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?

You wanna know why it's even more whack? You can start rolling and then stop rolling later. You can see it trying to climb the stadium's slope as Dynamite dies. At that time the roll had ended, and spinning resumed as it tried to accelerate upwards. It just didn't have the traction to succeed, but since it rolled earlier it had already stopped spinning and therefore already lost, unable to resume. This behavior isn't unusual either, it happens quite often on certain parts (especially Tapered from Burst).

Really, a "roll" by the WBO current definition is just an unstable spin that can't keep itself upright. It's an elaborate penalty for losing your stability, unless you're on a free-spinning tip of course. It's not a good measure of when a spin stops.

---

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 am looking for videos where whether or not a beyblade is still “spinning” came into question under WBO’s current definition for spinning.  Please share the video link here in this thread if possible.

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.

Thank you for bringing this insanity of a rule to light. I am also in favor of a rule change.

---

“If you are defeated by me, your dream will never come true.”
-Kuzan