Half's, Periods, or Quarters?

[NJRH10]

Just wanted to know what the general consensus was about how games are broken down time wise? We all know that ice hockey is generally three twenty minute periods, PIHA plays two twelve minute half's, MLRH and XIHL has played four twelve minute quarters in the past, and I don't remember what RHI played. To an outsider and/or fan this might simply seem trivial but to any coach or manager you know these variations can cause major changes in how one manages a game. I was just interested in seeing if the community has a favorite or if each variation worked for the style of game each league presented. Your thoughts?....

[Wingman]

Inline hockey has traditionally been played in halves, that's what I prefer.

[growl89]

i like halves as well, BUT would not be oppossed to longer halves, 2 twelve minute halves is awfully short. Teams like us that use 3 lines of players really struggle to find playing time for everyone. Its about 2 shifts per period. 4 shifts per game, 8 shifts per night. That is terrible. I would not mind seeing 3 10's stop time, or 2 15's stop time.

[Leaferguy]

The three 12s we have in college roller work pretty well, IMO. Game time runs about 50 minutes and the pace is good. The two halves in PIHA leave a little too much on the table, IMO, but that's a discussion for another day.

[ACCCT2]

In my humble opinion, for a "professional" package (meaning something that would be media/broadcast schedule worthy), I'd vote for two (2) 20-minute "stop-time" halves with whatever allotment of team "timeouts" per half being supplemented with 1 "TV-timeout" per half. Played as a typical broadcast property, this would allow for 1.5 hour broadcast blocks (including pre-game, timeouts, a 10 - 15 minute halftime, and postgame sets). Personally, I think "quarters" tend to 'chop-up' the linear momentum of the game way too much and takes away from the linear "timeline" feel of the game's progression (again just my opinion, OK)...

My 2nd choice would be three (3) 15-minute "stop-time" periods, as at least there'd be some continuity with the college game, only "professionally" extended and 'amped-up'; would still allow for 1.5 hour broadcast blocks & attendant features; as well as the fact that "3-periods" ties you into the "cultural footprint" of (and fan familiarity with) the ice hockey game...

[William Bourque]

In my humble opinion, for a "professional" package (meaning something that would be media/broadcast schedule worthy), I'd vote for two (2) 20-minute "stop-time" halves with whatever allotment of team "timeouts" per half being supplemented with 1 "TV-timeout" per half. Played as a typical broadcast property, this would allow for 1.5 hour broadcast blocks (including pre-game, timeouts, a 10 - 15 minute halftime, and postgame sets). Personally, I think "quarters" tend to 'chop-up' the linear momentum of the game way too much and takes away from the linear "timeline" feel of the game's progression (again just my opinion, OK)...

My 2nd choice would be three (3) 15-minute "stop-time" periods, as at least there'd be some continuity with the college game, only "professionally" extended and 'amped-up', as well as the fact that 3-periods ties you into the "cultural footprint" of (and fan familiarity-with) the ice hockey game...


I agree 100%

However, Personally, i have always been a fan of 3-12 minute stop periods.

[joisyan]

id' love to go three 15 minute periods. plus it makes you feel more like you're in a home stretch in the third period instead of the back half of a game. just a mental thing like NJRH10 said.

[growl89]

i would rather play 1 game of 3-15's stop time, then 2 games of 2 -12s

[ACCCT2]

Exactly...

[MajorTomFoolery]

i would rather play 1 game of 3-15's stop time, then 2 games of 2 -12s

At the same time, though, a blowout game is boring. Take the Winchester - Potomac PIHA pre-season game, for example (first game: 3-2. second game: 9-1, Potomac won both). The game wouldn't be exciting if the score ended up being 12-3.

[growl89]

9-1 is exciting? im sure the 3-2 game was great, but what is the difference between a 9-1 game and a 12-3 game? (besides the obvious)

Even with the 2 game system there are blow outs. I know we have won 12-0, 15-1 etc in two games. I do understand the purpose of this, but i think the league is getting strong enough to make the games a little longer. I know in the NE and Atlantic this season, there are going to be plenty of 1 and 2 goal games, reguardless of how long the game is.

I know this topic had been beaten to death, but thats my 2 cents on it..

[dan sangiorgio]

for some one that is new to the league why does piha use the 2 12 minute double header format was it a way to cut down travel cost having teams play 2 games in one day. or was it just a gimmick created by the league to be different.

[MajorTomFoolery]

9-1 is exciting? im sure the 3-2 game was great, but what is the difference between a 9-1 game and a 12-3 game? (besides the obvious)

Nothing. That's what I'm trying to say.

[MBurke]

for some one that is new to the league why does piha use the 2 12 minute double header format was it a way to cut down travel cost having teams play 2 games in one day. or was it just a gimmick created by the league to be different.

The reason it was originally put in was because the of the gap between the best and worst teams. Rather than having a team lose 23-1 or something like that, cutting the game into two smaller games gave the team something to play for in the second game rather than just trying to prevent total embarrassment.

[ACCCT2]

Oh boy, dare I take on this one...!?! OK, my opinion --

Hmmm, a "double-header" format that's simply (and apparently, admittedly) meant to be kinda' like the gentlemanly "gimmie" putt in golf or polite "gimme" game in tennis, eh (so the loser can feel some sense of accomplishment or whatever empty, meaningless reward for actually playing the match, maybe?)...

Honestly (again, in my opinion), a truly "professional" league goes all-out to win every game, whatever the score. Scheduling games to offset, compensate, balance or somehow 'camouflage' competitive "gaps" and/or inequities between teams to "prevent total embarassment" only cheapens the integrity and lowers the overall quality, marketability and all-important impressions of the league. You're better off with scheduling fewer games between the best and better teams than including multiple 'short' games with teams that apparently are only in the league because they happened to have paid a franchise/entry fee (correct me nicely, without obcenities, if I'm mistaken about this) to the league office. Would anyone really want to see a game between the Ottawa Senators and say, a last-place East Coast Hockey League team simply because they (the ECHL team) paid a league franchise/entry fee to the NHL (or whomever) -- I don't think so -- in fact, come to think of it, we're already subject to too much this kind of sub-standard competition with certain NHL clubs and match-ups and it's clearly a negative with fans, advertisers, sponsors, and especially the broadcast networks (that react to fans, advertisers, and sponsors sensibilities)...

I think a longer (2-20m-periods or 3-15m-periods), more emotionally up-&-down, ebb-&-flow, all-or-nothing, 'fluid-feeling' and stand-alone kind of game would be much more entertaining (and much more marketable and meaningful) for everyone concerned. The format that (as it seems it's being justified here) that trys to make a fan 'forget' about the afternoon's or evening's earlier "embarassment" only has the fans (and sponsors) unhappily and unflatteringly walking away with a "doubly-disappointing" feeling (again, just my opinion here)...

[catch]

you know one of the oddest moments in life was taking a newby to a blues-blackhawks game. After the third period of which ended in a defeat the idiot stood up and said we will get them in the 4th quarter. I was a season ticket holder and ducked my head in shame. Stop the half time talk. Halves are for grapefruits and soccer. The unique thing we have going for us in hockey is confusion. You can always tell the fans who don't know the game by the fact they don't know what is going on. And if you can't figure it out by the time you leave take them to a lacrosse game and cover some of the rules there.

[MajorTomFoolery]

Scheduling games to offset, compensate, balance or somehow camoflage competitive "gaps" and/or inequities between teams to "prevent total embarassment" only cheapens the integrity and lowers the overall quality, marketability and all-important impressions of the league...
I think a longer (2-20m-periods or 3-15m-periods), more emotionally up-&-down, ebb-&-flow, all-or-nothing, stand-alone kind of game would be much more entertaining

In my personal, hockey fan viewpoint, I'm going to have to disagree with you. True, when both teams are equally matched, a single game is better. But PIHA is trying to build up local hockey, even if the team sucks. I don't feel two games cheapen the experience anymore than a 72 game season does. And if the score is 8-0, I'm walking out, and I might not come back again, ever. But if one game was a blowout and the other game was close, then my excitement for the team will stay. And it is not "camoflauging" (I know it's spelled wrong) the result anymore than a seven game playoff series or a long season. Imagine having 72 games, two for each night. The marketing value in that is that the new fan gets to see at least one good game.
And to ACCCT2 in particular, I respect your views on the question, and I am NOT trying to turn this into a PIHA-or-bust thread. All I'm saying is that PIHA has their reasons, and other leagues/tournament organizations have their reasons.

[ACCCT2]

I'll take a 72-game season between the "best and better" teams over anything involving a paying-to-play complement of competitively unworthy teams that, as you say, "suck"...

In my mind, I think we should be able to imagine and see a night-in/night-out level of play that, say only the Tour Mudcats vs Pama Cyclones presently offers. I'm not saying that PIHA isn't good hockey or not competitive. I'm only saying that by admitting to a format that is apparently trying to "camouflage" the way-too-obvious "gaps" in competitive viability, the league is doing itself no favors. Personally, I'd have a much larger "minor-1" and even "minor-2" league system set up below a much smaller, but much more "elite" and proven top "premier" division (I'm sorry guys, I still can't bring myself to say "pro" here;)) -- this would provide for a much better, much more exciting and competitive, as well as much more marketable, on-court level of "premier" play, players and product...

[MajorTomFoolery]

Again, it's not camoflage. You're watching two games for the price of one. And as far as marketability, the local crowd is the target, and two games should please them because their team might win a game. It's no different than playing a team twice during the entire season, except I might actually watch the second game.

[ACCCT2]

Well, "MajorTomFoolery", I guess we're both set on agreeing to disagree on this one, eh -- see, isn't it great when people actually respect another's right to a different opinion or viewpoint...!?!

[MajorTomFoolery]

Yeah, this one went better than the last one. :)

[joisyan]

about the 3-2 then the 9-1 games, we shuffled alot of lines, goalies, and strategies between the two games; because it was, after all, an exhibition. so dont take for granted the score or drop in play. because it is not the regular season and we havent even rostered a full team still. so to say that the game would've ended 12-3 is awfully presumptuous considering they squeeked out of that first game w/ a win due to a little bit of a blip involving a 5 minute major for one of our guys not quite remembering you cant fight in PIHA. but when it comes down to halves or even quarters vs the 3 period system? hands down 3 periods would be better in my opinion. i think it gives you the mindset of we'll get em' in the 2nd, or come out fighting in the 3rd. instead of, oh crap we've only got 9 minutes left...in the 2nd...half? no game!

[MajorTomFoolery]

Yeah, I can understand that from a players view. It's just that a blowout game really sucks. And at the same time, if each team wins a game, the whole competitive feeling is lost. "Everyone's a winner" isn't all that fun.

[joisyan]

oh i agree 100%, and let me tell you being blown out sucks way more as a player heh, and the whole "call it even" if one loses and one wins is kinda rediculous. if we would've won the first game 3-2 and lost the second 9-1 that's just retarded. but it didnt happen that way so lets not make apples into oranges; either way it's hockey and it's fun. and i can still find fun in a blowout because i've been blown out way worse than 9-1

[MajorTomFoolery]

Yeah. I guess the two-game system has its problems. And as a fan and a player, I was kinda confused when I first heard it. It looks good on paper though.

[ACCCT2]

Hmmm, a luminous, luxurious and lucid "light" in a (kind-of?) competive, marketing and ambiant "darkness" maybe:)...!?!

[MajorTomFoolery]

Hmmm, a luminous, luxurious and lucid "light" in a (kind-of?) competive, marketing and ambiant "darkness" maybe:)...!?!

Umm... I didn't quite get that...
If you're talking about my change of perspective, I'll change my way of thinking if the evidence is presented to me. I now believe that a two-game system doesn't help, as the first and second games could very well be blowouts, OR both teams win, and the competitive mentality is lost.

[ACCCT2]

To quote a great (?) military/hockey mind I met somewhere else -- "White flag accepted", "Major" (just kidding!;))...!!!

I too, am open to changing my mind, opinion and perspective as well, as long as (like you said) the supporting and convincing evidence is presented to me in an intelligent, respectful, civil and well-outlined supposition...

[MajorTomFoolery]

Long live roller hockey.

[growl89]

some food for thought ...

what if each set of 2 games was played to a best out of 3 series? that may add a new dynamic to the league... .

thoughts?

[MajorTomFoolery]

Woah, my head hurts.

A little complicated and drawn out, if I understand it correctly.

[rhhof]

Good Topic Marc!!

I was partial to the 4, 12-minute quarter thing...that was what all of the former pro leagues played - it was about a 2 to 2.5 hour experience and fan friendly atmospheres, blah blah

the MLRH AAA, Super League, XIHL, original PIHA rules all did the same thing

Cost of rink time, road expenses and a few other things played on to more money out of the teams pockets -- Playing two games, looked good on paper, cut down on travel, cut down on blow outs, gave teams new outlooks on game 2's....it played a big part of redefining PIHA as well - it was different but more toward what roller hockey was....Playing two halves, playing more than one game a day (like tourneys)

My only feeling is that the game should be expanded a little - Like Bill said, if you have a full bench it is difficult with rink time - a team with 12 good players doesnt make it a worth while trip for guys to drive hours to play a few minutes - I think the game moves well enough with few stoppages and the fast faceoffs to allow for more game time, maybe two 15 minute halves or more - make it 16's, something different but keep the halves - its our sport -- and on the same note still keep ing the two games with added time wouldnt really play into more goals or blow outs....there really havent been many over the past few years

My .02

[DannyG]

I am appalled!

Every true hockey player knows that it is etched on the carborundum tablets at the center of the universe that:

"There are eight chukkars in Polo and three periods in Hockey."

period...no further discussion.

[RichardGraham]

The reason it was originally put in was because the of the gap between the best and worst teams. Rather than having a team lose 23-1 or something like that, cutting the game into two smaller games gave the team something to play for in the second game rather than just trying to prevent total embarrassment.

Hey Mike,

Didn't costs factor into the decision? It's cheaper to play two games on one night than two games on two different nights, etc?

That's how I remember it, anyway.

[MajorTomFoolery]

I am appalled!

Every true hockey player knows that it is etched on the carborundum tablets at the center of the universe that:

"There are eight chukkars in Polo and three periods in Hockey."

period...no further discussion.

Am I the only one here that doesn't know what a chukkar is? Is it a measurement of time? a player? a disease, like the NHL's Kaspiritis?

[stksave27]

truly "professional" league

I think the Pro league debate is in another forum on here...

The 2 12min 2 game Format is a device. On one hand it was implemented to help weaker teams and on the other it was to produce more content for a league in its infancy. Now it may be time to consider alternatives, and they were discussed again this offseason and will most likely be addressed at the end of the current one. All valid inputs for longer games. If the league can grow to handle more time in a game in the future than it will be to the credit of those who played under the current format and helped push it to a higher level. The roller hockey community as a whole will have its hand in growing the sport.

We could start a whole other forum on competetive balance in "Professional" sports. Salary caps, rule 5 drafts, roster limits, supplimental drafts, free agency... all the "Pro" leagues address competetive balance every day. Current Professional roller Hockey is no different, it merely implimented a system to level the playing field while a greater infrastructure could be put in place to expand the league and the game. It may well be time to modify it seeing the consensus here seems to be toward longer games. But at least we are having this debate instead of debating why there is no Professional Roller hockey at all.

[CoachClipboard]

Stksave27 that was the best post Ive seen here in a while and I agree entirely with it. It explains the why very accurately. And I agree that this is a great time to bring up the future of time of periods and how many in a game, and find a constructive way to implement it as the leagues and the sport is maturing.

And yes Major! you are the only one who knows.......and cares apparently! lol. Come onnnnnnnnnn....its Polo! hockey with a horse is for lazy skaters! (Im joking with you here btw)

[MajorTomFoolery]

So the real question is whether the two game system is needed anymore or not. There are many topics, influences and issues that sway one way or the other for this device to be used or removed. Here's what I say:
>>>Scheduling: If the league can give a new team some soft games to start the season, interest could go up. The Winchester Generals play Pittsburgh twice at the beginning of the season, which is damaging without the two game system.
>>>New teams: Because of the league growth, new teams can play each other competitively in the opening weeks. Two games are not needed.
>>>Split victories: If both teams win, nobody feels victorious, and the competitive sense of the sport is lost.
>>>New fans: Two games is just awkward sounding to a new fan, or even a hockey fan new to PIHA.
>>>Cost: As Mr. Graham brought up, it is cheaper to play two games, as it gets more tallies on the schedule while still being a long event.
>>>Blowouts: Bad for players, organizations, and most importantly, fans. The question is this: will one game be different from the other?
>>>Hype: I've missed my fair share of NHL playoff games, but I will not miss an NFL playoff game, because there's only one game: the big one. A single game can be hyped through the roof, but two games cannot.

Which brings me to a little question: does PIHA play two games at a time during the playoffs? What do they do?

[CoachClipboard]

In the playoffs it is usually best out of 3 in divisional play, best out of 5 in conference play, and best of seven in league championships. I am not sure however if that is the plans again this season. So one game of two 12 minute halves counts as ONE GAME just as it would in regular season. you would probably play that series over one weekend.

I am in favor of the two game regular season system as it is, but feel the periods should be 15 minute stop time instead of 12. I have seen it during the years with the 4 quarter system and as many here who also have seen it can attest, can breed some ugly play, boring games, and loss of fans because of both. I detested it when it went to the 2 game in one evening format the first year (I am stubborn and generally dont like changing hockey much), and by mid-year was a believer in it. I do think a longer game has some merit if presented right, and am open minded to entertain its use if the league can find a way to make it beneficial to the fans and the game.

As for the arguement of split games, my viewpoint is this. If you win game one great! 2 points for ya! If you win game two too! Woohoo!! 4 points! two wins in a row! A streak going now! If you lose one and win one? So be it. Your fault. It's your teams own inconsistency that brings this to happen, not the league. No one likes a split, assuredly, but shouldnt your teams objective be to actually win? "Boohoo! I leave with a split, a tie, a stalemate." Don't cry, whine or complain, play to win both.

[growl89]

was anything ever done to get rid of the terrible mini game??

[MajorTomFoolery]

was anything ever done to get rid of the terrible mini game??

You talking about the overtime rules, where it can dwindle down to one on one? I'm pretty sure that's out... that was pretty screwy...

[CoachClipboard]

I heard the mini game thing is out! Thank God.

[MajorTomFoolery]

Yeah, when I first heard about it, I thought it was ridiculous. It still hasn't grown on me, and now it's gone.

Huzzah!

[growl89]

You talking about the overtime rules, where it can dwindle down to one on one? I'm pretty sure that's out... that was pretty screwy...

No i have no idea about that ... but im talking about the deciding game of a series used to be one period and that was it.

[MajorTomFoolery]

I never knew that.

[growl89]

yeah in a best of 3, game three would be 12 mins

best of 5, game five would be 12 mins

best of 7, well you get the idea....

[William Bourque]

It's a shame that a playoff series could be decided like that.

[rhhof]

How bout those single elmination games up to the semi's a few years ago

OT, 4 on 4 then 3 on 3 THEN 2 on 2!!!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhh

I still feel the 2004 Extremes/Minutemen playoff game that went to the 2 on 2 OT was one of the best ever PIHA games.....A lot of future championship rings on those rosters

How about a nice round table discussion out in Vegas over it......

[quick_dry]

I've always played 4 x 12 IIHF rules, and recently 2 x 20 minutes FIRS rules. I prefer the 4 x 12, more enjoyable format (extra 8 minutes of game time is a bonus).

I didn't know that they did 2 games of 2 x 12 in PIHA, my honest to god first thought was "how ridiulous - that is 1 game with a really long half time break and more competition points handed out".

The argument that it gets two games played per trip makes no sense, what difference does it make to the season to say "we played 72 games" if you could've played 36 four period games? why not play 144 games of 1 period each if games played indicates how good the league is.

The only positive I could think of is in tight games, and having twice the chances of OT which is exciting.

We have double header road trips, but that is Game 1 on Saturday, Game 2 on Sunday and then fly home - it is also only when we play one team at their home, as they dont have another team in that region it would make sense to play. e.g. if we got to play Melbourne and Adelaide - we might go to melbourne, then go to Adelaide the next day - meanwhile another team has played adelaide and then is going to play melbourne.

Someone said stop time has been problematic?
Game time in stop time leagues can be tough if rinks aren't being your friend, or flight times are very tight (how do PIHA teams travel?) so shorten each period slightly. In our national ice league we run 3 x 15 stop time - and games can sometimes blow out timewise very badly, but on the whole it is fine if they just set aside a few hours. Unfortunately we have had some very rare times when we have had to run some periods as running time if games have been heldup and a team won't make their flight back home. We're not a professional league (we get costs covered but we don't get paid and *cough*cause-it-doesn't-say-so-in-our-name*cough* ;) ) so players can't afford to be missing work at a moments notice.

cliff notes: play 4 periods, get rid of PIHA half games.

[stksave27]

The regular season overtime format stayed the same, play 3-3 then 2-2 etc.

The "mini" game format used to decide last seasons playoff series is gone. Like the APPLE LISA computer it was an idea that just never worked but got put into production anyway.

Hopefully like APPLEs comback of the late 90's and beyond PIHA will meander on and out of the sillyness of the 1 period "Playoff" game.

The length of a game debate is tied to the number of "games" per scheduled day argument. To keep player interest up 15 minute periods in a 30 minute game with 2 games a night is probally the way the league should look to go... remember, PIHA (as Professional as it is...) is here because the philosophy is organic growth. It isnt here to fold in 5 years when the big sponsor supporting bails and no one else comes along. How many PRO soccer leagues have we seen? The 2 games an event schedule is unique, it may even stand to be a our "BRAND" of hockey. Like the Jerseys we wear, it sets us apart and might be our selling point. 60 minutes of hockey, even counted as two games would stand to give players more time and equate to Ice hockey which we all know we compare ourselves to. But the two game format can be our own selling point. No 32 point Quebec Nordiques of the early 90's.