agree with your second sentence. On 2 meters deep pool, even the most tired player is able to jump on you, as its soo shallow. Dont forget, that in such moment, you're also very tired, not just the opposition. What extreme tiredness does, is to lower the teams teamplay & tactics, and specially the offencive actions. Probably somewhere at this point, there is also an argument about health and hipercapnia problem.

The only thing TO do, regarding "too many bodies in the water", is to lower the number of players on the field. That, or making new deeper pools all arround the world! 5vs5 with 3 subs, is a good proposition Jols! My proposition is slithly more radical, but I strongly belive in it - 4vs4, with 12 players in the team, subbing on the fly, just like ice hockey (ice hockey have even more subs, and they can breathe as much as they like)!

We tried 4vs4 on our club sessions, without subbing - what a clean and tactical game it is. We all loved it, without exceptions! And we did it on 2.4 meters. Probably we'll do it more, not as for some extra-training session, but becouse we all enjoy it so much. The biggest traffic jamm we had, can be compared to normal moments in 6vs6 on 2 meters. And only in front of the goal, or the tactical breaks.

Will the mountain come to Muhhamed, or Muhhamed will have to do it?
@Jols, the stick solution cant work.... there are as many different sticks as there are players. Otherwise its a nice thought.... how about a necessary "High 5" between subbing players?

nice idea, though

1. everyone has their own preference for a bat style and shape, how do you decide on what bat to use ? (can we have rock paper scissors amended to the rules ? )
2. it's a bit tricky if the person your subbing for is left handed and your right handed.
3. the bat is probably attached to a players hand or wrist so it's going to slow the act of substitution down whilst trying to unhook it in a hurry

How about just having the substituting player swim back toward the subs bench with his playing hand high in the air ? that signals to the subs and the deck ref that he is 'out of play' and intends to substitute, they can then act accordingly (it's not like the guy coming out has to sprint back to the subs bench using his arms if the sub can swap immediately and the deck ref can keep watch to make sure the player subbing doesn't go back to interfere with play)

I think i remember that sub-ice hockey was played 2v2 with only 1 stick per team.

Mine of course. I just wanted to be the first to say that!

__________________
An aquifer is a water bearing layer of rock or soil. Aquifers are separated by impermeable layers of rock or clay called an aquitard. Aquitard, however may sound a bit offensive to some, and therefore we will be changing the name to Aquachallenge.

My personal experience is that you can not rely on people common sense, there is always a laywer around to twist things enough.... Rules must be specific and clear, open interpretations can make disasters, even between people with common sense !!!!

people don't need the help to 'twist,' just a different perspective which is why, of coures, I agree totally that rules must be simple and clear with as little wiggle room as possible. It is then the responsibility of the players of any sport to try to find and and use the wiggle room. It is the nature of sport, and it is why rules in all/most sports change almost yearly.

__________________
Carol Rose

Guilly, Carol.... I would like to agree with you, its only that in the real world it doesnt work like you think it does. Actually, the proffessional refferee's in other sports have the same issues. It REALLY doesnt matter how clear and enforcible rules you have implemented, there is always a very strong HUMAN factor or "common sence" factor, witch counts for 90% of the refferee's influence on the game.

And the best refferee's (and the only real reffs for me) are not the one quoting the rules from memory, and holding up to them like drunks to electricity pole, but rather they are the guys with most common sence, and are taking on their job like the "goodharted policeman with strong caracter", and not the job of a judge!

Taking on the job of refferee with the same mentallity as that of a judge (some even take it as a job of prosecution), produces the problems that make you think we need more enforcibillity in the rulebook. We dont! Really... the only thing needed in the rulebook, to get more enforcibillity of the rules is a phrase: ... and the decidions of the in-water or deck refferees are ultimate and final, without exceptions and without debate. Complains cant change that decidion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that.....Democracy, however much you belive in it, has no place in the world of reffereeing.

It appears you assume everyone has common sense,; that everyone has same common sense or same perspective; and, I guess, common sense can be taught. I disagree completely.

And democray has no relationship to refereeing.

__________________
Carol Rose