2 point shot taken off the table for 2019 SSN season

Home Forum Australia 2 point shot taken off the table for 2019 SSN season

This topic contains 29 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by  NetballNerd Dec 6, 2018 at 8:53 am.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1182384
    Ian
    • Posts: 14520

    Member since:
    Feb 3, 2007

    #1182388
    netballcrazy1
    • Posts: 1854

    Member since:
    Oct 31, 2015

    I like the manager who was interviewed in this, he is unbiased and seems to have his head screwed on the right way. He understands the time it would take to make such changes and how to weigh up the effects it cn have

    #1182400
    amandalouise
    • Posts: 298

    Member since:
    Feb 4, 2007

    That’s my Christmas present taken care of! If only it could be take off forever.

    #1182657
    Rebound1977
    • Posts: 101

    Member since:
    Aug 26, 2017

    So pleased to hear this – maybe I am just a traditionalist but multi-point shots belong in Fast-5 and should stay there.

    #1182659
    NettySuperFan
    • Posts: 1028

    Member since:
    Mar 11, 2018

    So pleased to hear this – maybe I am just a traditionalist but multi-point shots belong in Fast-5 and should stay there.

    I agree, I enjoy watching Fast5 but only as an ‘off-season’ game and one that is slightly less serious and competitive. But if they bring in a 2 point shot, then next it will be adding a backboard to the ring, then the players can move with the ball while they bounce it. I like watching netball because its netball, not basketball!

    #1182663
    Ian
    • Posts: 14520

    Member since:
    Feb 3, 2007

    Surely they need to do something though. We need to look at something. Some sort of rule change. Otherwise, in the future, every single team will have at least one, if not two ridiculously tall shooters and nobody will take a shot further than a metre from the ring. People complained about the way Tippett played this year, but with the rules as they are, she was only being smart. There is no incentive at all to shoot from any sort of distance. In fact there’s a real disincentive. They need to come up with something to change that.

    #1182667
    NettySuperFan
    • Posts: 1028

    Member since:
    Mar 11, 2018

    Surely they need to do something though. We need to look at something. Some sort of rule change. Otherwise, in the future, every single team will have at least one, if not two ridiculously tall shooters and nobody will take a shot further than a metre from the ring. People complained about the way Tippett played this year, but with the rules as they are, she was only being smart. There is no incentive at all to shoot from any sort of distance. In fact there’s a real disincentive. They need to come up with something to change that.

    That is a really great point. Personally, I still find this version of netball entertaining and can appreciate the sport for what it is, but I can understand that if netball wants to increase in popularity, the current format may not be exciting enough to attract new viewers. I just hope that there is a massive peak in viewership next year so the committee don’t feel the need to ‘make it more exciting’.

    #1182672
    caribou
    • Posts: 559

    Member since:
    Nov 12, 2010

    Surely they need to do something though. We need to look at something. Some sort of rule change. Otherwise, in the future, every single team will have at least one, if not two ridiculously tall shooters and nobody will take a shot further than a metre from the ring. People complained about the way Tippett played this year, but with the rules as they are, she was only being smart. There is no incentive at all to shoot from any sort of distance. In fact there’s a real disincentive. They need to come up with something to change that.

    Don’t disagree, but whatever it is the Powers that Be need to be very sure that they are clear about the problem is that they want to solve, and be sure their solution addresses it directly. If the problem they want to fix is too many shots from close in, then mark a 1 or 1.5 or 2m ‘close zone’ around the post and ban shots from there. Or all shots except penalties. Or only allow shooters 2 seconds instead of 3 if they’re in the ‘close’ zone. Or change the replay rule to prevent shooters rebounding their own shots. Or limit the time players can be in the ‘close’ zone without the ball. Or…

    But whatever they do, if they absolutely must do something, make sure the solution isn’t worse than the problem, or that luck is more highly rewarded than skill.

    #1182680
    netballcrazy1
    • Posts: 1854

    Member since:
    Oct 31, 2015

    Surely they need to do something though. We need to look at something. Some sort of rule change. Otherwise, in the future, every single team will have at least one, if not two ridiculously tall shooters and nobody will take a shot further than a metre from the ring. People complained about the way Tippett played this year, but with the rules as they are, she was only being smart. There is no incentive at all to shoot from any sort of distance. In fact there’s a real disincentive. They need to come up with something to change that.

    Don’t disagree, but whatever it is the Powers that Be need to be very sure that they are clear about the problem is that they want to solve, and be sure their solution addresses it directly. If the problem they want to fix is too many shots from close in, then mark a 1 or 1.5 or 2m ‘close zone’ around the post and ban shots from there. Or all shots except penalties. Or only allow shooters 2 seconds instead of 3 if they’re in the ‘close’ zone. Or change the replay rule to prevent shooters rebounding their own shots. Or limit the time players can be in the ‘close’ zone without the ball. Or…

    But whatever they do, if they absolutely must do something, make sure the solution isn’t worse than the problem, or that luck is more highly rewarded than skill.

    Totally agree regarding rule changes about where shots are taken or how many seconds are given to close range shooters or even the rebounding one, they are very inventive and I wish SSN would look at less major changes like the ones you have suggested, maybe write the new comittee an email. Much better solution than having a two-point shot because it is still possible to win a game by taking lots of quick 1 point shots

    #1182685
    Ian
    • Posts: 14520

    Member since:
    Feb 3, 2007

    Surely they need to do something though. We need to look at something. Some sort of rule change. Otherwise, in the future, every single team will have at least one, if not two ridiculously tall shooters and nobody will take a shot further than a metre from the ring. People complained about the way Tippett played this year, but with the rules as they are, she was only being smart. There is no incentive at all to shoot from any sort of distance. In fact there’s a real disincentive. They need to come up with something to change that.

    Don’t disagree, but whatever it is the Powers that Be need to be very sure that they are clear about the problem is that they want to solve, and be sure their solution addresses it directly. If the problem they want to fix is too many shots from close in, then mark a 1 or 1.5 or 2m ‘close zone’ around the post and ban shots from there. Or all shots except penalties. Or only allow shooters 2 seconds instead of 3 if they’re in the ‘close’ zone. Or change the replay rule to prevent shooters rebounding their own shots. Or limit the time players can be in the ‘close’ zone without the ball. Or…

    But whatever they do, if they absolutely must do something, make sure the solution isn’t worse than the problem, or that luck is more highly rewarded than skill.

    Yeah, some of those things you mentioned are ideas similar to what I’ve had. All I want is for them to at least think about it and not just say that it’s either a 2 point shot or it’s no change at all.

    #1182689
    triton
    • Posts: 1111

    Member since:
    Jul 23, 2014

    Or change the replay rule to prevent shooters rebounding their own shots.

    That one definitely. They can rebound, but then only pass, not shoot.

    #1182690
    netballcrazy1
    • Posts: 1854

    Member since:
    Oct 31, 2015

    Or change the replay rule to prevent shooters rebounding their own shots.

    That one definitely. They can rebound, but then only pass, not shoot.

    When people here can find better solutions or be more open-minded then the people being paid to make our game attractive to a larger audience, it makes me think what they spend half their time doing. I genuinely believe that people here should submit their ideas as solutions to the ‘problem’ to the SSN newly formed committee.

    #1182694
    CharlesWB
    • Posts: 1071

    Member since:
    Jan 2, 2017

    Are shots from close in a problem or undesirable? Not sure I agree with that premise. The team skills needed to get the ball to the close in shooter can be amazing to watch, and what about the lay-up? Don’t think anyone thinks that’s boring, although I know some “purists” get their knickers in a twist about it.

    BUT . . . if it is undesirable, then something like a no-go zone 1 metre radius from the post would be an agreeable way around it.

    It must be remembered that any rule changes to SSN will not be a part of international rules, so we don’t want the Diamonds playing under vastly different (tactically speaking) rules at home and internationally.

    #1182699
    Ian
    • Posts: 14520

    Member since:
    Feb 3, 2007

    I don’t think there’s a problem with close shots. Yes it does take skill to get in that position. But I do think there’s a problem if it happens ALL the time! And if the rules of the game mean there is really no incentive to do something different.

    #1182745
    Jbss
    • Posts: 683

    Member since:
    Nov 3, 2017

    There’ll always be a place for accurate long bombers, they have just as much tactical value as a tall holding shooter because they force defenders to play differently to how they normally do and to defend the whole circle rather than just one small area. I don’t want to see less time for a shot to be taken from up close. This is why umpire representation is important because they actually have to enforce these new rules. I do however want to see shooters penalised for all the held balls. Its not start counting and if they haven’t shot in three seconds give them one more and then blow the whistle nor is it start counting once they face the post or let them wait for the defenders to lose balance and then shoot. Aiken, Wood, Philip, Thwaites are some that come to mind, nothing against these players of course but I think this interpretation favours them on occasion and what’s the point of a defender putting in all that work if it doesn’t matter because the shooter will just get to wait or they’ll be called for obstruction on the last second and the shooter gets another three.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.