Community Football development thread

[Baltskandio]

How about formal and informal names for the sport, like Association Football and Soccer: Community Football and Target...

Community football code, usually shortened to community football, CFC, or informally Target from the characteristic pitch. I think you're on to something.

[Carmadin]

How about formal and informal names for the sport, like Association Football and Soccer: Community Football and Target...

Community football code, usually shortened to community football, CFC, or informally Target from the characteristic pitch. I think you're on to something.

I like it!

[The Babbage Islands]

Okay, I feel a rules-drafting itch. Please read carefully and comment, as I have incorporated some unvetted ideas and standardised some terms.

The Community Football Code, generally shortened to community football or CFC (and often called Target from the configuration of the pitch), is a field sport played by two teams of nine players each on a circular pitch 75 metres in diameter.

Object

The object for each team is to score more goals than the other team by legally sending a rugby football between two vertical goal posts and above the horizontal crossbar connecting them. Two goals are set diametrically opposite one another, with each team defending one goal and attempting to score through the other. (Option under consideration: Either team may score in either goal.)

Pitch

Three lines marked on the ground and two goals define the pitch.

The touch line is a circle 75 m in diameter.
The 18-metre line is a circle 39 m in diameter, 18 m from touch all round.
The centre circle is a circle 3 m in diameter.
(All of these circles have a common centre point.)

These lines define zones of play. The inner ring is the area within the 18 m line, including the centre circle. The outer ring is the area between the 18 m line and the touch line. The in-touch or out-of-bounds area is beyond the touch line. A player or ball touching the 18 m line is in the outer ring. A player or ball touching the touch line is in-touch or out-of-bounds.

Each goal has two vertical goal posts 8 m tall, spaced 6.5 m apart, connected by a horizontal crossbar 5 m above the ground. The centre points of each goal are 75 m apart and centred above the touch line; the goal posts are therefore in-touch or out-of-bounds.

Starts and restarts

The centre clrcle is used for starting play or restarting after interruptions. In a neutral start, one official blows a starting whistle blast and a second throws the ball up in the centre of the pitch. As the whistle blows two lifters for each side physically lift a third player, the centre, to compete for the ball. Only the centres of each team may touch the ball before it touches the ground.

Lifting the centre prematurely is a foul, as is pushing or pulling a lifter while their centre is being lifted from or held off the ground. Also, the ball must not be popped while the centre is off the ground. Each of these fouls awards the non-offending side a ground ball (below) within the centre circle.

Playing the ball

Players may freely run with, kick, fist-strike, or throw the ball. However, except in the act of relinquishing possession a player with possession of the ball must maintain it in both hands, in front of the body, and not touching any other part of the body. The principal means of challenging for such a held ball is "popping", where a defender attempts to strike the ball out of the attacker's hands.

A ball in the air is fair game for all. Incidental contact is not a foul, but deliberate contact is.

Fouls

Additional to the infractions listed for starts and restarts, it is a foul to:

• Kick at a ball touched by a player's hands, arms, or body above the waist.
• Intentionally make contact with another player.
• Endanger another player.
• Be the last player to contact the ball before it strikes the ground in-touch when a goal was not scored on the play.

Ground ball

Most fouls award the non-offending side a ground ball. This consists of one member of that side placing the ball on the ground anywhere within the centre circle. Except for the grounding player, all others must remain in the outer ring until the grounded ball is again touched by that player.

Warning and ejection

An official may, in addition to the ground ball awarded for a foul, sanction any player for dangerous, violent, or unsportsmanlike conduct. A sanction is made by displaying a yellow card (warning) or red card (ejection) to the offender. A warned player is sent off the pitch for two minutes, returning to play by entering the pitch between the goal posts that team is defending. An ejected player, including a player receiving a second warning in one match, is sent off the pitch for the balance of the match leaving that team one player short.

If a foul also resulted in a warning or ejection, the non-offending side may elect to take the ground ball at the point of the foul. In this case, except for the grounding player all others must remain in the ring that does not contain the ball and at least 5 m from it until the grounded ball is again touched by that player.

Scoring

A team scores a goal by legally playing the ball on the full, touching neither ground nor goal posts, between the vertical posts and above the crossbar. A goal from the outer ring scores one point, or two if scored by striking the ball with the closed fist (fist-striking). A goal from the outer ring scores three points.

[The Kiaser Colonies]

Great write up TBI. Here are some small thoughts though.

for a ground ball, does the going to the centre circle apply for every ground ball or can it just be put down where the foul was committed, if so there should be a defined distance a player must be away from the "grounder". also standing in the outer ring is a bit far in my view, what if it was just 10m back instead

also not a fan of only being able to score by fisting the ball over in the outer ring and kicking in the inner ring. allowing both in both zones would be better.

could it be legal to compete for the ball physically like catching, example a player kicks a 50-50 ball in the air and 2 players jump for it and its ok for the players to go up for the ball but if a player hits the opponent while hes in the air its illegal, like in rugby union. if that was legal we should clarify it.

[Wight]

Great write up TBI.

Agreed - nice one TBI.

for a ground ball, does the going to the centre circle apply for every ground ball or can it just be put down where the foul was committed, if so there should be a defined distance a player must be away from the "grounder". also standing in the outer ring is a bit far in my view, what if it was just 10m back instead

I like the idea that the team benefitting from the restart should have the choice - this way they may choose to keep a momentum going if the ball is grounded in a favourable position, or if they think they have a better chance from the 'set piece' of a central restart. Although I do like the possibilities that everyone else starts from quite a distance like the outer ring, this would really differentiate the options open to a team when taking the restart.

also not a fan of only being able to score by fisting the ball over in the outer ring and kicking in the inner ring. allowing both in both zones would be better.

I agree with TKC here.

could it be legal to compete for the ball physically like catching, example a player kicks a 50-50 ball in the air and 2 players jump for it and its ok for the players to go up for the ball but if a player hits the opponent while hes in the air its illegal, like in rugby union. if that was legal we should clarify it.

Sounds good, I would like to seem some physicality to the sport, similar level to Association football.

How about score values - are they variable depending on zone?

And are both sets of goalposts available to attack, or does a team defend one and attack one? For the record, I prefer the former.

[The Kiaser Colonies]

I would prefer that 1 goal is defended and 1 is attacked but if people want it to be otherwise. Plus it would make more sense with your suggestion of being able to choose where the ground ball can be taken from because if both goals were usable then there would be no point moving it to the middle. score values, something low enough. If we were to do zones (inner ring and outer ring could be the zones) then maybe 1 and 3.

[The Babbage Islands]

Thanks for the comments; we're starting to ask the right questions!

for a ground ball, does the going to the centre circle apply for every ground ball or can it just be put down where the foul was committed, if so there should be a defined distance a player must be away from the "grounder". also standing in the outer ring is a bit far in my view, what if it was just 10m back instead

I like the idea that the team benefitting from the restart should have the choice - this way they may choose to keep a momentum going if the ball is grounded in a favourable position, or if they think they have a better chance from the 'set piece' of a central restart. Although I do like the possibilities that everyone else starts from quite a distance like the outer ring, this would really differentiate the options open to a team when taking the restart.

I used the 18 m line both to make the rings functional in game terms and to gain the benefit Wight suggested, offering a lot of differentiation in set pieces.

Perhaps we give the non-offending side an option to take the ground ball at the site of the foul when a card is issued, all other players retiring to the other ring and at least 5 m from the ball?

also not a fan of only being able to score by fisting the ball over in the outer ring and kicking in the inner ring. allowing both in both zones would be better.

I agree with TKC here.

That's fine. I was just looking for another way to distinguish the rings. Consider this changed.

could it be legal to compete for the ball physically like catching, example a player kicks a 50-50 ball in the air and 2 players jump for it and its ok for the players to go up for the ball but if a player hits the opponent while hes in the air its illegal, like in rugby union. if that was legal we should clarify it.

Sounds good, I would like to seem some physicality to the sport, similar level to Association football.

A ball in the air should always be fair game, with incidental contact OK (and likely!) but deliberate contact a foul.

How about score values - are they variable depending on zone?

And are both sets of goalposts available to attack, or does a team defend one and attack one? For the record, I prefer the former.

Varying the score by ring is possible. How about two points from the outer ring and three from the inner? Or a simple one-two.

I am starting to like the idea of both goals being under attack by either team. Five metres up should be high enough to prevent goal-stealing by tipping the opponent's play toward a common goal.

---

Here's a proposed borrowing from netball that also helps with position differentiation, useful for rosters and RP.

Each of the nine players on each team is identified by a large letter on front and back of their uniform shirts:

C = centre. This player contests neutral starts.
L = lifter. Two lifters from each team lift the centre during neutral starts.
I = inner ring scorer. When this player scores a goal from the inner ring a bonus point is awarded.
O = outer ring scorer. When this player scores a goal from the outer ring a bonus point is awarded.
R = rover. Four rovers for each team have no speciality function.

Don't feel wedded to this system idea, run with it! Perhaps numbers for positions as in Gaelic football?

[The Babbage Islands]

I would prefer that 1 goal is defended and 1 is attacked but if people want it to be otherwise. Plus it would make more sense with your suggestion of being able to choose where the ground ball can be taken from because if both goals were usable then there would be no point moving it to the middle. score values, something low enough. If we were to do zones (inner ring and outer ring could be the zones) then maybe 1 and 3.

Missed this post while editing my big one. Are you suggesting one point for the inner ring and three for the outer ring?

For that matter, a general question -- how much harder or easier do we think it will be to score from one ring or the other?

And another -- how long is a match, and how high-scoring is that length of time likely to be?

And a third -- what provision do we make, if any, to break ties? (Even if ties are possible, some form of tiebreak still needs to be considered for cups.)

[The Kiaser Colonies]

I would prefer that 1 goal is defended and 1 is attacked but if people want it to be otherwise. Plus it would make more sense with your suggestion of being able to choose where the ground ball can be taken from because if both goals were usable then there would be no point moving it to the middle. score values, something low enough. If we were to do zones (inner ring and outer ring could be the zones) then maybe 1 and 3.

Missed this post while editing my big one. Are you suggesting one point for the inner ring and three for the outer ring?

For that matter, a general question -- how much harder or easier do we think it will be to score from one ring or the other?

And another -- how long is a match, and how high-scoring is that length of time likely to be?

And a third -- what provision do we make, if any, to break ties? (Even if ties are possible, some form of tiebreak still needs to be considered for cups.)

sorry mixed the rings up. outer ring 1, inner ring 3.

also by this↓

I = inner ring scorer. When this player scores a goal from the inner ring a bonus point is awarded.
O = outer ring scorer. When this player scores a goal from the outer ring a bonus point is awarded.

do you mean if they score in their respective rings they get extra points?

[Carmadin]

I would prefer that 1 goal is defended and 1 is attacked but if people want it to be otherwise. Plus it would make more sense with your suggestion of being able to choose where the ground ball can be taken from because if both goals were usable then there would be no point moving it to the middle. score values, something low enough. If we were to do zones (inner ring and outer ring could be the zones) then maybe 1 and 3.

Missed this post while editing my big one. Are you suggesting one point for the inner ring and three for the outer ring?

For that matter, a general question -- how much harder or easier do we think it will be to score from one ring or the other?

And another -- how long is a match, and how high-scoring is that length of time likely to be?

And a third -- what provision do we make, if any, to break ties? (Even if ties are possible, some form of tiebreak still needs to be considered for cups.)

1. One point for the inner and three for the outer sounds good, TBI did mention fist-striking, and while I don't agree with the way it was proposed (the only way to score in the outer ring), I think it could be used. How about 1 point for a kicked goal in the outer ring, 2 for a fist-struck goal, and three for the inner ring?

2. With distance, and in the heat of a game, I reckon it will be fairly difficult to get a good kick off, accurate and powerful, from 18-37 meters with players all around you trying to stop you. We could make it so the only way to score is drop-kicking, not punting

3. I was always assuming 2 halves of 45 minutes each. As for scores, I think about 15-20 goals, however they may be scored. Don't know for sure though.

4. Ties and draws, I think, are great, and should be possible. To break them, how about:

15 minutes of extra time (no golden goal). If that fails to break the tie, 5 kicks from the 18m line for each team. If the match is still tied, one-off kicks from the 18-meter until a team misses. This is close to the extra time-penalty kicks format for association football

[The Babbage Islands]

also by this↓

I = inner ring scorer. When this player scores a goal from the inner ring a bonus point is awarded.
O = outer ring scorer. When this player scores a goal from the outer ring a bonus point is awarded.

do you mean if they score in their respective rings they get extra points?

Yes, one extra point above the normal score.

For that matter, a general question -- how much harder or easier do we think it will be to score from one ring or the other?

And another -- how long is a match, and how high-scoring is that length of time likely to be?

And a third -- what provision do we make, if any, to break ties? (Even if ties are possible, some form of tiebreak still needs to be considered for cups.)

<snipped to separate one question from the rest>

2. With distance, and in the heat of a game, I reckon it will be fairly difficult to get a good kick off, accurate and powerful, from 18-37 meters with players all around you trying to stop you. We could make it so the only way to score is drop-kicking, not punting

3. I was always assuming 2 halves of 45 minutes each. As for scores, I think about 15-20 goals, however they may be scored. Don't know for sure though.

4. Ties and draws, I think, are great, and should be possible. To break them, how about:

15 minutes of extra time (no golden goal). If that fails to break the tie, 5 kicks from the 18m line for each team. If the match is still tied, one-off kicks from the 18-meter until a team misses. This is close to the extra time-penalty kicks format for association football

I like having all kicking options open. None will be easy save possibly from a ground ball restart.

One argument for a shorter play time in a modern invented sport is to have it fit television better. I was thinking three 15-minute periods with five-minute intervals, 55 minutes total makes a nice TV show.

Ties should only be broken, IMO, in a cup. Here's a suggestion that requires no extra play and leaves the official score tied. In order:

1. Winner of two of the three periods.
2. Winner of the third period.
3. Winner of the second period.
4. Scorer of the first goal of the match.
5. Away team.
6. Lots.

Note that we only get to lots in a 0-0 tie where neither team is considered away; in every other case there is a result determined on the ground. And 0-0 ties should be much less common in this sport than soccer.

[Wight]

I like the 55 minute idea, I think it's an excellent IC reason to be driven by TV and commercial demands, the way cricket is trying to reinvent itself for a younger audience with 20twenty, or however they write it.

I agree also that draws should be allowed for all but knockout cup competition. TBIs tie-breaker system is really intriguing. Certainly different, and again, prevents running over for TV scheduling. It's a departure from anything in RL football - so far as I'm aware - and that's a good thing. If I have one query - and it's a practical one - would it be relatively simple - or at least do-able - for a clever person like TBI or Commerce Heights to write a formula to cover this for xk or other scorinator?

[The Kiaser Colonies]

Here's a suggestion that requires no extra play and leaves the official score tied. In order:

1. Winner of two of the three periods.
2. Winner of the third period.
3. Winner of the second period.
4. Scorer of the first goal of the match.
5. Away team.
6. Lots.

Note that we only get to lots in a 0-0 tie where neither team is considered away; in every other case there is a result determined on the ground. And 0-0 ties should be much less common in this sport than soccer.

This goes back to the Finnish baseball system that was axed a while ago. i prefer carmadins extra time method

[The Babbage Islands]

This goes back to the Finnish baseball system that was axed a while ago. i prefer carmadins extra time method

Actually, it doesn't, except on the surface. It's inspired by Open University research and brainstorming on alternatives to kicks from the mark in association football. I'll dig up the link and post it.

EDIT: Here's a link to the website connected to the research. There is also an abstract online of the resultant scholarly paper.

[The Babbage Islands]

I like the 55 minute idea, I think it's an excellent IC reason to be driven by TV and commercial demands, the way cricket is trying to reinvent itself for a younger audience with 20twenty, or however they write it.

I agree also that draws should be allowed for all but knockout cup competition. TBIs tie-breaker system is really intriguing. Certainly different, and again, prevents running over for TV scheduling. It's a departure from anything in RL football - so far as I'm aware - and that's a good thing. If I have one query - and it's a practical one - would it be relatively simple - or at least do-able - for a clever person like TBI or Commerce Heights to write a formula to cover this for xk or other scorinator?

It would be trivial to add this to Miscellanator, which does scores by period routinely. I think it would also be tweakable in xkoranate.

[North Franklin]

This caught my attention and thought I'd jump in.

I was curious as to how big you guys envision the ball being. Because if we're allowing forwards passing, anything smaller than a rugby ball would be fairly easy to just heave two times downfield and be at the goalposts (i.e. American Football).

I think punting should be available at least for the inner two circles. As previously stated, kicking accurately from those distances will be hard enough without having to drop kick.

I would lean towards an overtime period, just because I know a lot of people will cheer for games to go long, just because it's that popular. It also adds that extra excitement. I do think draws should be possible in non-cup games.

Other than that, I just hope this goes well. It's looking really cool so far.

[The Babbage Islands]

This caught my attention and thought I'd jump in.

I was curious as to how big you guys envision the ball being. Because if we're allowing forwards passing, anything smaller than a rugby ball would be fairly easy to just heave two times downfield and be at the goalposts (i.e. American Football).

I think punting should be available at least for the inner two circles. As previously stated, kicking accurately from those distances will be hard enough without having to drop kick.

I would lean towards an overtime period, just because I know a lot of people will cheer for games to go long, just because it's that popular. It also adds that extra excitement. I do think draws should be possible in non-cup games.

Other than that, I just hope this goes well. It's looking really cool so far.

Welcome to NS, North Franklin! FYI, a standard-size rugby football appears to be the ball of choice.

I think it's looking really cool, too, don't hesitate to jump in and add your thoughts. There are a lot of individual contributions blended into the current mix, and questions still being answered.

[The Babbage Islands]

I've posted the initial NSwiki page for Community football. It will be an easier resource to edit as we polish things.

[The Kiaser Colonies]

Nice one TBI.

[The Babbage Islands]

We appear to have five current main points on which to reach agreement:

1. Goals. Should each team defend one goal and attack the other, or may both teams score through both goals?

2. Duration. Should a match have two 45-minute halves or three 15-minute periods? (The first is the match length in association football. The second posits that with two five-minute intervals the resulting 55-minute game is optimised for television.)

3. Scoring. It seems agreed that a goal from the outer ring scores 1 point, and a goal from the inner ring 3 points.

3a. Should an outer-ring goal be increased to two points for a fist-strike?

3b. Should each team have an identified inner scorer and outer scorer who earn a bonus point each time they score a goal from their assigned ring?

4. Tiebreaks. It seems agreed that ties/draws are normally left unbroken. In cup situations or others where a decisive result must be obtained, two elaborated alternatives have been presented:

• Extra time plus kicks. One extra time period of 15 minutes, followed if needed by five kicks per team from the 18 m line, followed if needed by one kick per team from the 18 m line repeated until a result is reached.
• Award based on match events. Award the match to the team with the better score in two of three periods, then the team that won the third period, then the team that won the second period, then the team that scored the first goal, then the away team, then lots. The official match score remains equal.

---

One more possible issue for discussion is substitutions. How many players are available for interchange, and how freely may they be used?

[The Kiaser Colonies]

1. defend one goal and attack the other
2. three 15-minute periods
3. a) no. b) no.
4. Extra time plus kicks

[Wight]

1. I feel both goals should be open to attack, but perhaps teams have to alternate which goal is live for them. So, teams start by attacking opposite ends, but at times, like after the first goal, they may be attacking the same end. I think this encourages more complex play.

2. 55 minute game for me.

3. No to both from me, I think.

4. I like the second option. I disagree that it is like Finnish Baseball - the match result, goals / points scored is still the primary driving force, and late comebacks are still possible. But with the system described by TBI, there are all sorts of interesting tactical RP opportunities for cup games headed for a tie. The only bit I don't like is the drawing of lots, I think if it comes to this, then a sudden-death penalty shoot-out of some description - minimising overrun time, would be better.

And thanks again to TBI for consummate organisation what with the wiki and this latest bit!

I would like to talk substitutes at some stage when these bits are agreed.

[The Babbage Islands]

1. I like the idea of both goals being open. I also like Wight's new modification of requiring a team to score in alternating goals--and would suggest a tweak in that both goals are open to both teams at the start of each period, and a first score then triggers alternation for the balance of the period. On the other hand, I am also okay with a traditional attacking end/defending end motif. Colour me undecided.

2. 55 minutes.

3a and 3b. The more I look at these the less well they hold up. Leave it simple, 1 for the outer ring and 3 for the inner.

4. I still like the idea of determining the result by what happened on the pitch without resort to extra time. A possible solution to Wight's concern with the extremely rare draw of lots is a convention that one team is always designated as home and the other away, by organisers if the ground is neutral. Then lots are eliminated, and both teams always know up front that a scoreless draw goes to team X. Since our best estimate is an average of 7-10 goals per match, this won't matter often at all.

Another possibility is to drop extra time entirely and start with the kicks from 18 m as outlined by Carmadin. Use only three per side instead of five for the initial kicks, otherwise follow his plan.

Finally, I agree that substitutes can/should wait until the other bits are finished off.

[The Babbage Islands]

Apologies for seeming to monopolise the thread at the moment; I'm on a creative roll with time to see it through.

Here are sample results from a first version of community football scorination for xkoranate. This 60-match sample was set to disallow draws. It marks the tiebreak winner with a simple + and preserves the score as a tie.

Since no one seems uncomfortable with Carmadin's estimates of 15-20 goals average per match based on 90 minutes of play time, this first version is built on the Footballer formula (which I know well ) using a mean of 8.75 goals per match (half Carmadin's figure for the current favourite 45 minutes of play time) and a standard deviation of 2.00. It also guesses that seven goals in ten are from the outer ring near the goals.

If anyone has a different feeling about these assumptions, please share.

Team 9 17–1 Team 12
Team 10 4–11 Team 7
Team 8 10–3 Team 11
Team 4 6–5 Team 1
Team 6 3–10 Team 2
Team 3 5–14 Team 5
Team 8 6–5 Team 2
Team 1 7–8 Team 10
Team 6 13–5 Team 12
Team 7 11–2 Team 9
Team 4 4–5 Team 5
Team 11 0–11 Team 3
Team 1 18–0 Team 8
Team 11 5–11 Team 6
Team 3 13–2 Team 7
Team 2 12–5 Team 4
Team 9 3–13 Team 5
Team 12 2–11 Team 10
Team 11 4–11 Team 8
Team 12 3–22 Team 9
Team 7 5–7 Team 5
Team 2 6–9 Team 6
Team 4 9–11 Team 3
Team 10 2–9 Team 1
Team 3 3–16 Team 6
Team 2 5–4 Team 10
Team 8 12–7 Team 7
Team 9 6–10 Team 1
Team 12 1–14 Team 4
Team 5 15–4 Team 11
Team 9 6–5 Team 8
Team 11 10–13 Team 7
Team 3 10–5 Team 10
Team 12 1–8 Team 4
Team 2 +7–7 Team 6
Team 5 8–11 Team 1
Team 5 12–2 Team 11
Team 9 10–8 Team 8
Team 3 15–10 Team 10
Team 7 7–6 Team 4
Team 6 10–1 Team 12
Team 1 14–6 Team 2
Team 8 7–4 Team 2
Team 7 10–3 Team 10
Team 11 1–12 Team 6
Team 1 7–8 Team 9
Team 5 5–6 Team 4
Team 3 10–3 Team 12
Team 4 12–3 Team 8
Team 7 15–6 Team 9
Team 1 7–7+ Team 5
Team 2 11–1 Team 12
Team 6 6–7 Team 3
Team 10 12–5 Team 11
Team 11 9–5 Team 7
Team 6 6–9 Team 4
Team 1 11–2 Team 10
Team 2 9–2 Team 3
Team 12 5–8 Team 5
Team 9 10–7 Team 8

[Bears Armed]

2. Duration. Should a match have two 45-minute halves or three 15-minute periods? (The first is the match length in association football. The second posits that with two five-minute intervals the resulting 55-minute game is optimised for television.)

"It's a game of three halves."

If this is being "optimised for television" then will the intended teams consist of young women in fairly scanty kit?



If we can get the rules finalised and at least one international tournament held before the Summer Olympics start, how about trying to publicise this game (IC as well as OOC) by getting as many nations as possible to nominate it as a 'demonstration' event for those?