Question on field layouts.

[Russell Smith]

Since the development of man made barricades (oil cans to sup-air bunkers) both halves of the field have been mirrored in an attempt to create an even and fair chance to both participating teams.
We still toss a coin to pick ends because of natural advantage's such as sunlight and it has happily been that way for a good few years.
If the game is a one off encounter I think it is acceptable but..... with the emergence of same field multi-game formats (ie: Xball) we have the chance to develop the game a little.
In the woodland game you never get mirrored layouts and the choice of ends can be crucial and what ever end you start from dictates your game plan, why can we not bring that into the modern game.

It would be easy to give a snake side advantage to base A and a strong centre to base B and that little step would mean teams would have to work on two plans minimum per game and you may also have the perception of more games.
I am not talking about a massive advantage to one side but subtle differences in the layout to change your game play from each end, the best team would still win but the enjoyment level could increase.

It is something I intend to try with some guest teams but thought I would ask your views as well.

Russ

 

[khanzo]

Personally I wouldn't prefer it, the main reason I prefer sup air over woodlands tournies it that the playing field is level. Both teams have as much chance as winning as the other. Changing this would just lead to more arguements off the field I do believe, oh they only won since they had this advantage ect.

Just a quick thought

-Mat

 

[Russell Smith]

Personally I wouldn't prefer it, the main reason I prefer sup air over woodlands tournies it that the playing field is level. Both teams have as much chance as winning as the other. Changing this would just lead to more arguements off the field I do believe, oh they only won since they had this advantage ect.

Just a quick thought

-Mat

Don't forget both teams would play both ends so any "end" advantage would be equal over the course of the game.

Russ

 

[khanzo]

My bad lol, I did not think that it would be Xball that this would be applyed to. I can see it working better in that case, I think it would be a simple case of try it and find out.

-Mat

 

[Kevin]

I think its a bad idea, most times there will be a favoured end,
if one team can use this in the 1st half to build a lead on the other team then they can be more confortable and not have to push in the 2nd half.

 

[Maddogwhitey]

but what if there are an odd number of games, eg best of 3??

 

[Evilbug]

I not convinced it would be good idea.

If we have found one thing out from the PA cup final is that you should have as many game plans as possible. So that you can keep the oppostion guessing.
If you give one side an advantage for example a zipper then that they will need to use it and the other team know this so will shut it out. If they do get the advantage in the first half then they may send out the rollers and sit back with a crossed up field to run the time down.
We had that in the semi, they knew we were games down and trying to run the clock down by 3 in back centre. They almost suceeded.

So have a level playing field, and let the players be the advatage

 

[Russell Smith]

but what if there are an odd number of games, eg best of 3??

For this discussion lets assume it is a even time split on the field.

Russ

 

[Russell Smith]

let the players be the advatage

That should be on a T shirt.

Russ

 

[Mario]

Was there not something like this developed in the states russ? Teams could set up three barricades on their side of the field at the start of a game dependant on what they wanted to do?

Can't for the life of me remember what it was called but beaker or someone should know...