why not just run with the worlds rules?
Australian rules discussion
This is a discussion for the australian rules (this will not affect the rules being played at the 2010 nationals).
We really need to standardise and draft up a proper set of rules, mainly for major tournaments.
I think we should stick mostly to the worlds rules, since they are already drafted up and accepted by most countries.
The main point of contention is what happens after a goal is scored. At the nationals we will be playing 'circling the goal', which encourages run on goals, which is not fair or tactical.
here is the world rule on it:
5 – After a goal is scored:
5.1 – The scoring team returns to their half of the court.
5.2 – The conceding team gets possession of the ball.
5.3 – Play will not resume until both teams have returned to their half of court.
5.4 – The defending team may not attack until the ball or an offensive player has crossed half court.
Groups:
Oops. Sorry squid I totally missed this when I posted the other thread (http://leagueofbikepolo.com/club/australasia/national-rules-base-for-aus...)... I've canned that thread and what I posted there is now here:
--
Hi everyone,
When us Australians finally manage to get together (it's a costly and time consuming exercise!) bonds are formed, good times are had by all and the world gets a little bit smaller and friendlier. I presume that exactly the same thing will happen after the nationals, and in a way it's also happening in this forum.
A few people have mentioned the need for a national ruleset. The closest thing we have to this are the rules at http://www.bikepolo.com.au/rules. You can download the rules here as a pdf or word document
In the past year the world has changed and a bunch of Australians have tapped into these changes through international travels, leagueofbikepolo and our own experience. I'm sure there will also be a vibrant discussion at the Nationals next weekend too.
I think that we should coallate all these ideas and improvements and publish yet another redux... after the nationals... just as we fixed them after we found improvements to make last year.
This is not to say that what we produce will necessarily become a mandatory national standard, but hopefully we'll produce a document that everyone is so happy with, they'll use them whenever they get the chance. Or at least, you'll have a complete ruleset with no embarassing gaps, and you can localise them for your own tournament.
* I agree this thread is not to lobby Brisbane to change the rules for this weekend. The version we'll be using in Brisbane next week are the same as they were during the 2009 nationals with a few of the gaps filled (see link) except that they include the Brisbane (and Sydney) verson of 'after a goal'.
The benefit of doing it this way is that Brisbane still gets to host their localised rule, but by using the 2009/10 document as a base, they won't get caught out by a technicality in some other area (eg subs/reffing or deflections) that other cities may have already thought of or experienced. This discussion is about developing that base document, and then making it available for everyone to use.
eeno>why not just run with the worlds rules?
Thats a good idea, but for everyone to discuss and agree before we adopt it. I would support that, but also say that if we can see improvements, we should make them too.
x2 for Worlds rules
Im okay with mandatory helmet rules. If im organising a a tourney, you know im putting it in the rules.
Everything else you can do whatever you want.
>i was considering mallet rules after the weekend, but after speaking with damon, i'm not so sure about it
I think it's worth outlining the logical progression we followed in our conversation, it ended up not being about mallets at all, but just the idea of banning stuff...
every year it's another thing we talk about banning. 2 years ago it was goalies, then ball jointing, then side cutout mallets. every time a new thing comes around, the counter measure appears shortly after. Each of these things has a plus and a negative and over time have become a part of the game. The fact that a goalie ran a 25cm mallet shows to me why it should be allowed (where did they place? did people score on him?) not that we need a new rule to ban mallets over a certain length.
>considering there was only one significant injury over the whole weekend.
I think a shoulder dislocation might count as a serious injury? but I'm not sure. I know it's been a big deal for Scott.
We don't need extra rules to make polo safer, we just need to use the ones we have already.
It's pretty obvious to me when I'm playing a game against people who are more or less likely to injure me, I'll be wearing more equipment when I feel I need to in future.
every year it's another thing we talk about banning. 2 years ago it was goalies, then ball jointing, then side cutout mallets. every time a new thing comes around, the counter measure appears shortly after.
I agree to an extent Damon, but I'd also like to point out that the "counter measure" for ball jointing infact came in the form of a rule. Either, you have to pass before you can score, or no ball jointing in the offensive half. Depending on where you are from.
>Depending on where you are from
(and what year it is)
In Australia, (in 2010) you're still allowed to joint, release and score. (Though the court surface last weekend was rough)
I agree to an extent too. The countermeasure to ball jointing I was thinking of is to dislodge it by hooking/tapping the shaft, which I was doing alot to Julien.
As jointing becomes more and more of a crutch for people, I'd support a rule that requires a pass before a goal, but that wasn't the case last weekend, maybe on a smoother court in 6 months?
I'd see rules that limit stuff like this as being more important when certain factors start to distort the game so much that they give someone an unfair advantage. ie help teams win that otherwise could not. I know it's hard to articulate, but the goalie with his 25cm mallet was an awesome goalie, national level trials rider, who could keep blocking goals long after he dropped his mallet. But he couldnt attack as well with that mallet, so it wasn't that much of a secet weapon/unfair advantage.
What would you do if a player turned up with a ski pole and a 2ftX3ft piece of coreflute on the end of it. Sure enough, he parks himself in the goal for the entire game and he has this amazing trials riding abiltity. If it wasn't for that ridiculous mallet you might well be impressed by his bike handling skills
How far to dedicated goalies have to stretch their mallet dimensions before we have to make a rule limiting mallet size and length. You may say it is a disadvantage to play with a huge mallet but with "goalies" becoming more and more static in goal then with the current rules they could have a mallet that can block the entire area. So what if its too heavy. If they can jump around and stay up the that's is their skill. Why augment that superior skill with an unfair advantage?
Polo should be three people on a team with no special rules or lack of rules that favours one of them. Cap mallet head length to, say, 8" X 2 1/2" and let people find what works best for them within that limit.
IMO Their shouldn't even be a rule with the word "Goalie" in it
What would you do if a player turned up with a ski pole and a 2ftX3ft piece of coreflute on the end of it.
Has anyone tried this? Try it!
>IMO Their shouldn't even be a rule with the word "Goalie" in it
There are also rules with the word "Attacker" and "Defender" in them, Goalie, like these other identifiers is based on the situation, not fixed positions.
If you say that there should be no special rules for goalies, then I agree with you and there is already a rule that says this.
There should be no rules specifically for any player, goalie or attacker. It gets confusing when who has posession of the ball isnt clear, as well as double goalie tactics. We don't want the game to turn into Rugby Union and games be decided on what the ref picks up on rather than letting the game flow.
As I said before the tourney, if you ball-joint then you cant score a goal until some one else touches the ball (which is similar to having to pass it).
Keep it simple guys, when i started the only rule was 'don't be a dick' and a goal has to be scored with the end of a mallet. Let it flow!!!!!!
It really needs to be a pass, not a touch to make the ball joint legal. Otherwise I could balljoint, flick it onto your wheel, pick it up and score.
The pass rule has been used all over the world and been proven to work.
x2
Though how has it been defined? your team mate must touch it? what if you joint up. totally lose posession to the other team and regain it, can you score? or does it have to be touched/posessed by a team mate?
Really Damon? Is it that ambiguous?
If the other team controls the ball obviously you've lost advantage. If they proceed to give the ball back up to you, that's their own dumb fault.
Likewise, a team mate of yours must control the ball, before giving it back to you, in order to make you eligible to score again.
"Control" doesn't necessarily need to mean carrying the ball. A controlled touch, i.e an INTENTIONAL redirection or one-time touch where the ball (or its movement) has been purposefully manipulated is sufficient.
Dont get me wrong, I support this rule.
I'm just trying to imagine how this rule would have been applied in some of the scrappy attacks at the nationals where the ball finally makes it across the line
after a pretty confusing series of posession changes. just looking for the words that have been used to make it all crystal clear.
the words that have been used to make it all crystal clear.
I don't think there really are any. Its a pretty simple principle; you need to pass it. I.e another play on the court has to take control of the ball. How much explaining does it need?
As soon as someone else controls it you are eligible to score.
The rule for worlds was simply defined as:
4.4 – Ball-joint: Not to be confused with a scoop pass, toss or other ball handling. The ball-joint is defined as pinning the ball between an open end of the mallet head and the playing surface and then dragging it. Ball-jointing will be allowed anywhere on court, however, before a shot at goal, the ball must be passed to another player.
Another option is to follow what North America has been using. The rule in Madison for 2010 NAHBPC is similar but uses a different approach:
4.4 - Ball-joint: Not to be confused with a scoop pass, toss or other ball handling. The ball-joint is defined as pinning the ball between an open end of the mallet head and the playing surface and then dragging it. Ball-jointing will be allowed ONLY in the player's defensive zone. Ball jointing in the offensive zone will result in the ball turnover and concession of half-court.
Both have their advantages. The NA rule is more clear cut in situations like you are talking about Damon.
I would happily play by either rule. I barely BJ any more as it is so it doesn't really affect how I play my game.
What do other folks think?
The NAHBPC ruling would be the end BJ attacking plays, which would be a shame (even if i dont really use it), if used right it can provide more interesting plays. Sydney for example, used the ball joint quite effectively at this years nationals. The passing rule would make passing compulsurary, which would stop perhaps my only pet peeve about BJing, when people simply run up the whole court by themselves whilst swerving around in circles, then tapping it through the goalies bb. Not fun to watch.
If we were to use the NAHBPC BJing rule, i think it would be important to expand the definition of a BJ to include sidejointing, which seems to be more and more prevalent with Euro Cheater Mallets (which is what im currently using)...
like lewis, don't really care which rule we use..
Also, what are peoples thoughts on play after a goal. Are we all happy with going back around our cones after a goal?
Half court. nuff said.
>Also, what are peoples thoughts on play after a goal.
Half court.
>Are we all happy with going back around our cones after a goal?
no :)
(Happy to to play by local rules in local tournaments but not happy to apply the local syd/bris 'play on after a goal' rule to the rest of Australia or for the nationals :)
We've outlawed /actively discouraged BJ-ing in any form here in Christchurch since day 1. It has forced us to become better ball handlers and that's a good thing also it makes any rules about pass before shot or only in defensive half totally moot. In CHCH if you BJ (or SJ/EJ) it's BS!!
Definitely agree on how pushes you to be a better ball handler. The BJ can definitely become a crutch.
I do however feel that there are legit uses for it. This includes digging the ball out of corners, and BJ passes.
Do you guys actually have a rule against jointing?
We did have a no BJ rule for the Winter Whack tournament - "except to dig the ball from out of a corner". I've been sneaking a few cheeky BJ passes at pickup and calling it a failed attempt at a scoop pass. Ha!
When players here first discovered the BJ we played a few games with it "in" and they were crap games...we just said "F#ck it, let's actually get good at polo and call the BJ bullshit" that group consensus has kept our games way more interesting. I know that we'll align ourselves with the rest of the world when we come to travelling to tournaments but learning a BJ is a 10min practice when you can play well without it.
I would personally hate to see an end to jointing, strangely I never joint myself, but I do love undoing other peoples joints, though it's not that easy to pick up posession after you have dislodged it.
I suppose the quality of the court playes a very big role in the security of a joint and the speed you can manage with it.
Though I'm still pretty stoked at the reacharound/posession in this video at 2m:50s
http://www.bikepolo.com.au/2010/10/nationals-final-video-by-polygranate-...
I do support both the NA and the world BJ restrictions, not sure if Ihave a preference yet. The NA rule is more clearcut and requires a half line to be marked on the court.
I'm still pretty stoked at the reacharound..
BJ restrictions, not sure if Ihave a preference yet.
Please excuse my dirty Sydney mind but I can't believe you used "reacharound" and "BJ restrictions" in the same post :)
x2 i know i'm a north american but if i were playing with you guys i would vote to inforce a no ball joint in offensive zone, we do even in pick up. your players will just get that much better at stickhandling, plus a ball jointing a lot makes for some fucking boring play.
oh, didn't realise "around the goals" was a brisbane thing. I enjoyed it, but happy to go half court.
Rules discusssion seems to be going nowhere.. Let's fire it up again
I had a crazy idea (which strangely no one has wanted to try out) where both teams have to circle the goal at the non-scoring end of the court after a goal is scored. Each team would be allocated a direction to go in. It would be absolute carnage!
However, despite that excellent option, Sydney has just switched to playing mostly European rules. The main changes are:
- we don't circle the goal anymore. we return to our own half etc etc
- you cannot take out the goalie unless you are attacking and have the ball (for the record, this was not my idea, but I do like it)
We are a bit reluctant to change the ball jointing rule so that you can only ball joint in your defensive half or that you have to pass to someone else before a goal can be scored. What are people doing in other states?
with a player on your team like Julien, who wouldn't want to keep the same BJ rules we currently use? (or lack of)
If worlds did it, we should do it, and SHOULD have done it at nationals.
It just takes too much of the skill and fun out of the game. It reminds me of playing soccer as a kid and getting frustrated so you just pick up the ball and run with it then put it back down when at the other end.
I think its either only used in defensive half, or you have to pass the ball (or loose control of it) before you can score a goal.
With a player like Donny on your team you should really support my both teams circle the non-scoring goal after a goal rule - he could take an entire team down in one foul swoop!
- we don't circle the goal anymore. we return to our own half etc etc
With the addition of netted goals to the Christchurch courts I'm strongly in favour of ditching our "circle the goals" rule and running with a more international ruling on this aspect of play. There's been way too many "cheap" goals scored before the scoring team can get back to defend their goal, the nets keep the ball all nicely placed for a quick re-start after a goal where with cones it would usually get stuck just under the fence behind goal and give the scoring team time to retreat.
Ball joints are (mostly) lame and I support any rule which takes them out of the game or limits their use the most.
I personally like the pass to score from a BJ rule. But North America is mostly using the half court BJ rule, and as such is most likely to be used at Worlds for 2011. If that impacts the decision (which i think it should).
As far as each rule to itself, without any World's context, I don't REALLY mind which is used. But I think one of them does need implementation.
I personally like the pass to score from a BJ rule.
I do too. I don't ball joint but I don't care if other people do.
I think World's context is important but so is Nationals. What rule set is going to be used in Adelaide?
Hopefully Adelaide will be looking to Seattle/NA Hardcourt to see what rules they will be using and use something similar/the same...
What about the Feb bench minor? what 'after a goal', BJ & side cut-out rules are to be used there? I expect that tournament will probably have a big impact on the nascent national ruleset since so many people will/should be there.
How about after a goal, one player from the scoring team takes the ball and must circle the goal while either ball jointing or side jointing (for the people running euro cheat mallets i.e. most of Sydney) before play can restart. Who's with me???
Only if the rest of the team has to pull some wickid Danny MacAskill moves as they wait for play to resume
>What about the Feb bench minor? what 'after a goal', BJ & side cut-out rules are to be used there?
>I expect that tournament will probably have a big impact on the nascent national ruleset since so many people will/should be there.
Agreed, and since Lewis will be fresh back from his world tour, I'd expect nothing less.
I'm not sure whats changed outside Australia since Berlin but I get the sense things are settling down a bit. If Bench and Nats use the world ruleset I think this would be a great start to the year before we head off to Seattle.
To clarify where I think these rules are at:
After a goal - cede half
BJ - pass to score
side cuts - allowed
using side cuts - counts as a bj
shuffle into net goal - cede half
other things
Mechanical time out with posession/after a goal - allowed, but cede half/posession (maybe not needed for bench though)
Penalties for dick moves (tbone/malleting/highstick/off ball contact, etc) - tap in, tap in after, double tap in, cede half, 30 sec penalty etc)
using side cuts - counts as a bj
This is still pretty contentious - Just what is using a side jointing mallet? Most of the objection to them is because they cradle the ball while dribbling (not sandwiching the ball to the ground). (In this respect, does Ray's dogbone count as a SJ mallet?) There is a super fine line between cradling the ball and holding it to the ground. I can foresee reffing issues with this one. The extreme position is that the use of a cut-out mallet turns your game into one long SJ.
Is using a side jointing mallet defined as just having one and dribbling on the side? If so, that is ridiculous. Anyone using one would not be able to score unless they dribbled using the scoring end. Side jointing gives nowhere near the control level of ball jointing. I have no problem with it. You can never score of a side joint - there has to be a separate movement to score.
Good point about Ray's mallet, Scott. I have never had a problem with Ray's mallet or Juliens's previous mallet that had extra material around the ends. No one else has complained about these and I see them as having way more of an advantage for ball control than the european cut out mallets. Why are people so concerned about the cut-outs?
I know people (including myself) had problems with the mallets used by Castlemaine at the 2009 Nationals - the difference is that european cut-outs cannot fit the entire ball into them, like the Castlemaine ones could.
I meant using a sidejoint to pin the ball to the ground. Sorry for not being clearer.
>Side jointing gives nowhere near the control level of ball jointing
i disagree, they are the same
>Why are people so concerned about the cut-outs?
Because of pinning the ball and scooping/flicking the ball
>I know people (including myself) had problems with the mallets used by Castlemaine at the 2009 Nationals
>the difference is that european cut-outs cannot fit the entire ball into them, like the Castlemaine ones could.
When the hole fits the ball entirely, the advantage is lost, the real advantage is when it is just big enough, not to entirely eat the ball.
Euro mallets are made of thick wall tubing, Castlemaine used thin wall, which flexed more in the heat, and ate the ball, they used jointing/pinning extensively to their advantage but never used the ball eating/scooping in play, and when it did happen the stopped and it messed them up.
Castlemaine mallets, euro cut out mallets and the end of any normal 2 inch pipe can all joint/pin just the same.
I'm not looking to ban them, just have them all treated as a joint, when used to joint, and carry the same restrictions.
I have also heard talk of a restriction on the size of holes allowed in a mallet to match the end of the pipe. As they currently stand, euro cutouts exceed this cutout size (i.e. the ovals holes are more thn 2 inches wide)
BUT, I am not looking to start a mallet discussion in this thread. (do it here instead http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/10/12/side-joint-mallets)
I was listing a bunch of things I expect to come from world rules to Australia.
This is currently in discussion but I personally am looking to NA Hardcourt for the rules. This ruleset is what we will be looking at for Seattle. So for me it makes sense to be using it for Bench and Adelaide. And also hopefully for day to day play.
Ruleset that was used for NA's in Madison this year can be found here http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/general/2010/07/02/rules-for-nahbpc
These are currently getting refined a little by the powers that be. Cleaning up loop holes, working out any creases that have been discovered through practice, anything that has been overlooked. I am honoured to actually be involved with this process here.
A ruleset for bench should be out shortly.
Has thought about umpiring a game that includes side jointing rules? It's difficult enough keeping track of all the existing rules.
Has thought about umpiring a game that includes side jointing rules? It's difficult enough keeping track of all the existing rules.
So far the biggest problem Australia has had with reffing is the in-ability to stop play when illegal play occurs (i.e. actually enforcing the rules). I feel we have a very laid back attitude to it all.. So just a little suggestion: "Refs must use a whistle" would be handy (seeing as we never really ever.. ever.. stop play at all. unless you get whacked in the face.. poor Damon).
I agree, and up until recently the rest of the world had this problem to.
The solution for this was penalties. That is 30 seconds in the penalty box. Or 2 minutes, depending on the offense. Up until this point there was no consequence for any "foul" or dangerous play. Maybe you tap out, or the ball is turned over.
Funnily enough penalties were first used in the NYC bench minor last year. The idea stuck.
You will see penalties called at the Sydney bench.
x2
You will also see penalties available to the referees on Australia day. I'm just working on pulling all the new and exciting bits of NA2010 rules into Australias rule word document. (these are online at bikepolo.com.au/rules and I will upload the re-work in time for everyone to review/comment next week)
I didnt just adopt the NA rules as our ruleset was pretty good and we fixed alot of holes in 2009, such as deflections, and substitutions.
I am also including a highsticking rule, which is based on the NHL rule. (Thanks Lewis for the suggestion) In my view, handlebars just doesnt work as a rule. You _need_ the latitude to take a legit shot and this rule allows for that. It is also not a rule that applies when you are miles away from anyone else.
Yes nearly losing my front tooth and or breaking my nose at the nats last year was a big motivator to help get some clarity in this area. :)
Here are the worlds rules.
http://www.whbpc2010.org/rules/