johnmd20 said:
Why, though? You need to explain why this would suck. Does it suck more when it happens at the 20 minute mark or is that the break of the clock? Any clock. And if this time limit applies to both teams, and the rules are spelled out clearly, why is it a problem? I think having one team playing on an advantageous side for longer is a bigger deal than having one team who might have a breakaway stopped by the clock.
because it just applies to this game. the rule itself makes sense: they're playing outdoors. there are natural elements (sun, wind, snow; you name it), so they should switch ends for the sake of fairness. totally get that. but adding a set timed stoppage is unique only to this and the other outdoor games. you're introducing a rule relative to clock management, which effectively makes this a game of six regulation 10 minute periods and two sudden-death 2:30 periods.
sure, it sucks at the 20 minute mark, but that's in line with the rules of the game. the game is played over three periods, not six. in choosing between the two, i'd rather they not interfere with the flow of a 20-minute period if it means a team gets another minute or two in one direction of the ice.
only analogy i can think of, although it's a looser one since it's far more arbitrary, is in soccer, where the referee can, but rarely, stops stoppage time during an attack, versus waiting until a play is effectively dead before blowing the whistle.
(sorry to divert the thread with this; it's an interesting conversation).
edit: i just remembered that soccer does have something like this. in the extremely hot matches (so, weather-related), referees can introduce cool down stoppages ("water breaks"). i forget how they're implemented though.
