Guidelines for development of dodgeball rules
To determine the direction in which the sport develops and how it is played, the community and those elected to represent it (such as officials of the WDBF or other dodgeball organizations) must formalize a set of fundamental goals. In this text I aim to formalize a few such goals, which one can rely on when developing and refining the rules (this is not exhaustive, and I’d be happy if you would suggest changes or additions to these goals). Each goal is associated with a few questions one must pose oneself in order to gauge the effect that the rule has on how the game is played, which will guide the development of dodgeball in general.
The purpose of this is to provide a system for rational and concrete discussions when developing the rules. I decided to develop and publish such a system because I feel that the way that rules are changed and implemented often has more to do with politics and subjective thoughts than with rationality that improves the sport long term. Although some political influences might be warranted, and sometimes inescapable, this system should at least allow rule committees to approach the discussions in a way that fosters factual and transparent discussions.
This post first outlines the framework for this system; what is included and how it should be used. It then presents an example of such implementation. After that, each of the goals are presented in more depth.
Overall framework for rule development
Fundamental goals
The goals and their respective core ideas are listed here, and presented in separate subheadings below in more depth.
Simplicity Rules should be straightforward and avoid unnecessary complexity
Fair Play & Cheating Outcomes should reflect skill, not dishonest conduct
Spectators Enhance watchability and engagement
Inclusivity & Accessibility Encourage broad participation across ages, abilities, genders, etc.
Safety & Well-being Minimize preventable injuries, create secure play environment
Applicability Across Levels Unified experience from amateur to pro, with flexibility for local contexts
Skill Emphasize player and team skills such as strategy, technique, physical ability
Randomness Limit arbitrary factors to maximize skill-based outcomes
Progressive Development Adapt to new technologies, officiating methods, and public interest
Rule implementation and review process
A image below suggests a general approach for the work of a rule committee.
The following are the individual mechanisms by which the system works and particular considerations that need to be made. Before new rules are introduced or old ones adapted, one should perform proper review using this system.
Relation to goals
List pros and cons of each rule, as they pertain to each goal, by asking a set of standardized questions. These are listed below for each goal, but not exhaustively.
Contradictions
If any of the fundamental goals go against each other, one has to determine both which is more important and how strong the impact is. For example, a rule might be slightly more likely to increase cheating - with fair play being the most important goal for many - but is only implemented very rarely having little actual impact, while the same rule makes the game much more fun for spectators to watch. Overall the rule implementation could be favored to be implemented. The importance is that this is discussed openly and clearly, a rationale is given for the conclusion, and that it is documented transparently.
If a rule change negatively affects one goal, and another positively, which is more important?
Also consider the frequency and/or strength of the effect on each goal.
After weighing the rule importance against the impact, which is preferred?
Clarity
Consider how the rules are worded, fostering clarity rather than ambiguity. Rules should be clearly stated, and interpreted the same across the globe and between referees.
Is the rule easy to understand?
Can it be interpreted in different ways?
Transparency
Proposals, discussions, arguments for and against, and whether there are any political/subjective influences should be documented transparently and objectively. The documentation should be publicly available. A public digital forum should be used, where the entire dodgeball community can be informed. Commentary functions can be activated for certain individuals, such as national team managers (see feedback below). If the community knows and understands the argumentation, they are more inclined to trust and support the rule revisions.
Can the community follow the discussions and reasoning behind the rule changes?
Feedback
A hierarchical means of communication should be put in place to allow feedback from the community to the rule committees. For example, committee members get feedback from national team managers, who get feedback from club managers, who get feedback from players. At each step in the hierarchy one decides which feedback is relevant and should be passed on (potentially with mechanisms to submit to a higher level or another person at the same level if one deems the declined suggestion unwarranted, for example through formal collaborations between teams). Interested players can follow the public forum and choose to engage through this route of communication.
When a suggestion is clearly political or subjective, such as when it might benefit a particular group, federation or region, one should formally request wider feedback from within the community (rather than just passively and by personal interest as mentioned above). For example by requesting feedback from national team managers.
Can the rule committee gain relevant feedback from the community?
Does the nature of the rule suggestion imply a potential conflict of interest? In that case, the committee should consider formally requesting feedback from certain parts of the community?
Data collection
Decide on the feasibility of gathering data to inform discussions and decisions. Data can be qualitative (feedback from the community) or quantitative (such as rates of injury leading to proposal of a rule change for minimizing such risk).
Is it possible to gather data or feedback on this rule prior to discussions in the rule committee? See pilot testing below and feedback above.
Pilot testing
If feasible, new rules or adaptations of old ones should be tested in a real life setting. If possible, testing should be performed at various levels. Potential rule changes can be spread to beta testers (players interested in rule development) that implement rules on local practices and give feedback using this system.
Can this new or modified rule be tested safely and at the right level without compromising competitions?
Regular review
Committees should schedule periodic reviews of all rules to keep them relevant. For example, any time a rule has been discussed and either updated or not, the date should be noted, and any rule not discussed in the last 4 years should be scheduled for discussion.
Has this rule been reviewed recently? If not, consider revision.
Example of implementation of the system
The example below illustrates how this system should be used to assess a potential rule change, document the discussions transparently, and propose a conclusion regarding whether the rule should be implemented or not, and with what potential adaptations. The transparent documentation allows for feedback to be gathered easily and widely from the community.
Rule suggestion
Increase match length from 20 to 40 minutes (20+20 minute halftimes instead of 10+10 minutes).
Simplicity Simple and clear rule, without obvious ambiguity of wording.
Fair play and cheating No clear association except perhaps more opportunities for referees and post-game analyses to identify repeating dishonest tendencies.
Inclusivity and accessibility Longer matches are more physically demanding, particularly during tournaments with multiple matches, potentially requiring alternative rules (i.e. shorter matches) for those with disabilities.
Spectators Longer matches are more engaging (at least going from 20 to 40 minutes), especially for single matches but perhaps less so for long tournaments. Diminishing returns likely not occurring until after 60 min or more (considering handball, basketball and football all last longer and keep audiences engaged).
Safety and well-being Increased injury risk with longer matches, both due to longer exposure to movement but also increased fatigue. Risk is almost completely mitigated by improved conditioning, which motivates improved training methods. However, care should still be taken for tournament formats; a potential alternative would be shorter matches for group stages (which are more likely to be uneven and therefore decided much sooner), and longer matches in the knock-out stages (this would slightly increase randomness in the group stages).
Applicability across levels Amateurs may not have the conditioning and smaller clubs may not have the squad depth to perform at a high level for longer matches, particularly during tournaments. Shorter matches might be more adequate for recreational players.
Skill Longer matches incentivize improved physical conditioning, and players with high mental stamina that are able to perform consistently for longer periods without losing focus. It also emphasizes squad depth as a team-wise “skill”, as teams with few good players are not able to rotate and rest as much.
Randomness Decreases randomness because the longer matches increase the number of exchanges in the game, which leads to more stable outcomes, favoring better teams.
Progressive development The rule does not impose any identifiable future limitations and the match length can be changed again without interfering with other rules. It is easy to suggest alternative or optional match lengths for specific situations. It would be easy and safe to test at various levels before widespread implementation.
Summary
There are no clear limitations to implementing the rule. Except for favoring larger teams and nations with greater squad depths (a positive aspect for skill, but some national teams currently have small communities to draw national team talent from, but this will be less of a problem in the future at the professional level when dodgeball has grown and nations have hundreds or thousands of club members), there are no obvious political or subjective influences as it would impact everyone equally. It would have marked positive effects on limiting randomness, promoting development of physical conditioning and mental stamina and players with such skills, and it would improve engagement for spectators. However, alternative rules with shorter match lengths (such as 10-20 minute matches) should be considered for longer tournaments (perhaps even in group stages at professional tournaments for some time to limit the above mentioned current issue of small dodgeball communities in some nations), particularly for amateur levels, youth divisions and players with disabilities.
The fundamental goals
Simplicity
Core principle
The rules should be straightforward to interpret, enforce and communicate. Reducing unnecessary complexity fosters better understanding among players, referees and spectators.
Why it matters
The sport is more accessible when the rules are simple, both for newcomers and for spectators. Fewer ambiguities in the rulebook help referees make consistent calls, which enhances fairness. There needs to be a balance between complexity (to differentiate skill) and simplicity (for ease of understanding and implementation).
Key considerations
Rule complexity Complicated rules can be harder to officiate, leading to errors and/or cheating opportunities. They can also create unintended loopholes that can be exploited.
Terminology Consistent and unambiguous language is crucial, and the terminology should be universally defined and used.
Questions for rule development
Can this rule be difficult to understand or officiate, in relation to the implications it has on gameplay?
Is there a simpler rule that has the same, or a similar, effect on gameplay?
Can the rule be phrased or structured in a simpler way without losing essential details?
How will referees and players learn and implement the rule?
Is there room for ambiguity or subjective interpretation? Can the rule be interpreted in different ways?
Fair play and cheating
Core principle
Dishonest conduct should be disincentivized. The game’s outcomes should reflect skill and strategy rather than dishonest conduct or rule manipulation.
Why it matters
Clear and consistently enforceable rules, as well as a sense of fairness preserve the integrity of the sport, make refereeing easier and limit potential intrigues during matches. Visible, repeated cheating demoralizes honest players, diminishes the value of competition and undermines the integrity of the sport. A clear example is finger blocking in the foam category, which is extremely difficult to officiate, and dishonest players have a strong advantage.
Key considerations
Referee training Well-trained referees can better recognize and enforce rules, and discourage cheating. As the sport grows and more referees are being certified, rules could be implemented to require certain certifications to officiate professional tournaments.
Penalties Penalties for cheating should match the severity (repetition and impact on the game; should be given higher importance since it is easier to judge) and intent of the offence (lower importance since it is difficult to judge and prove). Repeated and deliberate cheating that has greater effects on game outcomes should be handled more severely.
Clarity of penalization It should be clearly stated what counts as cheating or a penalizing offence, so that players can avoid unintentional violations. For example, the rules of conduct (rule 13 section 2 under EDF rules) must be updated to reflect this since they are highly ambiguous and currently imply multiple infractions by multiple players in almost all matches. Furthermore, the responsibility of the referee must be increased or at least specified; as the above rule is currently formulated and applied, a player that is hit and doesn’t leave the court is penalized, even if a referee sees the hit (and the player sees and relies on this information) and doesn’t call the player out.
Questions for rule development
Is this rule difficult to officiate?
Is it easy to cheat this rule, or are there any gray areas or loopholes for exploitation?
Does this rule increase or decrease the opportunities for dishonest conduct?
Inclusivity and accessibility
Core principle
Encourage participation from people of varying ages, genders, physical abilities and backgrounds. There should be no formal hindrances for newcomers to try the sport, or current players to continue practicing and competing.
Why it matters
A broader player base grows the sport’s popularity. Welcoming rules foster a positive social impact.
Key considerations
Inclusive formats Rules should not present limitations for specific body types or athletic backgrounds. Consider adapted, simplified or additional rules to facilitate divisions for youth and players with disabilities. If possible, rules should also try to promote informal ways of fostering inclusivity and accessibility (however, this is difficult to assess).
Financial accessibility Minimize cost-prohibitive measures in rules to allow participation irrespective of skill levels, organization sizes or financial means.
Questions for rule development
Does the rule limit broader participation, and in what form?
If it hinders younger players, players from marginalized groups or those with special needs, how can it be adapted?
Does this rule force the use of equipment that is expensive or difficult to acquire?
If it does, consider an alternative rule, adapting the rule, or making it optional.
Spectators
Core principle
Attract and retain an audience by making the game engaging, understandable, and entertaining.
Why it matters
A dynamic and thrilling sport attracts more spectators, which drives viewership, leads to sponsorship and broader media coverage. A strong spectator base contributes to the sport’s financial viability and the broader acceptance of dodgeball.
Key considerations
Clarity Rule complexity can confuse audiences and reduce enjoyment.
Excitement High-action moments, such as clutch catches or rapid-fire exchanges, keep spectators engaged. Ensure adequate pace and flow of the game, minimizing stoppages that disrupt rhythm and viewer engagement. For example, by limiting timeouts or protests and arguments between teams.
Questions for rule development
Does this rule enhance or hinder the overall excitement of watching dodgeball?
Does this rule make dodgeball easier or more difficult to watch and understand?
Does it do so at a certain level - amateur or professional?
Does it do so for certain viewers - non-dodgeball fans, amateurs or professionals?
Safety and well-being
Core principle
Rules should protect athletes from preventable injuries and create an environment where players of all levels feel secure.
Why it matters
Fewer injuries ensure long-term participation and help the sport’s reputation. A high injury rate can deter both newcomers and current players, and damage the sport’s public image. Injury prevention and feelings of security should be within reasonable limits, as this is not completely avoidable for any sport.
Key considerations
Equipment standards Consistent ball pressure, material, and size can help reduce injuries.
Contact rules Clear boundaries for allowable contact to protect players.
Tradeoff between gameplay and safety Rules should allow for varied styles of play without a relatively high risk of injury or other negative health effects.
Referee power Referees should have the authority to intervene if a situation becomes unsafe.
Questions for rule development
Is this rule associated with an increased or decreased risk of injury or other negative health outcomes?
Can this rule have a positive or negative effect on risk of injury or other aspects of health regarding how training for dodgeball is carried out?
Applicability across levels
Core principle
Ensure the sport is enjoyable and meaningful from casual leagues to professional tournaments.
Why it matters
A unified rule set helps the sport grow consistently, and should encourage skill development across skill levels. The rules should make dodgeball fun and skill-based for both amateur and professional players. Encouraging amateur participation fosters grassroots growth and talent development. Consistent rules simplify training and movement from amateur to professional levels.
Key considerations
Scalability Rules should scale according to ability. Some advanced rules or expensive equipment may be optional at lower levels (such as advanced shot-clock technology). One could consider making a 2 tier rule-book, with few and simple rules for amateur leagues, and complete rules for international tournaments.
Also, consider alternative, more lenient rules for casual leagues to foster wider and easier implementation. For example, requiring 3+3 of each sex for mixed divisions in professional tournaments, but allowing 4+2 in casual leagues (where it might be difficult to find enough players to fill a squad).
Barrier to entry Avoid implementing rules that might be impractical for local clubs, such as requiring specialized or expensive equipment or technology.
Rule alternatives If a rule is not scalable, it should be developed with professional play in mind, and be implemented as an alternative or optional rule for the amateur level (to be used at the discretion of local clubs/tournaments).
Questions for rule development
Does it pose a limitation for amateurs (too difficult) or professional players (limiting skill)?
If so, could this rule be changed (adapted or optional) for lower level events without undermining gameplay?
Skill
Core principle
The rules should reward strategy, technique, and physical ability.
Why it matters
Encouraging a higher skill-ceiling leads to better competition, more compelling games, and pushes the sport’s evolution. The deeper the skill set required, the longer the development curve and the wider the spread in abilities from amateur to professional, further incentivizing players to train and improve. Differentiating skill sets helps create a rich tactical environment, and rules should acknowledge and support a variety of physical and mental skills.
In some situations one will inevitably have to decide which skill to prioritize, which is a political/subjective decision and should be acknowledged as such. For example, the distance between the baseline and neutral zone line will determine the relative importance of throwing and multi-ball attacking (greater if farther away) and dodging/blocking and single-ball attacking (greater if closer), and there is no objective reason for choosing one over the other.
Key considerations
Skill spectrum Identify the essential dodgeball skills and check how each rule amplifies or reduces each skill.
Individual skills such as throwing, dodging, blocking, agility, speed/explosiveness, tactical knowledge, teamwork, communication, time-keeping, ball-counting, as well as team-wise “skills” such as squad depth, throw synchronization, strategic skill and adaptability, etc.
Skill differentiation Rules should help truly skilled players and teams win matches, rather than random factors deciding outcomes.
Proportional penalties Proportional penalties directly impact the value placed on core dodgeball skills. Unbalanced penalties shift the focus away from such skills and instead rewards behaviors associated with evading punishment or mitigating risk. Similarly, penalties that are too lenient may incentivize behaviors that detract from skill-based outcomes.
The penalty for an infringement should be roughly equal - or slightly stronger to act as a deterrent - to the advantage gained. This ensures a deterrent effect without imposing excessively harsh outcomes. If an infringement could yield only a small advantage the penalty should not be so severe that it undermines fair competition. Conversely, if the infringement could drastically affect match outcomes, a stronger penalty is required to discourage deliberate infractions or cheating.
For example, a false start is more likely to give you the third ball and attacking advantage, but the punishment of giving the opponents 5 balls means that the potential of gaining 3 balls rather than 2 instead instead gives you 0 balls and an almost certain loss of one or two players. A rather strong penalty for a difference of 2 vs 3 balls. Perhaps giving away a 4-ball possession at the start of the set would be more proportional, especially considering how easy it is to gain or give away advantage of the third ball throughout the rest of the set, and how little that difference impacts differences in conversion rates.
Questions for rule development
Is this rule good at differentiating good from bad players?
Which skills does it foster and which does it hinder?
Does it help skilled players stand out and win games, or does it simplify the game to luck?
How does the rule affect the balance between offence and defence, or other tactical aspects?
Does the penalty deter offences without being excessively punitive?
Is the penalty for this rule roughly proportional to the competitive advantage gained by the infringing team?
Randomness
Core principle
Randomness should be limited in order to foster and emphasize skill. The primary source of unpredictability should be player performance, decision-making and execution, not ambiguous rule interpretations or arbitrary conditions, such as how individual referees interpret rules or count time for play-ball.
Why it matters
Randomness can undermine players’ confidence in a fair outcome and limits the association between skill and winning. Consistent and predictable rules and officiating let teams devise tactics and execute strategies effectively.
Key considerations
Clear timing mechanisms A rigid shot clock, or at least a defined time between events, and match timer reduces subjective variability and decisions by referees. For example, the recent increase in match length from 20 to 40 minutes decreases randomness (because there are more exchanges, which limits variability of outcomes).
As another example, WDBF rule 17.2.2. should be changed so that a ball must be released within 5 seconds for “play ball” not to be called, rather than it being at the referees discretion to decide when an attempt was made (often being interpreted as meaning that an attack was initiated, despite rule 17.2.3. clearly indicating it should be 5 seconds to throw a ball), which is associated with unacceptable variability between referees and tournaments, and undermines tactical skills that involve time-keeping and set planning. Referees at professional tournaments should be encouraged to use shot clock technology for more consistent officiating.
Limiting accidental occurrences Events that are not skill based should be limited. For example, double hits can be skill-based since players may choose to throw at opponents that are close to each other, and have good enough aim to do so. However, the recent rule change that was implemented at the World Championships in Edmonton allowing pop-up catches to save all previously hit players undermines skill since the initial hits do not count, despite the thrower making one or more valid hits prior to the catch. Deeming the ball inactive after the first hit to limit double hits (as in the first example) would undermine skill, while allowing pop-up catches to save previously hit players (as in the second example) increases randomness and undermines skill.
Limiting referee influence Rules must be designed to minimize subjective interpretations and clearly define offences to ensure consistent enforcement across matches and referees. Variability in officiating should never influence game outcomes. If it is possible to formulate two rules with similar effects on gameplay, and one may be associated with higher variability between referees, the other should be implemented.
Questions for rule development
Does the rule increase or decrease unnecessary randomness?
Is the outcome within the rule associated with skill or luck?
Can referees apply the rule uniformly, or is there room for subjective interpretation?
If so, how can the rule be changed or formulated to limit this risk?
Could (or does, in the case of revision of existing rule) the enforcement of this rule vary significantly between referees or regions?
Progressive development
Core principle
Ensure the sport can adapt to future changes in technology, officiating methods, and public interest.
Why it matters
The longevity of the sport depends on being open to innovation, such as new officiating technology or competition formats.
Key considerations
Future proofing Although it is difficult to predict future developments, one should be mindful about legislating against future developments. For example, implementing rules that prohibit the use of certain technologies (such as future implementation of VAR), or limiting the recording to 1 camera per court (affecting spectator experience and broadcasting potential).
Questions for rule development
Does this rule impose any identifiable or direct limitations on future developments in terms of technology, officiating or competition formats?
Can this new or modified rule be tested safely and at the right level without compromising competitions?
Concluding remarks
Since I started playing dodgeball I have been strongly involved, mentally and emotionally, in rule changes and development. Sometimes I have been frustrated by rule changes that seem to be proposed or implemented without proper analysis of its effects on the game. What might seem like a good rule change for one situation might end up negatively affecting the game in many more. I have seen several examples of this in the 6 years I have been playing dodgeball, and it has been frustrating to say the least. I’m sure the rule committees across various dodgeball organizations strive to work objectively and systematically, and almost unequivocally wish the best for the sport, but I also know that such work is difficult and requires robust systems to be in place and the individuals that are part of such committees to have extensive playing experience at various levels, having thought about rules and tactics deeply both during training and competition.
Working with development of any kind requires systematization, careful reasoning, and solid data to inform such reasoning. It is not much different from the scientific method, the training of which requires a PhD of several years, but with the additional caveat of having much wider applications than just one or two research questions. In order to properly develop rules for a global sport one should optimally have a PhD, organizational experience from leading multiple teams of employees or team members, and have years of experience of playing the sport at both amateur and professional levels. I hear my mom screaming from the living room that I’m that guy, and yes, this system is my contribution to the rule committees across the world.
Since I developed this system during an hour-long car ride and spent another two hours writing it all down, it is far from being complete or refined, and I plan on improving it iteratively as I get feedback. I’d love to discuss it and get feedback from the community; in particular from those who are part of various rule committees. The goals for development of the sport, and how to go about fulfilling them, mentioned in this text obviously need to be decided at a world level, and I will submit them upwards in the hierarchy at the WDBF for formal discussions and definition (although I’m sure it has already been discussed at some point in one way or another). Some of the goals have already been formalized in various documents and guidelines (in “mission and objectives” in the WDBF by-laws and its policies, including the medical guidelines I’ve been part of developing in the role of Medical Director for the World Dodgeball Federation), so it’s not like I’m reinventing the wheel, but rather initiating formalization of those goals in one place. Failure to consider all goals when developing rules will almost certainly have unintended negative consequences, as mentioned in the introduction.
There is one main take-home message for rule committees. I urge them to be transparent through documentation of their argumentation and decisions, and to request feedback from the community as part of rule revisions.
If you feel any goals in this text should be adapted or amended, let me know. Just as dodgeball evolves, so should these meta-guidelines for rule-making…