The Space Time Conundrum in Water Polo
In my most recent post, I examine the relationship of space and time in water polo and compare it to other sports.
I hope you enjoy and I look forward to any thoughts you may have.
3 Likes
Thanks for sharing this Breck. I had no idea as to the history of shot clocks.
1 Like
Itās something that has become so commonplace in so many sports that itās somewhat surprising to think how recent an innovation they have been. I appreciate you reading!
1 Like
Another fun read!
If Iām understanding your point correctly, the full-course size AND the shot clock length create a situation where there is simply not enough time to do something interesting (or entertaining) on offense.
I think the point of making the course shorter is worth trying but might create a side effect of moving water polo from something like basketball (albeit with a shorter time to do drives) to something like soccer where the playerās positions become slightly more static.
Additionally, Iām not sure that increasing the shot clock would steer tactics away from working the ball to the center forward as the primary option. That is, whatās to dissuade a team from using the extra time to get a better look for center forward?
I also think thereās threads worth exploring on questions like:
- Do we consider front court drive heavy offense more entertaining than an offense where the counter attack has time to develop?
- What would the ramifications of a rule change where center forward is not allowed to be occupied for more than 10 seconds?
- Does the game become more interesting if we have 5 field players instead of 6?
2 Likes
Correct, I believe that both the course size and shot clock length should be re-examined in the interest of making the game more appealing. At very least at the age group level.
Iām curious why you think it would create a more static positional game to have a shorter course length.
As for your second point, I agree that a longer shot clock wouldnāt be enough to get tactics away from the center focus. There are other rule issues there that need to be addressed to de-incentivize the reliance on exclusions at center. There is an imbalance in the game that favors playing for calls over natural goals, but that was really out of the scope of this article (I was already pushing 3000 words).
I believe, and anecdotally so do many others including Dante and Wolf as quoted in the article, that a motion game creates more entertaining scoring than does vertical shooting and zone defenses. I understand that many wont agree with this, especially Europeans. However, I also think that the development of vertical shooting in the last 30 years combined with motion on offense has the potential to create more dynamic scoring options for both drivers and vertical shooters.
I am in favor of a rule that limits the amount of time a player can sit in front of the cage on offense. Iād love to see experiments with 5 seconds, 10 seconds or some other idea. Also, this is another rule change that was promoted by Dante Dettamanti before his death.
I also like a rule change that favors five players over 6 (as was experimented with briefly along with the 25 meter course). I think one of the issues is that zone defense makes the ability of an individual player to to really have the opportunity to show their skill much more difficult and removing a player allows for more space and time to work. Players like Perrone or Varga can do incredible and skillful things that are awesome to watch but they donāt often have the time and space to do so (thereās those two concepts again!).
Appreciate your response and discussion!
Iām curious why you think it would create a more static positional game to have a shorter course length.
Yāknowā¦ This is actually probably me mis-imagining the size of the course to be ~12m instead of 25m. In my head, the person who was planning the 3 position would only need to swim a few strokes to be ready to play 2m offense.
I am in favor of a rule that limits the amount of time a player can sit in front of the cage on offense. Iād love to see experiments with 5 seconds, 10 seconds or some other idea.
Agreed, Iād want to see a few matches played where the area outward from the goal posts follows some form of offsides rules to the 5m zone. Iām really excited to see the outcomes of the 2m rules wrt offensive tactics.
I also like a rule change that favors five players over 6
As a fan, Iād be all for it. 
As an out-of-shape occasional masters player, yes but please keep my course to 25 yards 
As a coach, yes but give me a season to rework my playbook. 
There are other rule issues there that need to be addressed to de-incentivize the reliance on exclusions at center.
It seems like the naive solution would be something like re-work the criteria to award an exclusion to be much stricter. From your perspective, are there other factors at play here?
1 Like
I believe that the issue with the exclusions is due to two conflated factors: the fact that earning an exclusion at center is almost a given in most situations and the unwillingness of officials to reward players with exclusions elsewhere in the pool.
One avenue Iād like to see and has been proposed by others is the elimination of the ordinary foul. Things are either an exclusion or a penalty if a probable goal is prevented. Along with this, there would need to be an emphasis on calling the game everywhere in the pool much more strictly and more in accordance with the rules as written.
To me, this would take an adjustment by players but would ultimately make the game more free flowing and less about 6 pairs of players wrestling in six spots in the pool.
I encourage you to look at the rules proposed by Wolf Wigo in this article for an idea of what this could look like for water polo.
Fascinating and thanks for sharing this!
It seems like the motivation here is something like āincrease the downside risk of wrestling style defense to the point where itās no longer a viable optionā.
1 Like
Some of these are throwbacks to older rules. I especially like awarding the ball to the offense if the defense deflects the ball out of bounds. Is there any other sport that awards the ball to the team who knocked it out of bounds? It still feels wrong to me to blow my whistle and turn the ball over on those plays.
And I love starting with goal throw instead of a line up. More counter, less dead time.
If you want to see some real drive action and movement of the ball in the waterā¦
extend the shot clock by 10 seconds and bring back the 3 fouls on the Center before an exclusion. It allows drive plays, pop up quick shots from either the wings or the 3 driving. It was such a great rule that was relegated to the trash bin to āliven up the gameā.
1 Like
Pretty sure when we played with those rules the shot clock was 35 sec, and it worked quite well. But I think that todayās more creative zone defense strategies might make be pretty effective clogging up an offense designed around ā2 fouls and switch". Bringing back the principle that defenders must show hands during ādead timeā between a foul and the ball being put in play would do wonders, though. Back then, drivers could drive, and anything other than incidental contact was a near automatic exclusion.
2 Likes
Should we bring back the 2-point shot?
Go back to the old ball under rules
How was that different?
No. There was a reason it did not last long.
1 Like
If youāre asking me, the old rule was that whomeverās hand was on top of the ball when it went under was committing the violation. So, a defender could push the ball under if they were also pushing down the offensive players hand. Thus, one of the many reasons to pick the ball up from underneath. Now, the defense can push the ball under without the offense even touching it and they get the ball. Itās bad defense and bad water polo to watch.
2 Likes
I recall a brief time of size 4 balls and the 2 pointer from 7M in the mid 90s. Look out!
2 Likes
I started playing I believe the year after they got rid of it. Just for my own curiosity, why did they get rid of it? Iāve never heard the reason why, but just assumed it was one more thing for the officials to have to watch for.
That may be how the rule is called, but itās not whatās written the in NCAA rules. Cutting and pasting the first section here. I donāt think the second section really adds any detail to the rule.
To take or hold the entire ball under the water when tackled. The foul of taking the ball under when tackled refers to taking or holding the ball under water when, through bodily contact, the player in possession of the ball is forced to take the ball under against that playerās will or purposely takes the ball under and there is contact by the defender on the shoulder or arm or hand holding the ball.
As I read that, it can only be called against a player who is holding the ball and is forced to take it under. If the offense is not touching the ball, how can they be āforcedā to take it under? I do believe that under the modern rule, a player can be holding the ball from below and be forced to take the ball under by pressure on the arm. But if they let go of the ball, show the hand, and the defender takes it under, the foul is on the defender, and the ball should stay with the offense.