BUT MOMMY I WANNA TAP OVER THERE

Yeah, but one bell makes it a shorter if you are on the bell side of the court and longer if on the non-bell side. this gives you an arbitrary advantage or disadvantage depending on where you footdown. it also means that players from team A have an advantage when playing (say) positioned offensively (toward opponents goal) and B have an advantage when faced defensively.

(cont’d)
why not keep the court symmetrical?

its ok, doug, i know change is hard

i always thought of the dap and tap back in as punishment for going off your bike due to mainly your own bike skills not as a way for other players to check their way into goals. that kind of behavior is exactly what our game was about. i know for damn sure if i start getting checked off my bike every-time your around me, im going to return in kind. then we might as well play foot down

This might be a little weird to read, and it feels a little weird to write, but I’m completely with Doug on this one. All the points he makes are correct, in my mind. Enforcement of the ‘tap out at far point’ rule is never really going to happen to everyone’s satisfaction, we all know that. As for asymmetry, I know I personally think about where the tap-out point is every time I get into a one-on-one situation where I’m about to hit or get hit and there’s a possibility I’m going to dab. Calculate your risk. if you have a good line on someone in the corner far away from the bell and you think you can hit them clean and get away with your feet on the pedals, line ‘em up and smash them. If not, think twice about it and maybe try for a poke check or block a passing lane instead of delivering a body check.

As for ‘checking your way into goals’, I’ve always felt like body checking serves the same purpose in this game that it does in hockey: it’s not meant to hurt anyone or start a fight, it’s meant specifically to separate your opponent from the ball. That’s part of the reason checking away from the ball is considered bush league (and a penalty on the ice). Body checking needs to be allowed as a defensive play, but as we saw in Toronto, there is a line between physical play with clean checking and goonery. That line was crossed, and it doesn’t matter who crossed it, once it was crossed things went to shit in a hurry. Play with discipline!

i dont care about where the tap out is or how many there are. im just saying your game isnt the only way its played, and your way started not because you set down in committee and came up with the best way to play the game, its just what seemed to work for you. so lets not call people babys or soft cause the built this game a little different in their city. and i agree if you want to have check be a major part of the game then fine. but when the shit is on the line some of the hits are going to be more that just removal from the ball.

Two tapout points make sense, it’s not at all soft and at the very least has an equal number of benefits and detractions. One benefit it that it reduces the chance that a trip to the tapout will disrupt play, unintentional or otherwise. That “Oops. Did I jam you up on the way to the tapout?” shit is lame.

Then again, one tapout does make it easier to keep track of dabbers and I like that. I also like the potential for a longer removal period. One tapout point, for me, requires then a different rule:if you disrupt play on a tapout you’re out for 30 seconds. With that rule in place, I might be more inclined to vote for one tapout point.

ok ben s you made one point (not quite “equal number of benefits and detractions”), but really you just reworded what i said about it decreasing the time that a dabber is out of the play. This is not a good thing. Because then, why is it that we have a footdown rule in the first place? To take them out of play.
Also the fact that your “Oops. Did I jam you up on the way to the tapout?” example can and does still take place with two bells. Really what you’re talking about is the behaviour of players, not the real point here, and we should not make it easier/faster for them to play the ball again.
One tap out/bell does this, two works against this.

Get the sand out of the vajay-jay and tap in at ONE point!!

No no, I don’t know why I would’ve deleted this but I thought I had included in the second paragraph that one of the benefits of one tapout is the longer down time. So just for the record, I do like the fact that people are put out of play for a longer period of time. This is a good thing. One to put in the “benefit” section of the one tapout.

Still, two tapouts does reduce the need to cross the area of play, keeping dabbers to the side. But if you read what I wrote above, for me, one tapout is as desirable -for me- as anything else.

Also, when I mention an “equal number of benefits and detractions” but I only give an example, that is because it seems to me that with either variation there will inevitably be problems and rewards, not necessarily a better/worse scenario . That’s all.

::see most recent post under Foot to Ball Rule thread

Sand in the vajay-jay? Shit, I knew it– I joined a frat.