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)...