The current definition of "spinning" is ridiculous. It's true, the very thing so integral to the game's core is also one of the most complicated and nonsensical rules I can find in the rulebooks currently. I mean, take a look at the rule where it currently stands today.

Spinning
A Beyblade is still considered to be spinning as long as it is visibly rotating to any degree along the axis running directly through the center of the Beyblade faster than the rotation along the stadium floor in the same direction it was launched in.

A complete full rotation around this axis is not needed to be considered spinning. Rotation along the stadium floor alone is considered ‘rolling’ and is therefore no longer considered to be spinning.

Some Beyblades have parts that allow the upper half to continue rotating after the bottom half has stopped; these are still considered to be spinning. If a Beyblade starts spinning again after it has stopped, the round does not resume.

Let's break this thing down and try to cut down the chaff, shall we? There's just so much unnecessary stuff in this rule, and I'll try to break it down point by point why:

• It's too technically minded. Kids aren't really going to understand the rule well, and it perhaps tries too hard to define something that is simple enough to understand without going that in-depth.
  
• The "complete full rotation" bit is unneeded fluff.
  
• "Rolling" is a confusing added restriction that doesn't really fit natural behavior well, and actually creates a ton of unintended side-effects.
  

Simplifying and removing the fluff isn't hard, and the third paragraph is by and large fine already, but it's this rolling bit that really makes things problematic. Not only is it still a bit unclear what defines "rolling along the stadium floor alone", but you can usually accomplish this while still spinning along the axis the same direction it was launched in, a.k.a. still visibly spinning... but you're officially rolling instead and maybe haven't even faced an opponent at all. That's weird enough as it is, but it's not even the meat of the issues, where we find ourselves with three larger points to consider.

• "Rolling" is almost impossible to prove at high speeds
  
• "Rolling" happens naturally to non-spinning Flat-based drivers all the time
  
• "Rolling" cannot naturally happen to free-spinning drivers without rolling on the disk or layer.
  

To the first point, look at Dread Vertical. Sure, it's an anime move, but it illustrates the purpose perfectly. Technically Dread Vertical is still spinning while it's moving... up until the point where the layer is no longer accelerating on the stadium floor. At that point it's "rotating along the stadium floor alone", no longer accelerating or moving as a result of its own power. This itself becomes a definition of "rolling" when the outer edge of the bey is no longer providing acceleration by stadium contact. In other words, if it isn't slipping on the ground it isn't spinning anymore because it's started a roll. Issue is, at high speeds there's no way to tell if it's slipping or not and therefore it's impossible to enforce this rule at high speeds. You'd have to go frame by frame with slow motion video to even try, and does anyone really want to do that to call a spin finish at 1000 RPM? It's ridiculous, but technically possible to stop spinning and start rolling at ludicrous speeds, and that's a problem.

To the second point, we look back to the first. Using that definition above flats like Xtreme do this frequently, moving as fast as they can with their grip to the point where their horizontal speed matches their rotational velocity at the widest point of their flat tip. By their very nature, Flat-based tips that don't free-spin like Volcanic and Hold will always "roll" at their maximum speed. Of course this is once again a ridiculous call to make, and would make these tips basically unusable if we enforced "rolling" the way we're supposed to.

To the third, we actually have to look at the final paragraph where it says that free-spinning parts don't count towards whether a bey is spinning or rolling. Let's be honest, this rule is necessary or else free-spinning parts that stop from friction would count the entire bey out for the count if they ever grind to a halt on the floor, which you wouldn't really be able to see or enforce anyways. However, this means that the only way these beys can roll is if they do so by riding on a disk or a part of the layer (or, for something like Orbit, an external guard piece of the driver that doesn't free-spin), which of course gives them an advantage. It's not a huge point, but technically a thing of note.


With all this being said, I'd suggest that we cut this rule down to its core, both to make it more obvious what "spinning" is and to ensure that it doesn't cause any more confusion with this needless and self-defeating "rolling" definition that's both impossible to really enforce properly and honestly just makes pure Attack impossible if you tried to enforce it. Thusly, I'd suggest following the WBBA's definition closer to both simplify the rule and ensure that it's easier to enforce properly. That would probably look a lot more like this:

A Beyblade is considered to be spinning while it is visibly rotating in the direction it was launched in. Freely spinning parts of the bey are ignored in regards to this, and the bey is still considered spinning while the rest of the top continues to visibly rotate for beys using such parts. If a Beyblade starts spinning again after stopping, the round does not resume as the match is already over.

This is a far simpler definition, avoids all that nonsense "rolling" creates, still allows for free-spinning drivers to work as they should, and still gives clarification that you can't restart a match by picking up spin again. Far easier to judge and discern, drops all the "rolling" confusion and all the technicalities that creates, and makes it so much easier to explain to the children that are playing on top of it. Seems like a big win to me all-around.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

I would be in favor of a simpler definition.

The current definition of "spinning" is ridiculous. It's true, the very thing so integral to the game's core is also one of the most complicated and nonsensical rules I can find in the rulebooks currently. I mean, take a look at the rule where it currently stands today.

Spinning
A Beyblade is still considered to be spinning as long as it is visibly rotating to any degree along the axis running directly through the center of the Beyblade faster than the rotation along the stadium floor in the same direction it was launched in.

A complete full rotation around this axis is not needed to be considered spinning. Rotation along the stadium floor alone is considered ‘rolling’ and is therefore no longer considered to be spinning.

Some Beyblades have parts that allow the upper half to continue rotating after the bottom half has stopped; these are still considered to be spinning. If a Beyblade starts spinning again after it has stopped, the round does not resume.

Let's break this thing down and try to cut down the chaff, shall we? There's just so much unnecessary stuff in this rule, and I'll try to break it down point by point why:

• It's too technically minded. Kids aren't really going to understand the rule well, and it perhaps tries too hard to define something that is simple enough to understand without going that in-depth.
  
• The "complete full rotation" bit is unneeded fluff.
  
• "Rolling" is a confusing added restriction that doesn't really fit natural behavior well, and actually creates a ton of unintended side-effects.
  

Simplifying and removing the fluff isn't hard, and the third paragraph is by and large fine already, but it's this rolling bit that really makes things problematic. Not only is it still a bit unclear what defines "rolling along the stadium floor alone", but you can usually accomplish this while still spinning along the axis the same direction it was launched in, a.k.a. still visibly spinning... but you're officially rolling instead and maybe haven't even faced an opponent at all. That's weird enough as it is, but it's not even the meat of the issues, where we find ourselves with three larger points to consider.

• "Rolling" is almost impossible to prove at high speeds
  
• "Rolling" happens naturally to non-spinning Flat-based drivers all the time
  
• "Rolling" cannot naturally happen to free-spinning drivers without rolling on the disk or layer.
  

To the first point, look at Dread Vertical. Sure, it's an anime move, but it illustrates the purpose perfectly. Technically Dread Vertical is still spinning while it's moving... up until the point where the layer is no longer accelerating on the stadium floor. At that point it's "rotating along the stadium floor alone", no longer accelerating or moving as a result of its own power. This itself becomes a definition of "rolling" when the outer edge of the bey is no longer providing acceleration by stadium contact. In other words, if it isn't slipping on the ground it isn't spinning anymore because it's started a roll. Issue is, at high speeds there's no way to tell if it's slipping or not and therefore it's impossible to enforce this rule at high speeds. You'd have to go frame by frame with slow motion video to even try, and does anyone really want to do that to call a spin finish at 1000 RPM? It's ridiculous, but technically possible to stop spinning and start rolling at ludicrous speeds, and that's a problem.

To the second point, we look back to the first. Using that definition above flats like Xtreme do this frequently, moving as fast as they can with their grip to the point where their horizontal speed matches their rotational velocity at the widest point of their flat tip. By their very nature, Flat-based tips that don't free-spin like Volcanic and Hold will always "roll" at their maximum speed. Of course this is once again a ridiculous call to make, and would make these tips basically unusable if we enforced "rolling" the way we're supposed to.

To the third, we actually have to look at the final paragraph where it says that free-spinning parts don't count towards whether a bey is spinning or rolling. Let's be honest, this rule is necessary or else free-spinning parts that stop from friction would count the entire bey out for the count if they ever grind to a halt on the floor, which you wouldn't really be able to see or enforce anyways. However, this means that the only way these beys can roll is if they do so by riding on a disk or a part of the layer (or, for something like Orbit, an external guard piece of the driver that doesn't free-spin), which of course gives them an advantage. It's not a huge point, but technically a thing of note.


With all this being said, I'd suggest that we cut this rule down to its core, both to make it more obvious what "spinning" is and to ensure that it doesn't cause any more confusion with this needless and self-defeating "rolling" definition that's both impossible to really enforce properly and honestly just makes pure Attack impossible if you tried to enforce it. Thusly, I'd suggest following the WBBA's definition closer to both simplify the rule and ensure that it's easier to enforce properly. That would probably look a lot more like this:

A Beyblade is considered to be spinning while it is visibly rotating in the direction it was launched in. Freely spinning parts of the bey are ignored in regards to this, and the bey is still considered spinning while the rest of the top continues to visibly rotate for beys using such parts. If a Beyblade starts spinning again after stopping, the round does not resume as the match is already over.

This is a far simpler definition, avoids all that nonsense "rolling" creates, still allows for free-spinning drivers to work as they should, and still gives clarification that you can't restart a match by picking up spin again. Far easier to judge and discern, drops all the "rolling" confusion and all the technicalities that creates, and makes it so much easier to explain to the children that are playing on top of it. Seems like a big win to me all-around.

I get where you’re coming from, but most rulebooks appear to be overly complicated and technical. Have you ever read the official Pokémon rulebook? Yikes!

What’s most important to me as a Beyblade parent is that judges and hosts understand these technicalities in the rules and can explain them in a simpler way to players, and thankfully I have seen that multiple times in tournaments, with this rule being one I’ve specifically seen explained. In the Carolinas we have judges who really seem to understand that players enjoying the game is the point, especially for newer, younger kids. They keep the rules to the letter, but explain the difference between rolling and spinning. 

When I read technical rules like this, I think about all of the “but what about…” possibilities that judges face during matches. This rule covers everything that could possibly come up, so I’m fine with it staying as is. Just my 2 cents.

When this beyblade is initially launched, would you calling  rolling?  Is it rolling like a wheel would roll down the street?  

https://youtube.com/shorts/AdYmjFEDf0Y?feature=share

This is a legal launch in the WBO when I last checked.  You can see that it is implied in this thread that this is a legal launch. 

https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-“Dread-...ar-quickly

Is this rolling or spinning?

I looked up spin and roll:

When this beyblade is initially launched, would you calling  rolling?  Is it rolling like a wheel would roll down the street?  

https://youtube.com/shorts/AdYmjFEDf0Y?feature=share

This is a legal launch in the WBO when I last checked.  You can see that it is implied in this thread that this is a legal launch. 

https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-“Dread-...ar-quickly

Is this rolling or spinning?

I looked up spin and roll:

This video actually frames the question really well. That Beyblade is both rolling AND spinning, because the top is revolving on its axis AND rolling on the stadium floor. So a Beyblade can legally be both. It cannot, however, be rolling while it is no longer spinning.

When this beyblade is initially launched, would you calling  rolling?  Is it rolling like a wheel would roll down the street?  

https://youtube.com/shorts/AdYmjFEDf0Y?feature=share

This is a legal launch in the WBO when I last checked.  You can see that it is implied in this thread that this is a legal launch. 

https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-“Dread-...ar-quickly

Is this rolling or spinning?

I looked up spin and roll:

This video actually frames the question really well. That Beyblade is both rolling AND spinning, because the top is revolving on its axis AND rolling on the stadium floor. So a Beyblade can legally be both. It cannot, however, be rolling while it is no longer spinning.

Would you say the beyblade is rotating along the axis running directly through the center of the Beyblade faster than the rotation along the stadium floor?

This video actually frames the question really well. That Beyblade is both rolling AND spinning, because the top is revolving on its axis AND rolling on the stadium floor. So a Beyblade can legally be both. It cannot, however, be rolling while it is no longer spinning.

Would you say the beyblade is rotating along the axis running directly through the center of the Beyblade faster than the rotation along the stadium floor?

That’s a GREAT question, because it looks like in launches like these the spinning is identical to the rolling. That would serve to require an update to the rule that would further complicate it. The roll rule was implemented to clarify stamina finishes, but doesn’t address this launch directly (at least not yet).

Deleted post.

Thank you, MagikHorse, your rewrite is a massive improvement over the current rules. As they stand now, the spinning/rolling distinction is bizarre and is really a solution in search of a problem. It's confusing, difficult or impossible to enforce, and doesn't serve a meaningful purpose in gameplay. It's a prime candidate for simplification.

---

Threads and combos!

Spoiler (Click to View)

[LTD] MF Jade Horogium 85RSF
[LTD] RB / RSF Attack
[LTD] Ronin Genbull (Crystal Up) 85RF
MF-H Phantom (Attack) Cancer 85RB
MSF-H Wyvang Ifraid GB145RF {Alternative to Wyvang^2 with more Upper Attack}
MSF-H Genbull Genbull 85RSF {Improved version of the above Phantom combo}
Balro Begirados 100RF {LTAC with both Upper Smash and regular Smash}
[LTD] MF-H Lightning L-Drago 85RB {more controllable Lightning LTAC}
[LTD] Burn Orion 105SF {Destabilizer}

What’s most important to me as a Beyblade parent is that judges and hosts understand these technicalities in the rules and can explain them in a simpler way to players, and thankfully I have seen that multiple times in tournaments, with this rule being one I’ve specifically seen explained. In the Carolinas we have judges who really seem to understand that players enjoying the game is the point, especially for newer, younger kids. They keep the rules to the letter, but explain the difference between rolling and spinning. 

When I read technical rules like this, I think about all of the “but what about…” possibilities that judges face during matches. This rule covers everything that could possibly come up, so I’m fine with it staying as is. Just my 2 cents.

I don't think you read through my post correctly. By the current rules, a bey can either be spinning or rolling. Once a Beyblade starts rolling, it is no longer considered to be spinning. This means that, unlike the dictionary definitions, "rolling" and "spinning" are mutually exclusive in the WBO rulebook, so even if it's still rotating around its central axis it doesn't matter as soon as it reaches a state where it loses traction from any edge that isn't dead center. then it starts to roll and the match is over with no chance to try and recover.

Thus my issue is that this... just doesn't work. Nobody judges that way. Nobody wants to judge that way. It essentially would mean that you could not use most of the tips in the game that don't have a sharp central spike to sit on and not move, as everything else can accelerate off the edge of the tip and will start "rolling" when it reaches full speed. There are tips entirely based around doing what the WBO rulebooks define as "rolling", and yet if we actually followed the letter of the rules they should be impossible to use.

This doesn't "cover everything that could come up", it ends up actually crippling what should be possible if we actually follow the letter of the rule. In that essence it's become a rule we can't enforce to keep the game healthy, because the moment we do the entire Attack type dies completely and the entire semblance of game balance is lost. You can't remove rock from Rock Paper Scissors and expect there to be no consequences, but yet rubber flats like Xtreme that are critical to maximizing Attack power "roll" on their edges, and because rolling and spinning are exclusive this means they've actually gotten off away from the rules by not being called a loser by spin finish the very moment they reach their top speeds. Does "a top reaching its full speed" seem like a spin-out to you? By WBO rules, it is because of "rolling". Thus, the biggest of the issues it creates.

Why should we not try to simplify a rule that is unclear even to many judges (not everyone really understands things here)? There are times when judges will disagree, and not every judge is equally skilled. That's fine, people are people and we can't force them to judge a certain way. If not all of them can understand this rule, it's a problem. Same thing applies to explaining it to participants or others, not all are content to just let the judge do their work. Some must absolutely know why, and if the rule is too complicated that means they will not be satisfied and continue to be a problem for likely the remainder of the tournament. Some people are like that. We can't change their behavior, but we can make the rule easy enough to understand so that they don't get confused and maybe stop bothering the active judges over it.

The tl;dr is that the rule is too complicated for judges to actually understand well, that it hasn't been enforced to the letter because doing so is actually insane and goes against proper play for any sort of flat tip. It's not fun to launch and one second be called out for a spin finish just because you started "rolling" because your tip has so much grip, is it? That's why I want this revamped, not because it's too complicated alone but partially because this is actually an impossible definition to follow if we intend to play the game correctly. It doesn't clarify LAD finishes at all, the fact that things that are "rolling" are also still "spinning" proves that, but instead it ruins everything else and makes the rule unenforceable in its current iteration if we want even a semblance of fun.

And yes, every single judge and organizer has been using this rule wrong since it was added because I guarantee you nobody has called a flat tip out on a spin finish a second after launch after hitting top speed. Yeah... it's technicalities like that I can't get over.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

The current definition of "spinning" is ridiculous. It's true, the very thing so integral to the game's core is also one of the most complicated and nonsensical rules I can find in the rulebooks currently. I mean, take a look at the rule where it currently stands today.

Spinning
A Beyblade is still considered to be spinning as long as it is visibly rotating to any degree along the axis running directly through the center of the Beyblade faster than the rotation along the stadium floor in the same direction it was launched in.

A complete full rotation around this axis is not needed to be considered spinning. Rotation along the stadium floor alone is considered ‘rolling’ and is therefore no longer considered to be spinning.

Some Beyblades have parts that allow the upper half to continue rotating after the bottom half has stopped; these are still considered to be spinning. If a Beyblade starts spinning again after it has stopped, the round does not resume.

Let's break this thing down and try to cut down the chaff, shall we? There's just so much unnecessary stuff in this rule, and I'll try to break it down point by point why:

• It's too technically minded. Kids aren't really going to understand the rule well, and it perhaps tries too hard to define something that is simple enough to understand without going that in-depth.
  
• The "complete full rotation" bit is unneeded fluff.
  
• "Rolling" is a confusing added restriction that doesn't really fit natural behavior well, and actually creates a ton of unintended side-effects.
  

Simplifying and removing the fluff isn't hard, and the third paragraph is by and large fine already, but it's this rolling bit that really makes things problematic. Not only is it still a bit unclear what defines "rolling along the stadium floor alone", but you can usually accomplish this while still spinning along the axis the same direction it was launched in, a.k.a. still visibly spinning... but you're officially rolling instead and maybe haven't even faced an opponent at all. That's weird enough as it is, but it's not even the meat of the issues, where we find ourselves with three larger points to consider.

• "Rolling" is almost impossible to prove at high speeds
  
• "Rolling" happens naturally to non-spinning Flat-based drivers all the time
  
• "Rolling" cannot naturally happen to free-spinning drivers without rolling on the disk or layer.
  

To the first point, look at Dread Vertical. Sure, it's an anime move, but it illustrates the purpose perfectly. Technically Dread Vertical is still spinning while it's moving... up until the point where the layer is no longer accelerating on the stadium floor. At that point it's "rotating along the stadium floor alone", no longer accelerating or moving as a result of its own power. This itself becomes a definition of "rolling" when the outer edge of the bey is no longer providing acceleration by stadium contact. In other words, if it isn't slipping on the ground it isn't spinning anymore because it's started a roll. Issue is, at high speeds there's no way to tell if it's slipping or not and therefore it's impossible to enforce this rule at high speeds. You'd have to go frame by frame with slow motion video to even try, and does anyone really want to do that to call a spin finish at 1000 RPM? It's ridiculous, but technically possible to stop spinning and start rolling at ludicrous speeds, and that's a problem.

To the second point, we look back to the first. Using that definition above flats like Xtreme do this frequently, moving as fast as they can with their grip to the point where their horizontal speed matches their rotational velocity at the widest point of their flat tip. By their very nature, Flat-based tips that don't free-spin like Volcanic and Hold will always "roll" at their maximum speed. Of course this is once again a ridiculous call to make, and would make these tips basically unusable if we enforced "rolling" the way we're supposed to.

To the third, we actually have to look at the final paragraph where it says that free-spinning parts don't count towards whether a bey is spinning or rolling. Let's be honest, this rule is necessary or else free-spinning parts that stop from friction would count the entire bey out for the count if they ever grind to a halt on the floor, which you wouldn't really be able to see or enforce anyways. However, this means that the only way these beys can roll is if they do so by riding on a disk or a part of the layer (or, for something like Orbit, an external guard piece of the driver that doesn't free-spin), which of course gives them an advantage. It's not a huge point, but technically a thing of note.


With all this being said, I'd suggest that we cut this rule down to its core, both to make it more obvious what "spinning" is and to ensure that it doesn't cause any more confusion with this needless and self-defeating "rolling" definition that's both impossible to really enforce properly and honestly just makes pure Attack impossible if you tried to enforce it. Thusly, I'd suggest following the WBBA's definition closer to both simplify the rule and ensure that it's easier to enforce properly. That would probably look a lot more like this:

A Beyblade is considered to be spinning while it is visibly rotating in the direction it was launched in. Freely spinning parts of the bey are ignored in regards to this, and the bey is still considered spinning while the rest of the top continues to visibly rotate for beys using such parts. If a Beyblade starts spinning again after stopping, the round does not resume as the match is already over.

This is a far simpler definition, avoids all that nonsense "rolling" creates, still allows for free-spinning drivers to work as they should, and still gives clarification that you can't restart a match by picking up spin again. Far easier to judge and discern, drops all the "rolling" confusion and all the technicalities that creates, and makes it so much easier to explain to the children that are playing on top of it. Seems like a big win to me all-around.

In my first tournament I was battling and my opponents bey stopped moving but then it started spinning again and I lost and I was really confused why when his bey technically stopped, also the staff should make a poll for this to see what the community thinks

The current definition of "spinning" is ridiculous. It's true, the very thing so integral to the game's core is also one of the most complicated and nonsensical rules I can find in the rulebooks currently. I mean, take a look at the rule where it currently stands today.

Let's break this thing down and try to cut down the chaff, shall we? There's just so much unnecessary stuff in this rule, and I'll try to break it down point by point why:

• It's too technically minded. Kids aren't really going to understand the rule well, and it perhaps tries too hard to define something that is simple enough to understand without going that in-depth.
  
• The "complete full rotation" bit is unneeded fluff.
  
• "Rolling" is a confusing added restriction that doesn't really fit natural behavior well, and actually creates a ton of unintended side-effects.
  

Simplifying and removing the fluff isn't hard, and the third paragraph is by and large fine already, but it's this rolling bit that really makes things problematic. Not only is it still a bit unclear what defines "rolling along the stadium floor alone", but you can usually accomplish this while still spinning along the axis the same direction it was launched in, a.k.a. still visibly spinning... but you're officially rolling instead and maybe haven't even faced an opponent at all. That's weird enough as it is, but it's not even the meat of the issues, where we find ourselves with three larger points to consider.

• "Rolling" is almost impossible to prove at high speeds
  
• "Rolling" happens naturally to non-spinning Flat-based drivers all the time
  
• "Rolling" cannot naturally happen to free-spinning drivers without rolling on the disk or layer.
  

To the first point, look at Dread Vertical. Sure, it's an anime move, but it illustrates the purpose perfectly. Technically Dread Vertical is still spinning while it's moving... up until the point where the layer is no longer accelerating on the stadium floor. At that point it's "rotating along the stadium floor alone", no longer accelerating or moving as a result of its own power. This itself becomes a definition of "rolling" when the outer edge of the bey is no longer providing acceleration by stadium contact. In other words, if it isn't slipping on the ground it isn't spinning anymore because it's started a roll. Issue is, at high speeds there's no way to tell if it's slipping or not and therefore it's impossible to enforce this rule at high speeds. You'd have to go frame by frame with slow motion video to even try, and does anyone really want to do that to call a spin finish at 1000 RPM? It's ridiculous, but technically possible to stop spinning and start rolling at ludicrous speeds, and that's a problem.

To the second point, we look back to the first. Using that definition above flats like Xtreme do this frequently, moving as fast as they can with their grip to the point where their horizontal speed matches their rotational velocity at the widest point of their flat tip. By their very nature, Flat-based tips that don't free-spin like Volcanic and Hold will always "roll" at their maximum speed. Of course this is once again a ridiculous call to make, and would make these tips basically unusable if we enforced "rolling" the way we're supposed to.

To the third, we actually have to look at the final paragraph where it says that free-spinning parts don't count towards whether a bey is spinning or rolling. Let's be honest, this rule is necessary or else free-spinning parts that stop from friction would count the entire bey out for the count if they ever grind to a halt on the floor, which you wouldn't really be able to see or enforce anyways. However, this means that the only way these beys can roll is if they do so by riding on a disk or a part of the layer (or, for something like Orbit, an external guard piece of the driver that doesn't free-spin), which of course gives them an advantage. It's not a huge point, but technically a thing of note.


With all this being said, I'd suggest that we cut this rule down to its core, both to make it more obvious what "spinning" is and to ensure that it doesn't cause any more confusion with this needless and self-defeating "rolling" definition that's both impossible to really enforce properly and honestly just makes pure Attack impossible if you tried to enforce it. Thusly, I'd suggest following the WBBA's definition closer to both simplify the rule and ensure that it's easier to enforce properly. That would probably look a lot more like this:


This is a far simpler definition, avoids all that nonsense "rolling" creates, still allows for free-spinning drivers to work as they should, and still gives clarification that you can't restart a match by picking up spin again. Far easier to judge and discern, drops all the "rolling" confusion and all the technicalities that creates, and makes it so much easier to explain to the children that are playing on top of it. Seems like a big win to me all-around.

In my first tournament I was battling and my opponents bey stopped moving but then it started spinning again and I lost and I was really confused why when his bey technically stopped, also the staff should make a poll for this to see what the community thinks

I'm not sure a poll should be needed when the current definition can break the game this thoroughly. As I said, tips like Xtreme' technically roll by the WBO definition, and are sort of unusable. I see a redefinition as more and more mandatory the longer I look at it, because the current one is that unworkable for it's purpose.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

I've spoken about this before but yeah that rule is bizarre, like it almost feels like something very specific happened and the rule was done just for that one situation? I dunno, but it makes little sense and makes judging even harder.

Excellent explanation of the flaws, and good rewrite.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I've spoken about this before but yeah that rule is bizarre, like it almost feels like something very specific happened and the rule was done just for that one situation? I dunno, but it makes little sense and makes judging even harder.

Excellent explanation of the flaws, and good rewrite.

Honestly not sure what exactly what would happen to result in a rule like that to begin with. Unless there was some egregious abuse of "spinning" at one point I can't make sense if it as an inclusion, especially since a "roll" is effectively "something spinning on something else" to begin with. Tires can't roll without spinning. Bouncy balls can't roll without spinning on an axis either. Why then do we use "rolling" to define a non-spinning state, and why bother to say the stadium can affect every other aspect of the game but not a "roll"?

It just makes no sense to me. The fact that the actual results of "rolling" are so commonplace and yet so impossible to judge makes me think they didn't think it through all the way. Nobody's perfect, but if enforced properly it becomes totally unusable and I don't like that and feel it needs to be strongly reconsidered.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

I consider a bey spinning if it is spinning on an axis that makes the layer also spin.
I consider a bey rolling if it's central layer axis isn't spinning anymore. But the bey is still moving
Dread Vertical is still spinning because I don't care that much about the floor, as long as the layer is spinning, it is good for me.
.
Let's pretend Dread Gyro doesn't have the layer spin, but instead it is only the side axis. Because with the spin it is Rolling and Spinning at the same time.
An example of rolling according to what I believe it is would be Dread Gyro. It is a very extreme example, but it is also easy to understand: Dread Gyro is a special move from Dread Bahamut, even tho it is very hard if not impossible to do irl, it shows a perfect example of rolling by my definition. It isn't spinning on an axis that makes the layer spin the way it should, instead it spins on the layer and makes it spin like a coin.
.
Although we don't have Dread Gyro irl, we do have another good example, HyperSphere tips:
They spin surely, but when the bey runs out of steam (and always when being launched alone on some tips) it leans the the driver side and "spin". What they actually do is change the axis to a point where the layer is not spinning, but instead moving by the imaginary perimeter of the imaginary circle that it creates while rolling.
Technically they are still spinning, but not on the correct way to count as spinning.
.
At the end of the day, I'm not an expert on beyblade. But that's what I believe is each thing.
Using my definition, I think the rule becomes more clear. But hey, that might just be me and my wierd way of thinking.

---

That would also explain why free spin tips aren't affected, because they don't let it become rolling by losing the central axis spin. And flat tips wouldn't be immediately rolling because the layer would still spin the way it should: around the axis. (idk what around the axis really stands for, but what I mean by that is: as long as the axis in the middle of the layer is still spinning, we are good)

---

Rank 0th means I'm better than 1st

I consider a bey spinning if it is spinning on an axis that makes the layer also spin.
I consider a bey rolling if it's central layer axis isn't spinning anymore. But the bey is still moving
Dread Vertical is still spinning because I don't care that much about the floor, as long as the layer is spinning, it is good for me.
.
Let's pretend Dread Gyro doesn't have the layer spin, but instead it is only the side axis. Because with the spin it is Rolling and Spinning at the same time.
An example of rolling according to what I believe it is would be Dread Gyro. It is a very extreme example, but it is also easy to understand: Dread Gyro is a special move from Dread Bahamut, even tho it is very hard if not impossible to do irl, it shows a perfect example of rolling by my definition. It isn't spinning on an axis that makes the layer spin the way it should, instead it spins on the layer and makes it spin like a coin.
.
Although we don't have Dread Gyro irl, we do have another good example, HyperSphere tips:
They spin surely, but when the bey runs out of steam (and always when being launched alone on some tips) it leans the the driver side and "spin". What they actually do is change the axis to a point where the layer is not spinning, but instead moving by the imaginary perimeter of the imaginary circle that it creates while rolling.
Technically they are still spinning, but not on the correct way to count as spinning.
.
At the end of the day, I'm not an expert on beyblade. But that's what I believe is each thing.
Using my definition, I think the rule becomes more clear. But hey, that might just be me and my wierd way of thinking.

---

That would also explain why free spin tips aren't affected, because they don't let it become rolling by losing the central axis spin. And flat tips wouldn't be immediately rolling because the layer would still spin the way it should: around the axis. (idk what around the axis really stands for, but what I mean by that is: as long as the axis in the middle of the layer is still spinning, we are good)

For as much as I see where you're coming from, I should remind you that there's only one way a bey can move without rotating across its central axis: by sliding on the same line that it's leaning towards/against (one way or another doesn't matter, it's a straight line). This is something that never occurs naturally enough to be visible, whether in battle or by a top stopping on the side of a slope, and is unnecessary to point out because that is clearly not visibly rotating to begin with and fails the first part of the definition. Even if it's only kept its spin going because of the slope on the stadium floor pushing it along, as long as there is both movement and contact with some point that isn't dead center it will still be rotating along the axis. This is exactly why this current definition doesn't work. You can still be rotating along your axis, never stop doing so off of the initial launch, and yet still not be deemed as "spinning" just because your outer edge of contact isn't moving quickly enough. This is what miffs me about the rule, there's really no reason to stop a spin while it's still rotating around its central axis at all and yet this rule does exactly that in a clunky way.

Your Hypersphere example is true when it comes to a few Hypersphere bases (Linear-H comes to mind easily), but it's a terrible thing to base a definition off of. Think about it, if your bey is even slightly unstable or unbalanced it will already have an off-center spinning axis, though admittedly it'll usually be off by just a microscopic amount. If your definition of "rolling" is "when it spins off the center axis" then exactly 0 beys will ever be capable of "spinning" properly. No Beyblade is that perfect, they're toymakers not scientists, and things get dinged and scratched as they grow older that affect the balance of the top. It's an unachievable goal, even ignoring combos that are built to spin on an unusual axis such as Hollow or other lopsided combos. Your definition completely misses all those!

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt though and ignore all that. Outside of those few Hypersphere examples, how often does this sort of "axis of rotation change" happen? That's the thing, it really, really doesn't outside of strange scenarios (e.g. I've seen Tapered disks "disco dance", which might be giving it a new axis of rotation but it's hard to tell). Do we need a rule just to specify that, and if so couldn't we make that more clear? Even if we did that we run into those issues with anything that's built to wobble or spin unstably without making it even more complicated, and it's just not honestly worth the effort.

Think of it this way: if you were to take a combo on Xtend+, hold a finger dead center in the layer, and move it slowly around in a 360 degree circle on a stadium/floor surface the layer will wind up facing a different direction than it started in. That's a simple example of a "roll" as the WBO rules see it, and yet it's still visibly rotating isn't it? On any sort of flat tip that is the only way they can move, and will inevitably be doing the same thing but much, much faster.

That leads to two questions: Why does this sort of "rolling on the edge" not count as "rolling" for Flats but does count for other things (as you seem to think), and why do we consider it to not be "spinning" while it's still visibly spinning in this Xtend+ scenario by constantly facing a new direction with each lap around the edge? I don't have a good answer for either of these, which is why I believe the rule is broken beyond proper usability because both of these cause issues without an answer, on top of being nearly impossible to properly enforce.

For Bearing and other free-spinning tips it makes sense to ignore the free-spinning portions. They can catch on stuff while everything else continues on, and older plastic generation stuff can even keep on going from a near standstill because of them (Rock Bison's engine gear comes to mind here, especially with its default slow release clutch). Those essentially have to have a clause, or else they become impossible to judge properly as any single part stopping would end the combo's spin. It's just too easy to cause confusion or to be unable to see if a part stopped, so this is the best way it can be judged fairly.

And all that's ignoring that the two of us look at the same rule and get two totally different meanings out of it. Sure, I'm a highly logical thinker and you admitted that you're not that much of an expert, but that lack of clarity in a core rule of the game should not exist no matter what the rule is.

---

Also, just so you know, Dread Vertical is legal by the current WBO rules and counts as a proper spin (up and until the edge loses traction and further movement is based on the stadium bowl's shape). It's still highly suggested that you don't do this, as you will not only risk damaging the stadium and/or annoying the judge/organizer that brought the stadium, but the strategy is in and of itself terrible to begin with.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

Spoiler (Click to View)

I consider a bey spinning if it is spinning on an axis that makes the layer also spin.
I consider a bey rolling if it's central layer axis isn't spinning anymore. But the bey is still moving
Dread Vertical is still spinning because I don't care that much about the floor, as long as the layer is spinning, it is good for me.
.
Let's pretend Dread Gyro doesn't have the layer spin, but instead it is only the side axis. Because with the spin it is Rolling and Spinning at the same time.
An example of rolling according to what I believe it is would be Dread Gyro. It is a very extreme example, but it is also easy to understand: Dread Gyro is a special move from Dread Bahamut, even tho it is very hard if not impossible to do irl, it shows a perfect example of rolling by my definition. It isn't spinning on an axis that makes the layer spin the way it should, instead it spins on the layer and makes it spin like a coin.
.
Although we don't have Dread Gyro irl, we do have another good example, HyperSphere tips:
They spin surely, but when the bey runs out of steam (and always when being launched alone on some tips) it leans the the driver side and "spin". What they actually do is change the axis to a point where the layer is not spinning, but instead moving by the imaginary perimeter of the imaginary circle that it creates while rolling.
Technically they are still spinning, but not on the correct way to count as spinning.
.
At the end of the day, I'm not an expert on beyblade. But that's what I believe is each thing.
Using my definition, I think the rule becomes more clear. But hey, that might just be me and my wierd way of thinking.

---

That would also explain why free spin tips aren't affected, because they don't let it become rolling by losing the central axis spin. And flat tips wouldn't be immediately rolling because the layer would still spin the way it should: around the axis. (idk what around the axis really stands for, but what I mean by that is: as long as the axis in the middle of the layer is still spinning, we are good)

For as much as I see where you're coming from, I should remind you that there's only one way a bey can move without rotating across its central axis: by sliding on the same line that it's leaning towards/against (one way or another doesn't matter, it's a straight line). This is something that never occurs naturally enough to be visible, whether in battle or by a top stopping on the side of a slope, and is unnecessary to point out because that is clearly not visibly rotating to begin with and fails the first part of the definition. Even if it's only kept its spin going because of the slope on the stadium floor pushing it along, as long as there is both movement and contact with some point that isn't dead center it will still be rotating along the axis. This is exactly why this current definition doesn't work. You can still be rotating along your axis, never stop doing so off of the initial launch, and yet still not be deemed as "spinning" just because your outer edge of contact isn't moving quickly enough. This is what miffs me about the rule, there's really no reason to stop a spin while it's still rotating around its central axis at all and yet this rule does exactly that in a clunky way.

Your Hypersphere example is true when it comes to a few Hypersphere bases (Linear-H comes to mind easily), but it's a terrible thing to base a definition off of. Think about it, if your bey is even slightly unstable or unbalanced it will already have an off-center spinning axis, though admittedly it'll usually be off by just a microscopic amount. If your definition of "rolling" is "when it spins off the center axis" then exactly 0 beys will ever be capable of "spinning" properly. No Beyblade is that perfect, they're toymakers not scientists, and things get dinged and scratched as they grow older that affect the balance of the top. It's an unachievable goal, even ignoring combos that are built to spin on an unusual axis such as Hollow or other lopsided combos. Your definition completely misses all those!

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt though and ignore all that. Outside of those few Hypersphere examples, how often does this sort of "axis of rotation change" happen? That's the thing, it really, really doesn't outside of strange scenarios (e.g. I've seen Tapered disks "disco dance", which might be giving it a new axis of rotation but it's hard to tell). Do we need a rule just to specify that, and if so couldn't we make that more clear? Even if we did that we run into those issues with anything that's built to wobble or spin unstably without making it even more complicated, and it's just not honestly worth the effort.

Think of it this way: if you were to take a combo on Xtend+, hold a finger dead center in the layer, and move it slowly around in a 360 degree circle on a stadium/floor surface the layer will wind up facing a different direction than it started in. That's a simple example of a "roll" as the WBO rules see it, and yet it's still visibly rotating isn't it? On any sort of flat tip that is the only way they can move, and will inevitably be doing the same thing but much, much faster.

That leads to two questions: Why does this sort of "rolling on the edge" not count as "rolling" for Flats but does count for other things (as you seem to think), and why do we consider it to not be "spinning" while it's still visibly spinning in this Xtend+ scenario by constantly facing a new direction with each lap around the edge? I don't have a good answer for either of these, which is why I believe the rule is broken beyond proper usability because both of these cause issues without an answer, on top of being nearly impossible to properly enforce.

For Bearing and other free-spinning tips it makes sense to ignore the free-spinning portions. They can catch on stuff while everything else continues on, and older plastic generation stuff can even keep on going from a near standstill because of them (Rock Bison's engine gear comes to mind here, especially with its default slow release clutch). Those essentially have to have a clause, or else they become impossible to judge properly as any single part stopping would end the combo's spin. It's just too easy to cause confusion or to be unable to see if a part stopped, so this is the best way it can be judged fairly.

And all that's ignoring that the two of us look at the same rule and get two totally different meanings out of it. Sure, I'm a highly logical thinker and you admitted that you're not that much of an expert, but that lack of clarity in a core rule of the game should not exist no matter what the rule is.

---

Also, just so you know, Dread Vertical is legal by the current WBO rules and counts as a proper spin (up and until the edge loses traction and further movement is based on the stadium bowl's shape). It's still highly suggested that you don't do this, as you will not only risk damaging the stadium and/or annoying the judge/organizer that brought the stadium, but the strategy is in and of itself terrible to begin with.

.
I'm not an english-native speaker, so some points aren't phrased that well. Also, I know Dread Vertical is legal. I just mentioned it becaube my definition explains why it is legal

"Think about it, if your bey is even slightly unstable or unbalanced it will already have an off-center spinning axis, though admittedly it'll usually be off by just a microscopic amount. If your definition of "rolling" is "when it spins off the center axis" then exactly 0 beys will ever be capable of "spinning" properly. No Beyblade is that perfect, they're toymakers not scientists, and things get dinged and scratched as they grow older that affect the balance of the top. It's an unachievable goal, even ignoring combos that are built to spin on an unusual axis such as Hollow (nice) or other lopsided combos. Your definition completely misses all those!"

The axis thing wasn't explained that well in my part, what I meant by central axis is the axis that stays on the center of the layer. This axis move along the layer when it gets tilted too. My point is, if the layer stops to spin according to that axis (Which is basically: when the layer stops spinning horizontally), then it is not spinning, jus rolling (with the extreme example of Dread Gyro (Not Dread Vertical)). Sorry if it sounds like "perfect balance" was my point, english is hard on little details like these.

"Your Hypersphere example is true when it comes to a few Hypersphere bases (Linear-H comes to mind easily), but it's a terrible thing to base a definition off of"

Maybe the definition was created in a time where it happened more often? I have not much knowledge on rules and stuff like that, but if they created that definition then surely it happened somehow, right? Idk. Also that's the point I'm getting into, rolling doesn't happen and if it does, it is once in a blue moon (by current date)
(Also, I don't have Linear-H, but almost all the HS tips that I own start rolling on the "LAD battle" part when launched alone, the layer just stops spinning but the motion continues and the driver leans on it's side, almost spinning vertically but without the layer's spin. Making it not spinning acc. to my definition, but instead rolling)

"Think of it this way: if you were to take a combo on Xtend+, hold a finger dead center in the layer, and move it slowly around in a 360 degree circle on a stadium/floor surface the layer will wind up facing a different direction than it started in. That's a simple example of a "roll" as the WBO rules see it, and yet it's still visibly rotating isn't it? On any sort of flat tip that is the only way they can move, and will inevitably be doing the same thing but much, much faster."

So, my version of it makes rolling unable to happen when the layer is visibly spinning, even if it faces a different direction than it started in. Basically making rolling only able to happen when not visibly spinning. That would also fix rubber flat tips problem, since their layers are visibly spinning, so they can't roll until spin stops.

"That leads to two questions: Why does this sort of "rolling on the edge" not count as "rolling" for Flats but does count for other things (as you seem to think), and why do we consider it to not be "spinning" while it's still visibly spinning in this Xtend+ scenario by constantly facing a new direction with each lap around the edge? I don't have a good answer for either of these, which is why I believe the rule is broken beyond proper usability because both of these cause issues without an answer, on top of being nearly impossible to properly enforce."

What I meant by the edge of the tip is the area meant to make contact with the stadium floor. In other words, the tip of the driver. for Drift it would be the whole plate, for Xtreme it would be the rubber, for rise it would be the plate and the cone tip, for revolve it would be the cone tip and the free spinning plate, etc.
I believe that for HS rolling is more common because the tips are wide, so they have more surface to lean on that wasn't supposed to. Making rolling easier.
Obviously the rest of the drivers cannot touch much of the stadium when in a combo, since the disc makes contact before them. So rolling is incredibly harder.
About the Xtend part, it is explained on the point above, kinda.

TL;DR: I'm so good at english that I couldn't present my idea properly, nice.

---

Rank 0th means I'm better than 1st

The current definition of "spinning" is ridiculous. It's true, the very thing so integral to the game's core is also one of the most complicated and nonsensical rules I can find in the rulebooks currently. I mean, take a look at the rule where it currently stands today.

Spinning
A Beyblade is still considered to be spinning as long as it is visibly rotating to any degree along the axis running directly through the center of the Beyblade faster than the rotation along the stadium floor in the same direction it was launched in.

A complete full rotation around this axis is not needed to be considered spinning. Rotation along the stadium floor alone is considered ‘rolling’ and is therefore no longer considered to be spinning.

Some Beyblades have parts that allow the upper half to continue rotating after the bottom half has stopped; these are still considered to be spinning. If a Beyblade starts spinning again after it has stopped, the round does not resume.

Let's break this thing down and try to cut down the chaff, shall we? There's just so much unnecessary stuff in this rule, and I'll try to break it down point by point why:

• It's too technically minded. Kids aren't really going to understand the rule well, and it perhaps tries too hard to define something that is simple enough to understand without going that in-depth.
  
• The "complete full rotation" bit is unneeded fluff.
  
• "Rolling" is a confusing added restriction that doesn't really fit natural behavior well, and actually creates a ton of unintended side-effects.
  

Simplifying and removing the fluff isn't hard, and the third paragraph is by and large fine already, but it's this rolling bit that really makes things problematic. Not only is it still a bit unclear what defines "rolling along the stadium floor alone", but you can usually accomplish this while still spinning along the axis the same direction it was launched in, a.k.a. still visibly spinning... but you're officially rolling instead and maybe haven't even faced an opponent at all. That's weird enough as it is, but it's not even the meat of the issues, where we find ourselves with three larger points to consider.

• "Rolling" is almost impossible to prove at high speeds
  
• "Rolling" happens naturally to non-spinning Flat-based drivers all the time
  
• "Rolling" cannot naturally happen to free-spinning drivers without rolling on the disk or layer.
  

To the first point, look at Dread Vertical. Sure, it's an anime move, but it illustrates the purpose perfectly. Technically Dread Vertical is still spinning while it's moving... up until the point where the layer is no longer accelerating on the stadium floor. At that point it's "rotating along the stadium floor alone", no longer accelerating or moving as a result of its own power. This itself becomes a definition of "rolling" when the outer edge of the bey is no longer providing acceleration by stadium contact. In other words, if it isn't slipping on the ground it isn't spinning anymore because it's started a roll. Issue is, at high speeds there's no way to tell if it's slipping or not and therefore it's impossible to enforce this rule at high speeds. You'd have to go frame by frame with slow motion video to even try, and does anyone really want to do that to call a spin finish at 1000 RPM? It's ridiculous, but technically possible to stop spinning and start rolling at ludicrous speeds, and that's a problem.

To the second point, we look back to the first. Using that definition above flats like Xtreme do this frequently, moving as fast as they can with their grip to the point where their horizontal speed matches their rotational velocity at the widest point of their flat tip. By their very nature, Flat-based tips that don't free-spin like Volcanic and Hold will always "roll" at their maximum speed. Of course this is once again a ridiculous call to make, and would make these tips basically unusable if we enforced "rolling" the way we're supposed to.

To the third, we actually have to look at the final paragraph where it says that free-spinning parts don't count towards whether a bey is spinning or rolling. Let's be honest, this rule is necessary or else free-spinning parts that stop from friction would count the entire bey out for the count if they ever grind to a halt on the floor, which you wouldn't really be able to see or enforce anyways. However, this means that the only way these beys can roll is if they do so by riding on a disk or a part of the layer (or, for something like Orbit, an external guard piece of the driver that doesn't free-spin), which of course gives them an advantage. It's not a huge point, but technically a thing of note.


With all this being said, I'd suggest that we cut this rule down to its core, both to make it more obvious what "spinning" is and to ensure that it doesn't cause any more confusion with this needless and self-defeating "rolling" definition that's both impossible to really enforce properly and honestly just makes pure Attack impossible if you tried to enforce it. Thusly, I'd suggest following the WBBA's definition closer to both simplify the rule and ensure that it's easier to enforce properly. That would probably look a lot more like this:

A Beyblade is considered to be spinning while it is visibly rotating in the direction it was launched in. Freely spinning parts of the bey are ignored in regards to this, and the bey is still considered spinning while the rest of the top continues to visibly rotate for beys using such parts. If a Beyblade starts spinning again after stopping, the round does not resume as the match is already over.

This is a far simpler definition, avoids all that nonsense "rolling" creates, still allows for free-spinning drivers to work as they should, and still gives clarification that you can't restart a match by picking up spin again. Far easier to judge and discern, drops all the "rolling" confusion and all the technicalities that creates, and makes it so much easier to explain to the children that are playing on top of it. Seems like a big win to me all-around.

does the current rule of spinning state that even if two beys stop at the same time if one starts wobbling first then that one loses or is it different?

Yeah, I'm ngl, even I was very confused by the definition until someone genuinely explained it to me. Rolling is something that does exist, but it just leads to people and judges calling obvious OS's "rolls" because sometimes they don't know the difference themselves. I call them wobbles because that's what the beys do. This wobbling typically happens in the opposite direction and doesn't really happen unless the bey have very low or non existent LAD. The bey has to fall over to get a proper roll.

yes the situation I'm talking about dbl rise vs vanish drift. The call was even though they stopped at the same time mine started to move around at an angle so it was drift's win is this how it works or am I mistaken?

"Think about it, if your bey is even slightly unstable or unbalanced it will already have an off-center spinning axis, though admittedly it'll usually be off by just a microscopic amount. If your definition of "rolling" is "when it spins off the center axis" then exactly 0 beys will ever be capable of "spinning" properly. No Beyblade is that perfect, they're toymakers not scientists, and things get dinged and scratched as they grow older that affect the balance of the top. It's an unachievable goal, even ignoring combos that are built to spin on an unusual axis such as Hollow (nice) or other lopsided combos. Your definition completely misses all those!"

The axis thing wasn't explained that well in my part, what I meant by central axis is the axis that stays on the center of the layer. This axis move along the layer when it gets tilted too. My point is, if the layer stops to spin according to that axis (Which is basically: when the layer stops spinning horizontally), then it is not spinning, jus rolling (with the extreme example of Dread Gyro (Not Dread Vertical)). Sorry if it sounds like "perfect balance" was my point, english is hard on little details like these.

Leaning over doesn't usually change the axis a bey is rotating in. I actually forgot Dread Gyro was a unique move to itself. I blame the wiki, the page for "Dread Gyro" call the move by 3 names including Dread Vertical and actually shows Dread Vertical in the images. Wiki errors aside, you can't actually prove that it isn't still rotating across the center axis when it dances on its edge, so it's an incredibly difficult call to make.

"Your Hypersphere example is true when it comes to a few Hypersphere bases (Linear-H comes to mind easily), but it's a terrible thing to base a definition off of"

Maybe the definition was created in a time where it happened more often? I have not much knowledge on rules and stuff like that, but if they created that definition then surely it happened somehow, right? Idk. Also that's the point I'm getting into, rolling doesn't happen and if it does, it is once in a blue moon (by current date)
(Also, I don't have Linear-H, but almost all the HS tips that I own start rolling on the "LAD battle" part when launched alone, the layer just stops spinning but the motion continues and the driver leans on it's side, almost spinning vertically but without the layer's spin. Making it not spinning acc. to my definition, but instead rolling)

If you go by your definition of rolling, no, it really doesn't happen except on Hypersphere tips. This rule predates Hypersphere, so it can't be based off that. That's aside from the fact that you've sort of made and used your own definition instead of the WBO definition.

"Think of it this way: if you were to take a combo on Xtend+, hold a finger dead center in the layer, and move it slowly around in a 360 degree circle on a stadium/floor surface the layer will wind up facing a different direction than it started in. That's a simple example of a "roll" as the WBO rules see it, and yet it's still visibly rotating isn't it? On any sort of flat tip that is the only way they can move, and will inevitably be doing the same thing but much, much faster."

So, my version of it makes rolling unable to happen when the layer is visibly spinning, even if it faces a different direction than it started in. Basically making rolling only able to happen when not visibly spinning. That would also fix rubber flat tips problem, since their layers are visibly spinning, so they can't roll until spin stops.

Are you saying this is a proposition to change the rule to match your definition? I don't see much point to that, given that only Hypersphere tips really do that sort of "roll" as you've defined it. I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say otherwise.

"That leads to two questions: Why does this sort of "rolling on the edge" not count as "rolling" for Flats but does count for other things (as you seem to think), and why do we consider it to not be "spinning" while it's still visibly spinning in this Xtend+ scenario by constantly facing a new direction with each lap around the edge? I don't have a good answer for either of these, which is why I believe the rule is broken beyond proper usability because both of these cause issues without an answer, on top of being nearly impossible to properly enforce."

What I meant by the edge of the tip is the area meant to make contact with the stadium floor. In other words, the tip of the driver. for Drift it would be the whole plate, for Xtreme it would be the rubber, for rise it would be the plate and the cone tip, for revolve it would be the cone tip and the free spinning plate, etc.
I believe that for HS rolling is more common because the tips are wide, so they have more surface to lean on that wasn't supposed to. Making rolling easier.
Obviously the rest of the drivers cannot touch much of the stadium when in a combo, since the disc makes contact before them. So rolling is incredibly harder.
About the Xtend part, it is explained on the point above, kinda.

Not all disks touch the ground first, and we can't assume that as a constant. Besides, "rolling" by the current WBO definition can happen without any sort of disk/layer contact with the floor at all.

TL;DR: I'm so good at english that I couldn't present my idea properly, nice.

I think the bigger issue is that you're trying to use one definition, but the WBO is using a totally different definition. I can't tell if you're making a proposition to change it, or if this is what you believe the rules are (which they aren't), so I'm not sure what else I can say.

---

does the current rule of spinning state that even if two beys stop at the same time if one starts wobbling first then that one loses or is it different?

Wobbling doesn't make a difference, losing traction on a point that isn't dead center does unless the tip is free-spinning like Bearing or Drift.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

Spinning
A Beyblade is still considered to be spinning as long as it is visibly rotating to any degree along the axis running directly through the center of the Beyblade faster than the rotation along the stadium floor in the same direction it was launched in.


A complete full rotation around this axis is not needed to be considered spinning. Rotation along the stadium floor alone is considered ‘rolling’ and is therefore no longer considered to be spinning.


Some Beyblades have parts that allow the upper half to continue rotating after the bottom half has stopped; these are still considered to be spinning. If a Beyblade starts spinning again after it has stopped, the round does not resume.

The topic of this rule from the WBO Rulebook has been something that me and a large number of other bladers have talked about on many occasions. It is definitely to clunky of a rule. First off a lot of bladers are kids between the adges of 5 to 10. Many of them wouldn't understand the difference between their bey "Rolling" or "Spinning". I think this rule causes so much confusion and problems because of perspective. To some judges a roll could look like a spin, and then you will get bladers wanting multiple opinions hoping a different judge will go more to their favor. This is also an issue because not only do you have to figure out the accurate result of the battle, but now you have to get another judge involved and take up more of the tournaments overall time to get the result. This then causes more stress and a headache on the Organizers and Judges trying to run the tournament.
 
I have read all of the posts in this forum and there are so many examples of rolling vs spinning that are accurate/valid arguments. Honestly, to me this sounds like the wording of this rule is a big issue more because it's to involved for the simplicity of what this game is supposed to be. I honestly have thought long and hard about this rule and have concluded that maybe we need to take a step back and look at how the WBBA approaches this. Any type of movement is basically still considered spinning to them. Therefore I think the rule should read more like this.

Spinning
 A Beyblade is still considered to be spinning so long as it is visibly moving the same spin direction it was launched in.
 
 
A complete full rotation is not needed to be considered spinning.
 
 
Some Beyblades have parts that allow the upper half to continue rotating after the bottom half has stopped; these are still considered to be spinning. If a Beyblade starts spinning again after it has stopped, the round does not resume.

Notice I took out the word Axis in this rule. This is because so many people have argued as to which axis the rule talks about. Some people might find that ridiculous, but technically depending on how you hold the bey changes the perspective of where the axis is. Also, I used the word "Moving" this is because no matter what if the beyblade falls, or rolls, or spins, it just simplifies all these different forms of movement back into 1 word. At the end of the day if the beyblade is moving the same direction it was launched in it would be fair game. This way anyone judging a match just must look for the slightest movement at the end of the match to declare a winner. I feel like this change would also help solve Opposite LAD matches with all the draws that happen far too often. The only extra thing a judge must look for then is if at any point did the beyblade completely stop. Most of the time a Beyblade stopping before the other or at the same time as the other is super clear.

 
This is just my feelings towards this issue. No matter what at the end of the day I do feel that this rule needs an update in wording.

---

I don’t know if this should go in the Beyblade Random Thoughts thread or not, but just to make everyone’s opinion a bit clearer to everyone, I recorded a 4-ish second video of 2 combos. So if everyone could reply which bey they think won that would I think help clear up what “spinning” or “rolling” actually looks like

Link to google drive video folder- https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...577-4aXy6z

So in this case would vanish be rolling? Or not? In my opinion it looks like Dynamite won because what Vanish did at the end was a “roll” and not actually a “spin” but please correct me if I’m wrong.

---

Blader for 8+years, CA Organizer, hoping to improve at the game and meet more people along the way. Let It Rip!

I don’t know if this should go in the Beyblade Random Thoughts thread or not, but just to make everyone’s opinion a bit clearer to everyone, I recorded a 4-ish second video of 2 combos. So if everyone could reply which bey they think won that would I think help clear up what “spinning” or “rolling” actually looks like

Link to google drive video folder- https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...577-4aXy6z

So in this case would vanish be rolling? Or not? In my opinion it looks like Dynamite won because what Vanish did at the end was a “roll” and not actually a “spin” but please correct me if I’m wrong.

It's hard to tell in that clip, Dynamite blocks the view of Vanish to much and obscures the answer, but not to worry. Thanks to some recent tournament footage, I can do you one better.

I'll point you to a scene starting around 2:22 and ending at about 2:49. Who won that match? Officially, and in accordance with WBO rules, Greatest Raphael won the match because Dynamite+F Perseus leaned over enough to start "rolling", even though Dynamite continued visibly rotating by a very visible amount afterwards. That doesn't make much sense at all.

Oh yeah, did I mention that was tournament footage? That's official stuff. BuilderRob lost a point in deck format when anyone would reasonably say he should have won. This isn't just theorycrafting anymore, this is a real official ruling at an official event. This is what "rolling" does.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

I don’t know if this should go in the Beyblade Random Thoughts thread or not, but just to make everyone’s opinion a bit clearer to everyone, I recorded a 4-ish second video of 2 combos. So if everyone could reply which bey they think won that would I think help clear up what “spinning” or “rolling” actually looks like

Link to google drive video folder- https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1...577-4aXy6z

So in this case would vanish be rolling? Or not? In my opinion it looks like Dynamite won because what Vanish did at the end was a “roll” and not actually a “spin” but please correct me if I’m wrong.

It's hard to tell in that clip, Dynamite blocks the view of Vanish to much and obscures the answer, but not to worry. Thanks to some recent tournament footage, I can do you one better.

I'll point you to a scene starting around 2:22 and ending at about 2:49. Who won that match? Officially, and in accordance with WBO rules, Greatest Raphael won the match because Dynamite+F Perseus leaned over enough to start "rolling", even though Dynamite continued visibly rotating by a very visible amount afterwards. That doesn't make much sense at all.

Oh yeah, did I mention that was tournament footage? That's official stuff. BuilderRob lost a point in deck format when anyone would reasonably say he should have won. This isn't just theorycrafting anymore, this is a real official ruling at an official event. This is what "rolling" does.

That's an absolutely wack call, especially as you can see in slow mo that dynamite rotates around it's central axis by a good amount after gr stops. Great example of why this rule needs to go, in what world is GR the last bey standing? I could maybe see it called as a draw but a GR win? What?

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List