Jump to Navigation
LOBP is now in archive mode... read more at leagueofbikepolo.com/goodbye.

Bike polo nets: what's best?

Photo by flickr.com/guidoline from EHBPC 2010

I think the first nets at a major tournament was at NACCC 2008 in Chicago. They were PVC, held down with sandbags, and controversial. We saw a few more in 2009, like at the Grief Masters in Karlsruhe (see the yellow, folding nets below).

Nets became really common in 2010 at tournaments like ESPI, Bench Minor, East Van Crown, NAHBPC, Midwest Open, etc.

And they are now mandated at NAH sanctioned tourneys. But there is some flexibility in the NAH rules, which currently state: "Goals should be no larger than 200 cm x 95 cm and no smaller than 180cm x 85 cm". For those that prefer inches, that's minimum 70 inches wide, maximum 78 inches wide. minimum 33 inches, maximum 37 inches.

The NAH rules committee wants to get rid of that ambiguity, but we want to know what people think before we do so.

If you have nets, please leave a comment, with:

1. Size are your nets? (Height x width)
2. Shape of the footprint of the net, and the "top shelf" if relevant, with measurements if you have them.
3. Construction materials and techniques for the frame.
4. Materials for the netting
5. Total cost for building them, including labour (if someone welded them for free, how much time did it take?)
6. Please upload a photo or two, including a design blueprint if you have one

Photo by Guidoline

Swiss nets, i think these were made for EHBPC 2010 but some were brought to WHBPC in Berlin. can someone in geneva provide more details?

  • ehbpc-15.jpeg

Made on our plan, based on the Karlsruhe Greifmasters 2010 idea. No top bar (some arguments in gva about that). Construct by a company who make hockey goals, all the stuff is pretty heavy and don't move.

Price: nearly 400$ each.

Wide: 180 cm
Height: 80 cm
Net: hockey nets
Tube: hockey goal tubes

Total plan: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1LarU8...

We play on our usual courts with them since ehbpc 2010.

+) Well done. Heavy. Good nets. small piece on top of vertical tube to push the net back. No top tube and never an issue about f the ball is in or not.
-) Some thinks they can be higher. No top tube, so no nice rebound from there.


  • Melbourne's new goals.jpeg

These are 85cm high and were 140cm wide. (before 180 became the 2010 standard)

The best thing about these I think is the paint job (great for night polo)

Other thing is that if you land on them a $4 socket/joint will break and we have spares.


Karlsruhe goals. A couple more photos at http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=karlsruhe+nets&w=69654165%40N00&z=m

  • Goal.jpeg

rounded sides are an interesting idea. seems like they would push the ball away from the sides of the goals if moving slowly. as for court size, bigger goals for bigger courts and vice versa

I wonder why hockey nets have these rounded corners, seems they would lead to more interesting bounces than square nets. But they are probably trickier to build. The guys from Karlsruhe said the cost on these was also pretty high, I can't remember why

these goals cost a lot because they have a hinged folding system that allows the posts to collapse. it was designed and manufactured specifically for these goals, so $£€

the hinges are awesome but i'm wondering if they needed to be so expensive. that said, good hockey goals that last for decades cost a thousand or two, and maybe Karlsruhe will be playing with these for that long, too.

They were about 500€ for both.
Including the custom made nets.

We play on these since Greif Masters 1.
And they also travelled to loads of tourneys (German champs, Worlds, etc.)

Never had any troubles...

For Greif Masters 2 we added a second (smaller) tube on the inside.
Now the ball bounces up into the net...

smart tube!

250€ Griefmasters goal ≈ $400 Geneva goal

interesting that even though the materials, manufacturing, and design are all different, the cost was around the same

At both the Savannah and Philly tournaments I've seen multiple goals that hit on the inside of the corners and popped out, often at seemingly impossible angles, which the rounded corners would prevent. Polo goals also tend to be very shallow which tends to eject the ball more, but building them deeper sacrifices often-precious court space.


In my opinion, these goals are the best I've played on. They make the most satiating ding when you rocket one in.

You need a top cross bar to make top shelf shots defined: in or not in.

Also, the PVC breaks. It's unreliable. I know it's hard if you don't know someone who can weld, but the metal is just soooo nice.

Close-ups of the Lexington goals:


Lexington goals are by far the best! We made our own Lex goals here in Lawrence! They are 3' tall x 6' wide.

  • 1.jpg
  • 5552575856_bfcafbb720_o.jpg

"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'

Ugh I need to get back there to play. Expect me May 15th and 17th.

Sweet! There might be slightly less than normal turn out because that's finals week at KU. But, I'll definitely commit to less studying in exchange for more awesome polo

Our goals are great (we <3 billy), but I think if it were slightly shorter it would reduce the amount of leaning (cheating) on the goal

The photo on the right illustrates to me that the cross bar on these nets is too high. Looks like handlebars get caught in them which, as a defensive player is a real pisser. Its like not being able to complete a full swing on a shot because something beyond your control is consistently getting in your way. Other than that, they look pretty sweet.

Actually I think this is a vantage point issue, I don't line-up with the goal when I'm in it, I sit my front wheel out a little, but yeah I hear you. This rubbing issue is true for some people who "fit it" just right.

"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'


"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'

Oops, i had forgotten this older thread http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/30/north-american-hardco...

But we have lots of new goals built since that thread was active, and people may have a better sense of their preference for 180cm or 200cm, and height.

So once again:

1. Size are your nets? (Height x width)
2. Shape of the footprint of the net, and the "top shelf" if relevant, with measurements if you have them.
3. Construction materials and techniques for the frame.
4. Materials for the netting
5. Total cost for building them, including labour (if someone welded them for free, how much time did it take?)
6. Please upload a photo or two, including a design blueprint if you have one

Can we clarify that you are looking for internal measurements? External measurements?

Makes most sense to me if you are looking for the internal measurement, i.e. that portion of the frame that a ball can be scored in and that can be defended.

Good point. I suppose innernal? Or center-to-center, with a defined goal post radius. But maybe that's getting a but picky? I think the rules committee will also have to decide if any existing goals get grandfathered in.

we don't have nets, but for input:

3. Filling the bottom piping (aka whats touching the ground) with cement instead of the sandbagging method.

The "Greif Masters" nets are: 180x80x40cm

But I also really like the idea of having bigger goals.
Maybe 200x90cm. Never played on it but sounds good...

"200x90cm. Never played on it but sounds good..."

totally agree!!

Blueprint of our Geneva's ones (used in EHBPC10, WHBPC10 (on two courts i think) and in Swiss champs11).

(draw by johan)

Konstanz made their goals based on this blueprint i think.

I really like 180 x 90.
The height is just below most handlebars and above most top tubes so you can still score those 6 hole goals.
The width I think is enough that it requires "active goal tending" with out making it TOO easy to score in the bottom pockets. You gotta work the goalie to open up those gaps.

Cross bars are a must!!!!

I agree that Lexington had some of the best goals I've played on. I remember asking chris the dimensions. I think he said 180 by 100??
I did find if anything they were a little tall and the cross bar was right next to my bars and I ended up leaning on them as I tried to hug the posts because of where it was positioned. If the crossbar is a bit lower I think it makes it a)harder to lean on and b)more obvious and thus, easier to call people on it when they do.

The drawing of our nets here in lexington by the gut who welded them the foot measurements are center to center so the inside is 180x90



damn only $60 per net huh?

I'll tell you one thing I don't like about nets, smashing my fucking pinkie finger into the cross bar.

Can someone from Little Rock chime in with what height their goals are at?

You're too close, Sven.

Our goals are 180x85, I'll have to get depth dimensions with a picture up here later. We used some goals we already had that were too tall and too narrow. We cut the extra height out and used that material to widen the goals. Ours are square steel. One of our club members has a little experience welding. We borrowed a welder. It took him all of one day plus a few hours on another day to finish all the welds plus a bunch of us were standing around all day to help hold and cut stuff and get drunk. I had to buy some extra steel for the back corners that cost about $57.

Sven needs to put some gloves on, or shorten his handlebars, or stop riding like he's holding a teacup (just kidding).

S O L I D goals/nets. My only issue came in the one game with MPLS when I took a shot that looked like it went in, then was reversed because the ziptite on the outside corner wasn't holding the net in, so it could have been an outside in shot... could have been a bullet into the net. In any case, these goals/nets are great. In my personal top 3 nets for sure. the other two being phoenix's and east van's.

I feel you...getting really tired of riding in to block & doing the pinky grind. We'll most likely have some redesigned goals next time..

I think the reason we don't have crossbars in Europe is so that you can't lean on the bar when goal keeping.

Also, shots in the top of the net still go in, as long as they are below the cord that runs between the posts it will roll down the inside of the net into the back of the goal.

My question is, is it more dangerous not to have a crossbar as you can then fall on a vertical post, whereas with a crossbar you fall on a horizontal bar.


snoops wrote:

I think the reason we don't have crossbars in Europe is so that you can't lean on the bar when goal keeping.

We consider this a dab. I prefer the crossbar when using PVC or ABS as the frame because, with a cord, the frame sags into the middle.

Okay catfish, I'm going to move my mouth like this...

M, I dont think not having a crossbar is a problem, with a inner tube and given some proper tension, it wont sags.

Zaragoza Bike Polo 2015
Berlin Bike Polo 2010 - 2015
London Bike Polo 2008 - 2010

It will when you use PVC or ABS. You are talking about steel, yes Rik? Apples and oranges...

Okay catfish, I'm going to move my mouth like this...

yep yep, speaking about steel; but surely for permanet goals steel is the best solution, isn't it?

Zaragoza Bike Polo 2015
Berlin Bike Polo 2010 - 2015
London Bike Polo 2008 - 2010


Zaragoza Bike Polo 2015
Berlin Bike Polo 2010 - 2015
London Bike Polo 2008 - 2010

Consider putting hand on top bar as dab is complicated for ref, hard to see. And most of the time, players who just put hand for a small sec on the top bar don't considere that as dab.

uolmo wrote:

most of the time, players who just put hand for a small sec on the top bar don't considere that as dab.

We do here.

Okay catfish, I'm going to move my mouth like this...

I think caling this dab is something the goal ref could be responsible for, no?


We built ours based on the Worlds nets and used pieces of old bike tubing as the cross bar. It doesn't sag, and it gives around the hip without crushing or supporting the goalie. Hopefully one of our actual builders can be more specific.

doesn't sag? did cherri go back to denver?

Thats a lean, not a sag!

We do too, but it's hard to watch a keeper all the time.

I think I would rather a solid crossbar though as I have been denied a goal by a saggy bungee cord.


Okay catfish, I'm going to move my mouth like this...


I like your polo.

cause i'm retarded and like to fall, I like rounded corners, lots of padding in and around the goal to keep the ball from bouncing out, crossbars so I don't get impaled in a soft spot, and a low crossbar height so most handle bars clear. Not sure of the dimensions, but I remember my brake lever getting tangled in the nets in Minneapolis, and they cleared the nets fine at Lexington.

We mostly play with hockey goals in toronto, simply cause they weigh about a couple hundred pounds each and it'd be a pain to remove them from the hockey rink just to bring in shorter ones that we'd have to cart around. Because they have a high crossbar, we allow people to lean on them (i know sacrilege right?). but it's kinda necessary when the crossbar is that high, because otherwise you can't get close enough to the goal without hitting your inside elbow on it and dabbing.

But back on the subject, we've grown used to 180cm and think it's the way to go. i think the idea behind 200cm goals was partly based on playing with pylons that had big wide footprints.

agree. 180 is good enough.

x3. We play 6 foot in como. That's ~182. Much bigger would be lame.

X4 6' is plenty. I believe a smaller goal makes you a better shooter.


I also thing that between 180-185cm is the perfect heigh

lower than that the wheels will cover too much, higher than that and start to get very difficuklt for a good golie to stop the shoot with the wheels

Zaragoza Bike Polo 2015
Berlin Bike Polo 2010 - 2015
London Bike Polo 2008 - 2010

180 - 185cm is around 6 feet...seems high to me....those are usually the numbers we're talking about for width....did you mean to type something else?

yes, I mean something else sorry... 80-85cm height

Zaragoza Bike Polo 2015
Berlin Bike Polo 2010 - 2015
London Bike Polo 2008 - 2010

I have to say I haven't played much with nets and since depth has only been mentioned once so far, my question is how deep should the goal be? I think the footprint of the goal should be as small as possible providing for more space behind the goal especially on smaller courts and making easier to clear after a point has been scored.

P/M Hardcourt

Sasha in Portland brought up a key issue I think we were all missing.

What width/radius of goal posts is acceptable? I know we have all lost out on a point or two because the shot when off an upright. Do we want to regulate that upright post width? A 3" radius post will play a lot different then a 1" square one.

The key to getting the corner radius to be the smallest possible has a lot to do with what material you use to construct the goals. If you have to use ABS or similar plumbing materials, you're forced to deal with the stock elbow pieces your hardware store already has. So, smaller diameter tubing = smaller radius corners.

I'm a firm believer in 1.5" ABS for goals. They are cheap, lighter with out being weaker and have very small corner radius'. Also, when placed on the ground, the center line of the tubing sits below the center line of the ball. This means when the ball is hammered into the back of the net it flies up and hits the net instead of ricocheting out on the ground at the same angle it came in on. This makes it much easier to tell goal/no goal in a crowded situation.

oh, and crossbar, crossbar, crossbar - please no flexible/corded top shelf!

probably too seriously...


Crandall wrote:

oh, and crossbar, crossbar, crossbar - please no flexible/corded top shelf!

Times ∞

∞ x2

I like your polo.

i agree about having a system that ricochets the ball upward, but i'm not sure if the answer is a small radius tube across the back, cause that could weaken it or make it less stable (less heavy). in hockey they use a heavy padding made out of canvas or something. you can even buy them pre-fab at http://www.hockeygoal.ca/Hockey-Goal-Pads-273.html although they are kinda pricey and meant partly to stop skates from cutting the net, which is overkill for us probably.

In the past we have filled the bottom tubing of the goal with sand to help with strength and weight issues.

The padding in the back of the net is kind of an ideal solution. Be it goal pads, a droopy net or something else - whatever stops the ball in the back of the net, I'm for...

probably too seriously...


Bungie bottom bars!

I don't think light is all that bad really....they move out of the way more easily in a crash situation which may minimize injuries, and it automatically discourages goalies from leaning on them if they don't offer any real support.

light AND sticky is really the main thing. The bottom of our nets have been wrapped with old inner tubes to keep them from sliding around all the time. They have been blasted into a number of times and are light enough that they move easily yet never slide that far out of position. Also, the tubes are used to attach the net to the posts.

speaking of blasting into a goal... has anyone talked about marking lines on the ground for goal position?
Duct tape? Chalk? Paint? Anything to show goal or no goal when the net has been misplaced and a shot is taken at something that should have been there...

probably too seriously...


DPI-3. 72"X30" clear inside. Steel was cheaper than ABS.

  • DPI-3 NAH Qualifier 093.jpg

Not Yet....Not Yet.

These are the goals from Milwaukee, built by Joe.

Here are the specs:
- 2" (5.08cm) PVC Frame, glued together with PVC cement
- Hockey net sewn on to the frame (not pictured)
- (W) 200cm x (H) 90cm x (D) 60cm

I like a wider goal, it makes goaltending more challenging, therefore making the goalie's job more important, as there is more open net to defend. Also there is more of a gap between rookie teams and more experienced ones alike. This can speed up game time as well, especially during 45 minute finals.

I think a shorter goal, interferes less with handlebars and decreases chances of the goal interfering with the goaltender's play.

The PVC cement comes apart during cold weather.

I like your polo.

BOOOM wrote:

The PVC cement comes apart during cold weather.

Oh, well good thing you guys don't have any of that.

Oh yeah, they are coming apart for transportation. They were intentionally not glued at the center for disassembly.

I like your polo.

It would be really good to have a bike in these photos that everyone is posting for context.

I like 185 x 80 cm (roughly 73" x 31.5") inside dimensions goals size with 1.5" diameter tubing. The goals at Tempe (Desert Polo Invite III) were great. I think the main thing that should be in the rules is the inside dimesions, so regardless of material diameter, the inside dimensions are consistent and added to the language of the rules. Topbars should be required. They add a richochet effect which is really nice and exciting when you are playing. PVC can work excellent, just zip-tie them together instead of glueing. Glueing makes them brittle due to the stiffness.

One suggestion for anyone making PVC goals: instead of using typical hardware store fittings, go to an online greenhouse supply store and get specific PVC fittings (ex: 3-way 90s and such).


For me the best i've used are the one from Geneva. The size is perfect, no horizontal bar, nets...

the nets at the top of this page are nicely made but...you guys won't find many like that here in NA. there must be some long matches over there, eh?
it would be nice to practice with nets the size that they will be using at worlds. what are the dimensions for the goals going to be at worlds? have they made this public? if they have someone point me in the right direction..

slayers are only slayers if the slay out of town...

NAH is in the process of working out what size/specs Nets will be, moving forward. This thread was created for us to share what we are all using, so that the we may have a more informed vote on the subject when the time comes, which should be pretty soon. If I had to guess, it looks like the 6foot goals (180cm) seem to be the most common, in both tournament play, and pickup.

This is from an older thread but I like the design:


I think it's what they're using in Calgary?

those are nice, although someone pointed out that they should be t couplings in the front bottom, because it's more stable if it's square there than rounded.

just a note...we added a solid crossbar to that design....I'm a fan of the solid crossbar after playing on both styles.

2x1m, 0.8m deep.

Secon hand football goals cuted and welded. Cost (without welding) 20€, nets 30€.

El Vaquilla hubiese jugado Bike Polo.

Work in Progress...

We are currently working on the cross bar and the second goal. After working with this design, the second set of goals will be a little different, more of a hockey goal design which will be much easier to notch and weld. We have not yet tried them out so not sure on how the size feels but the sound they make sure is nice.

193cm x 91.5cm (Openings)
Top 12" Deep
Bottom 24" Deep

The main pipe is 1 1/2", and the three rear support pipes are 3/4".

We got the net from our sanctioned tennis courts after getting permission that we can take it down from the Parks&Rec.

Robbie welded the goals and got the material from his work. We also used four 90* elbows per goal, new design will have six 90* elbows.

So far it has been $free.99 and lots of brewskis.

There is also talk about using these at the MidWesterns.

  • Goals w Net.JPG
  • photo.JPG
  • Rob working hard.JPG
  • photox.JPG


Those goals look great and all except I prefer the cross bar to be at the same depth as the uprights. This design allows the goalie to literally be inside the goal and I think making it too easy for a goalie to "hug" the cross bars. Keeping a goalie on their "feet" makes the game more challenging and requires great technique. I think this goal gives the tender too much advantage. my2cents.

i think he said they're "still working on the crossbar"?

Yap. Definitely said "work in progress" and "still working on the cross bar". The reason that it's not done yet is because there has to be 2 different notches on each end which is time consuming and that is why our next set of goals will be a little different to make it easier to build.


for me 180 cm internal wide is good, more than 185 become too much (i say taht also because i have a small bike).
Not higher than 90 cm too. If one day we become to know well how to shoot high, or allow scoops, its gonna be impossible to goal keep if nets are too high.

That's the point of making the net big. First, disallowing wrist shots is incredibly dumb. Here's the fact: we have nets now. We are no longer shooting at a line, we are now shooting at a plane. If you want to see exciting, skillful goals, then you cannot disallow picking those corners with a well-placed wrist shot. If your complaint is that making the nets big causes it to be impossible for a goalie to cover the entire net, then I think you need to re-think the angle at which you're viewing the problem. It -SHOULD- be impossible for a goalie to cover the entire net. That forces your team to play good team defense, in addition to having a solid goalie. If you know an offensive player with some time and space is going to pick your top corners all day long, then rather than whining about how your goalie has no chance to stop those shots, you should focus on your defenders taking away the time and space he needs to make those shots. This makes the game better all-around. Engineering the goal dimensions so that a goalie is able to stop every possible allowed shot is -bad- for the game, and everyone needs to know that.

Goalies have had it too easy for too long. Force teams to play defense -and- have a solid goalie, then the game gets really exciting and skillful.

fuck wrist shots. learn to shoot like rory bear.

You're right that a goalie shouldn't be able to cover the entire net at all times, BUT it should also be possible for a goalie to defend each part of the net at a given time. There is no way for a goalie to defend the top corners above their wheels.
I really don't think we need to make those undefendable areas of the net more accessable. Especially when you consider the current use of oversized UHMW pipe, which makes wrist shots easier and require less skill and practise to pull off. And for those already well practised players, it means they can get their wrist shots off quicker, with the ball locating in the head much more easily, making it that much harder to defend the offensive player.

you bring up a good point here - the oversized pipe. it is my understanding that discussions are in progress regarding placing a limit on this in order to stop the wrister becoming way too easy. and i agree with you here. it's meant to be a skill, not a cheater move. if you're using a cheater mallet, it will be a cheater move. so, that's simple. regulate the maximum diameter of the mallet head. no problem there.

where i disagree is with your statement that the corners are undefendable. they're not. i know at least 3 people who are quite good at making wheelie saves on shots labeled for those corners. besides that, you've got a stick, and some hands. i've seen shots labeled for the corner saved that way, too. just because it's a harder save than simply sitting there doesn't mean it's impossible, and it certainly doesn't mean that a goalie should be protected from having to make those kinds of saves if a shooter has the skill - and it is a skill, make no mistake - to send a wrister over the wheel and into the corner. besides that, you have two defenders aside from your goalie. it's their job not to allow shooters the time and space they need to line up and rip those shots. good defense beats good offense, it's true, but i don't consider the turtle-mode three-guys-standing-in-front-of-the-net strategy 'good' defense. the real problem is that it's effective. that's the reason for making the nets big and allowing wrist shots. now your defenders have to -defend- (imagine that). it's no longer sufficient to sit there and wait for a shot so you can counter-attack. i'm starting to get on a wrist-shot tangent, which is not the point of this thread. but in my mind, making the nets bigger goes hand in hand with allowing them, to make the game more exciting, more skillful, and more creative.

I guess we have to wait and see what the ruling on the oversized heads is before we can make an informed decision. If the oversized stuff is approved, would you still feel the same way?

I think IF wrist shots are allowed, the net doesnt really need to be bigger. The 180cm nets give enough length in front of and behind the goalie i think.

Say that there is 3 players that you've seen make saves that way isnt really a valid argument in my mind. Sure a few players will be able to catch on, but i still think its a bit unreasonable. I think if you can get the shots up there with a normal shot, that is legit. But with wrist shots theyd be going top shelf a lot more often, and i think that makes it alot to ask from a goalie. I would agree that it means the goalie has to have some more skill than just tripoding in net. Which I'm all for. It kinda frustrates me that a team with 2 players and a statue can substitute for three all round players. I'll give you that much atleast, but i think even with a 180cm net the statue goalies are out of their depth, unable to move back and forth across the goal.

Either way I think that sure, defensemen need to defend, not just sit their, but a goalie still needs to be reasonably be able to block a shot if they have good positioning.

My other concern is that using your hand to block shots - which i have been known to do from time to time - is just asking for a finger injury. Maybe its a calculated risk, but your most likely to be blocking with the palm of your hand, and even with lacrosse glove you have no protection there.

re: oversized heads: my opinion on wrist shots is well-formed and won't change, regardless. wristers and head size regulation are two different rules and shouldn't depend on each other, however i do agree with you here: there needs to be a maximum diameter written into the rules. this is not difficult, not even that controversial, and i have confidence we can get that done. it's a direct analogue to ice hockey rules enforcing how much curve you're allowed to have on your stick blade. that's done for the exact same reason: to make it harder (not impossible) to be so tricky with the puck... you can still lift it, you just have to have some skill to do it, since your hardware is limited in how curved/big it can be. this makes sense and is a proven working strategy. if we're smart, we'll go this route.

to your second point, i have to say i'm not surprised that a guy who plays goalie (in this case, you) would protest a proposal which makes the goalie's job harder. you're right, it is a lot to ask from a goalie. but why shouldn't we ask a lot from our goalies? why should it be such an easy position? to me, wrist shots is just another tool for shooters - one additional skill (in addition to passing, stickhandling, bike riding), and in response, a goalie is tasked with developing one additional skill in response. this is called evolution, and it's a good thing. it brings the skill level of the game as a whole up, and encourages creativity. picking spots with a wrist shot is just as hard for a shooter as stopping them is for a goalie. it's not the case that it's very easy for a shooter to develop a deadly accurate wrist shot and very hard for a goalie to learn how to stop them (or for a defense to learn how to defend against players that have such good shots). there is no skill disparity here, it's 1:1. it seems to me that the real gripe is that goalies don't want to have to develop a new skill in response to shooters being allowed an extra tool in their arsenal. going top-shelf is not as easy as you seem to think it is, but the point is it's possible, if you develop your skills and practice. that's the kind of evolution and creativity this sport needs. again, we're shooting at a plane now, not a line. there's no reason to put artificial brakes on the game in terms of creativity and skill.

lastly: if you're concerned about your palm being too soft to deflect a wrist shot (which, honestly, is never -that- fast) without injury, i'm sure a lot of guys on this forum can recommend some strategies to toughen that palm up...

I assure you that I'm not arguing this "as a goalie". Sure I can play
goal - and in my opinion do it reasonably well - and if I'm playing on
a team with 2 strong forwards or 2 who don't have faith in their own
proficiency in net then I'm likely to spend more time in net. But its
not where I like to spend my time on court, and definitely not to the
extent I would be arguing this, for that sake only.

I'm actually quite interested in seeing how it would pan out in a
tournament. I would have liked to have seen the ESPI Nyc experiment. I
think that the general level of ball skills, scooping and flicking, has increased quite a lot since then though, so it might act as a good guide, but not totally analogous.

Put on a tourney with wrist shots in NYC this year and I'll be there.

the only thing planned for NYC this year is club matches, a.k.a. new format, a.k.a. the future of polo. no more random sets of 3. it's city vs. city, club vs. club. and wrist shots are always counted.

X 2 to the future. But I think the benches will shrink. 5 or 6.

starting to get off-topic, but that's both my fault, and i don't mind... just this one short comment to that: 5 is definitely too few. over an hour-long game, your shifts have to be too long with so few players and the game starts to get those lulls like we see when people start to get tired and need to slow-roll around or turtle for a while to get their wind back. one of the (many) major advantages to long-bench format is that the pace of the game stays high for the entire 60 minutes because there are always fresh legs on the court. the other thing to consider is that long-bench format solves the problem of too many teams, and making the benches too short counteracts that effect. 7 is a good number, i think 6 is an absolute minimum. anywhere from 7-9 or 10 (may be pushing it with this many) is ideal. it's up to the club to decide in the end, though. if your club comes out with 5 players, a team with 8 on their bench is going to run you - if they're smart - by taking shorter shifts and forcing your guys to exhaust themselves, knowing they're going to have to work harder over the 60 minutes. short shifts, keep the pace high, run the other guys ragged.

Agree that the whole bike don t have to cover all the nets. but like Lewis I thinks that is really to hard to make bets to high and allow worsts. Without them you can let the post higher than a 700 wheel, but allowing them make the top corner spot a too easy one. Is there a special topic about wrist here?

this weekend in Konstanz during the german qualies, we have a couple of situations that I find relevant with all this debate about crossbars

the first one, a crash, when a player took the golie out and both went over the goal, as we were using bungie cord/ inner tube
nothing happen to either the players or the goal. I think that with a rigid crossbar, either the playes would have been hurt or the goal been broken

second one a goal, or to be more precise a not goal, when the ball hit the inner tube and went over. the team wanted a goal, but the ref, decide agains as the ball was not inside the net. I think this is not a brainer, ball in, goal, ball out, not goal, and this is from everybody the same, so I dont see the problem even if the inner tube shags a bit.

I can see the benefics in having a crossbars, but also importan drawbacks....

Zaragoza Bike Polo 2015
Berlin Bike Polo 2010 - 2015
London Bike Polo 2008 - 2010


the problem with bungie crossbars is in the tradjectory of the ball, with a bungee if the ball strikes on the lower 1/2 of the cord, but at an upward angle it can still stretch the cord and skip out over top....with a solid bar it will be deflected either in or out depending if it strikes the top 1/2 or bottom 1/2 of the crossbar, regardless of the angle the ball is travelling. More consistent, and more precise with a solid crossbar, and I haven't heard of a single incident of a player being injured by a solid crossbar....anyone??? I think that landing on the top of the vertical post with no solid crossbar has more potential for injury actually.

Ball deflection will be a problem no matter what kind of material you are using as a cross bar. Specially if you are using a larger diameter material as a cross.

Lightweight nets with cross bars also move way too easily if bumped. Even if you aren't leaning on them, they shift. That messes up flow of the game and becomes more work for anyone trying to keep the goals in place. Lightweight no crossbar wont move as much, and will still give if crashed into, protecting players.

I disagree with your crossbar argument, and I can counter your points, and give you a list of other reasons why they're superior, and then you can counter those....no real right answer...some prefer crossbar some don't, all the arguing in the world won't change anyone's mind....everyone's points are all minor nitpicky things, not enough to change anyone's mind. There are no huge pros or cons either way to make one win out over the other. Basically comes down to some people like crossbars, some people like bungee cords....so why don't we accept that and take a simple count.
all those in favour of crossbar :
all those in favour of bungee :
Majority rules.

I'm sure Kev can set up a vote for this.

As for size, when nets were first coming in I pushed hard for a standardized size. Ask anyone who discussed rules with me....and I came up with one after a lot of discussion with lots of people....and then people who didn't agree went ahead and did whatever they wanted, and now changing those sizes may be time consuming/expensive/impractical for many cities if they have already built nets, which many have. After playing many different nets in many different cities my opinion on an absolute size has changed. Now I kind of think a max and min would be fine, let cities choose if they like a slightly larger net, or slightly smaller net. As long as the max and min aren't too extreme, and most importantly that the net sizes are consistent at a tournament then I really don't think it makes a huge difference. allowing some local flavor at a tourney isn't a bad thing, and sure a few inches in net size can make a pretty big difference, but it's the same difference for both teams. It's kind of like tennis, I'm sure a hardcourt and a grasscourt play very differently, but as long as the surface is the same on both sides of the net I've never seen a tennis player complain about it.....my 2 cents on nets.

"with a bungee if the ball strikes on the lower 1/2 of the cord, but at an upward angle it can still stretch the cord and skip out over top"

but this will be the same for everybody.... so where is the problem?

Zaragoza Bike Polo 2015
Berlin Bike Polo 2010 - 2015
London Bike Polo 2008 - 2010

Most of the tourney i get in europe was without top bar (greifmasters, euros, worlds), and we play with the red goal in first pictures since 10 months. I never saw any issue about top of the net shitty reaction. If you system are tight enough on bot goals, no matters.
Only reason about bounce is that deflections on post or top bars are always a good moment for public or game show.

In Columbia, we play with both regulation hockey nets and a set of hand-fabricated goals made by our computer guru, Vince Foley. Vince brazed the goals and are a very simplistic design (sorry, no photos), measuring in at ~ 2'x6', which (in my eyes) is a bit on the short side. For those in our club that made it to Lexington for the Open and Little Rock for the SCCs, all thoroughly enjoyed playing with those goal sets. One 'issue' that comes to mind with shorter goal height is reach-over play from behind the net that are considered more of a dick move or dangerous.

the bungee top tube is a bad idea. i'd rather fall on a horizontal pipe than a vertical one. as the saying goes if you can't be smart be safe.

Also i'd like to see angled supports for the back rather than the standerd 90 everyone is going with.. i'll try and dig up a picture. momafrey????

Northern Standard


burn purge kill

yes drunkie! i wanted to mention that too, for dive bombing around the net and if the ball is deflected on the outside portion of the bottom support it doesn't stop or simply re-bound backwards.

slayers are only slayers if the slay out of town...

In San Francisco we have never used or had nets at a tournament. I must say that i liked the nets at the Victoria Winter Mixer 2010 . They were light easily put together and the size seemed small enough to warrant plenty of skill with non cheater mallets to score on a perma goalie.They also had enough give to avoid major injuries>Does anyone have a photo or a layout of how these were put together. They came in about 20 pieces and could easily be transported on a bike.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

I'm tired of people using the arguments, "Well, bungee cross bars are safer" or "pvc or hdpe constructed goals are safer than metal because if someone runs into one they are less likely to hurt themselves".

People! it's a bike polo court, not an infants crib.


Solid † bars 4 life.

I agree with Matt.

Control yourselves, control your bikes. This game is (should be) about finesse.

And you gotta love the sound of a ball hitting a steel crossbar or post.


Solid † bars 4 life."

This is what I think about nets with a bungee:
Net gun

There is no room for interference on any player's part to affect a shot on goal. For example a footdown behind the goal, and the player's foot lands on the net, bringing down the top bar, errr, bungee, as a shot sends the ball over the sagging net. This is scenario I can think of.

I like your polo.

While I believe Metal Goals play better, here in L.A. we built 2" ABS goals with a mouth of 6' wide by 32" tall. We based this on goal size we have used at other tourneys, and we based the height on being able to allow a small frame with skinny 26" tires' brake lever to barely clear over the top crossbar. Not being able to clear that made playing goalie too difficult. We used ABS cuz of logistical issues (storage and transportation). Although we found the corded crossbar intriguing, I think there could be an issue with the cord getting pushed down when someone is shooting. Plus it would allow goalies to fully back in there, that seems like a little bit much. I'll get some pix soon.

What i like with "our" nets its also what i don't:

Weight: they are heavy in a way that they almost never move in a game, the rebounds are perfect ( i.e. when you go behind them and use the bottom bar to dribble a player) and a loudly "DING" comes we the ball hit the bottom horizontal bar.
The con is that they are painfully transportable.

In almost a year of playing pickups and 3 majors tournament those netted goals haven't hurt anybody, even if at first the vertical bar looks a bit dangerous.

Clearly, if you can store your nets on your usual spot, steel rules the world. Don't move or a lil' bit.

For the top bar issue, there is no clear answer, i like the fact that people can't put hand on it (and so don't give ref or goals ref more job to do), but a top bar make some good spectacular bounces.
Without top bar there is also less contact who can make the goal move.
The "dangerous or not" argumentation isn't relevant, put some huge piece of steel on a court with 6 bikes and 6 people half drunk is dangerous whatever the shape is...

When you all dab over there do you only tap in when someone else sees you dab?

In my opinion the benefits of a crossbar far outweigh the person in goal using the crossbar as support. If there is a rule that gaining support from a goal is a dab then tap in if it ever happens, just as you do whenever your foot touches the ground.

I'd rather an opponent get away with holding onto the crossbar for a second then deal with the gray area of goal/no goal that comes with the bungee system. And I have first hand experience with this gray area during my semi-finals game at Worlds last year.

the dark end (aka Bobb Todd, Marzipan, B.R. Fuck Face)

As i said... we never had issue with the bungee system about goal or no goal. If the ball touch the bungee a lil' bit under him, the ball always goes in, so no issues. The only matter with this system is that you don't have good bounces on top bar.
Another advantage with this, is that your goal don't look like street soccer or street hockey one, so like this nobody want to steal us this weird looking stuff.

But at least, if the dab' question isn't an issue ( auto-ref by players in pick ups, and a good call system by goal ref during tourney) top bar are way cooler than bungee...

What's the benefits you find to top bar without talking about bounces?

I saw another matter with bungee system, but who never happend to us. If the goal keeper fall on it during a shot, and make the goal smaller than usual and the ball go trought insted of in.
Most of these questions are also related to aerial shots. And without allowing scoops shots, most of the time these shoots are more hazardous than a skill (in Geneva, i don't know for other cities). If one day scoops are allowed, or if we all began to know how to shot high, this issues gonna be more important.

for the french championship we will be running the bungee cord top thing. for safety we might add tennis balls on top of the vertical bars.

SOLD pro: A solid eliminates the varied reactions when a ball makes contact to the cross. I feel the soft cross doesn't allow for consistent deflections where as the solid does.

An argument the softies have is bungee crosses make for an easier job for a goal judge. I don't buy that argument. If a goal judge doesn't have the mental stamina to observe a goalie's actions, then that person shouldn't be reffing.

Yeah.... The only argument for bungie is the dab with the hand, and if you have good goal ref who can call it, there is no probleme with solid cross.
Did you play (in NAH tourney) with a system for the goal ref to call a hand dab?
Did you consider, on heavy steel goal (hockey one or polo sized one) that a shoulder or top of the leg contact is a foul?

In Geneva our first nets was plastic, and we allow most of the time goal keeper to put the hand on the goal, mostly because we wasn't able to ref this, and because the advantage was minimal. As the goal was plastic, the top of the structure was flexible and not stable for heavy handle dab.
For the EHBPC 2010, we get like 2500 $ to order 6 nets from a hockey nets workshop. Made with steel tubes from classical hockey nets. We had long disscussion about puting an heavy and more stable solid top bar. Argument was clearly that we didn't feel easy to find goals refs who can do this job. We give the job to the bungie.

Now we don't have issue about this question here, we never have to ref hand dab. And we don't have issue with bounces, even if they aren't cool as on a solid bar.

At the end I don't care, i love playing polo with nets, top bar or not. If they didn't move and show clearly if the ball is in or not, no matters.

uolmo wrote:

Did you play (in NAH tourney) with a system for the goal ref to call a hand dab?
Did you consider, on heavy steel goal (hockey one or polo sized one) that a shoulder or top of the leg contact is a foul?

NA's in Madison goals were great and all, but they did have a tendency to shift with very little contact.

uolmo wrote:

At the end I don't care, i love playing polo with nets, top bar or not. If they didn't move and show clearly if the ball is in or not, no matters.

big 10-4

A lot of people are making steel goals where can't be disassembled at all. I think A simple sleeve and pin system would solve the transportation issue.

"Did you consider, on heavy steel goal (hockey one or polo sized one) that a shoulder or top of the leg contact is a foul?"

my teammate experienced a frustrating foul with some really small solid crossbar goals. the ref called a foul after my mate top leg got in contact with the top crossbar.bullshit
reffing the dab with that kind of goal appears to be really tricky, especially if even other part of the body than hands/feet are counted as dabs.

one more thing : i don't get the advantage that a goalie could take from dabbing on a top crossbar, i think a good player would rather have his hands on the bike and mallet than holding the goals. why can't we just allow top crossbar contact ? it would be easier to ref (and by easier to ref i mean less frustrating for players who got called foul ).

i kinda agree with this. we allow people to hold the boards or the fence on the side of the court. Why not the goal?

i was pissed when i moved to toronto and saw people doing this, and i threatened to electrify our goals, but i've since realized that it's really not that much of an advantage. the best goalies here don't really hang on to the goal, except to rest for a second or two sometimes.

in certain cases a crossbar might prevent a goaltender from dabbing (after being checked, for example). But to me this just makes the game more interesting, and less clumsy. Dabbed goaltenders trying to get out of the net in time to not have a penalty called on them is an annoying part of the sport, both to play with and to ref.

maybe this belongs in a separate thread.

Agree with the idea of non-calling hand dab'.
In last tourney in Grenoble, the guy who organize most of the tourney told us that this foul would be called. But nobody does, and nobody care. In the final game, the same guy try to prevent foot dab by playing with holding the top bar of the hockey sized heavy netam and it was kind of useless and fun, nobody told him to tap in. The rules that he wants to apply to the tourney wasn't enforced, even by himself.

Allow people to hold boards and not goals is strange. And most of the time Goalkeeper don't play with the hands on the handle.

Reffing hand dab' make the goal judge job way more difficult.

kev wrote:

i threatened to electrify our goals

Problem solved.

I like your polo.

Ya, I don't think goalies holding the crossbar is an advantage to them either....I could care less if they hang on, cause if they are that means they either aren't holding their bike, or aren't holding their mallet....either of these things will make it much easier for me to score....so go ahead hang onto the net all day long. I don't think I've ever seen a good goalie use the crossbar for support to their advantage ever....

The bungee is too reminiscent of the cones we used to play with. The solid cross bar allows for DEFINITE AND UNBIASED DEFINITION of a goal.

Soccer, hockey, lacrosse and radball all have solid cross bars, just sayin'...

I like your polo.

What kind of goals does Bike Hockey have?

Pieter, or anybody from Vancouver, do you have photos of the goals you had in Calgary last year? I like the angles on the base of the goal.

I like your polo.

These are from Edmonton, modeled after some in East Van

I don't like that low angle in the back. imagine if a hard slapshot comes perpendicular to that low angled rear bar, goes in 2 inches in from the goalpost. Wouldn't in bounce right back out? maybe someone who has experience with these can chime in.

A lot of shots bounce out of these nets. And it is hard to tell when shots go off the post or go in because the low angle is right there and there is no set back.

I'm hoping we are going to make some new nets soon that are more like the hockey nets behind it but not as high.

indeed many many shots make contact and bounce out just inside the post and it's difficult to decide whether they "crossed the line" or not. you need at least a small piece of 90 degree coming back off the base of the uprights.

what if the bottom tube was a flat 1/4 metal. No ball would bounce back out at that point.

Matt Messenger
since 1998

messmann wrote:

what if the bottom tube was a flat 1/4 metal. No ball would bounce back out at that point.

We have goals constructed out of 1.5 " tubular steel & the ball always bounces up into the net & makes a satisfying "ding".

Iron balls with magnetic goals like in rollerball will eliminate indesicive goal judge syndrome.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

Check out the goals from the Qualifier in Tempe Az . There is a clear picture of them if you go on to the profile of "Dus" SF Bike Polo Clan voted them best out of all tournaments. If they come apart at the "L" then i see no better goal structure than that. Mike -T might have the answer.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

show us please.

Chk comment #68 Matt. They do not come apart, but could be modified to do so.

Not Yet....Not Yet.

heres what we made and used for ladies army this weekend, with model Zach. Theyre 200x85, lightweight steel, played well. need a better net as what we used as it tore easy and got caught on mallets and bikes but the goals themselves survived well with no incidences.

  • DSCN1233.JPG
  • DSCN1237.JPG

Get rad

200 cm x 90 cm

That net is nearly impossible to see. It also looks like some shots could be mistaken with that shallow angle.

Can we get some feedback from those who were at Ladies Army?

I like your polo.

At Ladies army there were definite close calls on wether or not the ball had gone in . MacKenzie had the most memorable "non goal" that was argued over for more than a minute b4 being disallowed . I saw it but it was impossible for me to tell if it went in thru the side or in front of the post. Very tuff call. it was fifty fifty for those for and against it counting and pretty disappointing for MacKenzie coz the sniper shot itself had fantastic power and accuracy.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

We ran out of steel and that angle was the only way to get them to stand. Overall I think everyone was happy with them (I didn't hear about the issue Machine was talking about.) They are really light weight which is good and bad. The other thing is that all for goals nest into each and into the size of one. The photos were taken without nets on them. Not bad for $30 worth of steel and a few hours welding.

as frazer had said before.. we havent any legit goals as of yet here in molo but are looking into it, and after measuring 26" mtb's, the the average handle bar height with flat bars are roughly 37".. i propse that the goals should be approximately 6' by 35"( which leaves a good 1 1/2" for fingers not to be smash on the cross bars) with a dept of atleast 3'. ive seen in a lot of tourneys to where folks would take hard shots and the ball would go in and come back out before you really noticed(being a goal judge or even the crowd at that ) and there are always those few games to where the scores are inaccurate and makes a game really frustrating for the team which scored and changes a pace of the game. but im am up for any other ideas that you guys might have to throw my way if the are not listed above.. thanks

“I believe you should live each day as if it is your last, which is why I don't have any clean laundry, because, come on, who wants to wash clothes on the last day of their life?”

will the NAH be ruling on specific standard dimensions anytime soon? we are looking to have some nice goals welded up for us, and it would be great to have them be compliant...


Northern Standard

X3....we can argue forever about it, but it's time to try and find a middle ground from everyone's comments and pick a size. Sometimes making a wrong decision is better than making no decision at all. Let's pick a number and go with it.

Just wanted to add one more thing. After reffing at the qualifier in portland and seeing a shot go top shelf and through the net, nets should be strongest part of the goal.

*After seeing rory's shot go through spooks and wheel cover and watching at least one shot go through the net more attention needs to be paid. At least the reffs should be checking nets before each match and organizers should have back ups ready.*

P/M Hardcourt

Let's pick a size already.

**(damn you have to click on it to see him beating it)

  • beating-a-dead-horse.gif

This photo illustrates just one of the reasons why crossbars are a good idea, you can see the sagging net and the goal posts bent inwards.

FHBPC 2011

The Karlsruhe and Geneva designs, which i think pioneered this design, cost $400 to build per net, and they have stood up to polo abuse. But the inevitable cheap copies are bound to break and bend like, in this photo.

Clearly if you want no crossbar you do to have heavy overall structure.

Having a crossbar does make the net more top heavy, so the back will need to be heavier to keep it stable.

I was wondering if a design where you can switch between crossbar/no crossbar and top shelf/no top shelf would be wishfull?

But if this thread shows anything it is that there are many different options (and many more opinions) for the nets. I'm wondering how long it will take for a standard format to be made and incorporated into the rulebooks, at least for tournaments. I'm sure it will happen one day, so why not sooner then later?

seriously, seattle?

  • Screen shot 2011-06-15 at 6.19.42 PM.png

at least the one at the other end looks the same

Tell me if i'm taking it too seriously, but i'd refuse to play with that net until it was switched out or fixed.

One thing I've been seeing on a lot of goals recently is the nets being strung reaallllyyy tight on the goal frame. This creates a lot of problems with shots hitting the net and being flung back out really quickly, making it hard in some cases to tell whether it entered the goal or not.
Slacker netting will absorb the speed of the ball and help drop it down inside the goal. Also being able to see the drooping net fling up as the ball hits the back is a great visual indicator to help see that the ball went in.

Other than this the nets at ESPI6 were pretty near perfect. Can we get some figures from someone in Philly?!

My opinion on the ESPI6 nets is they were NOT weighted down properly at all, which resulted in having to adjust the nets constantly. I'd take a super taught net over an un-weighted one any day of the week. I personally also like a net with a little more depth, but maybe that's because i'm use to our own nets in MKE.

x2 on dims of ESPI nets. I'd guess they were 200cm x 90cm.

We are on the right track for making the ideal goal, but still working out the kinks. Mainly, I think it's keeping them consistent from tourney to tourney.

I don't see the relationship between taught nets and weight, it's not a trade-off. different issue right?

In response to Lewis' comment on how taught a net is, I'm saying I think the weight of a net is far more important than how taught a net is.

i understand, but you make it sound like a trade off.

I'll refrain from using hypothetical trade-offs on this forum. My apologies Master Kev :)

ha, i just thought you were dissing lewis' point, which i thought was a good one. we'll have perfect nets one day. it wasn't long ago that we had no nets at all.

The nets as ESPI were a combination effort in consideration.
We considered weight, height, netting, and cost.
34" tall and 74" wide INSIDE dimensions.
So we went with a compromise between all of them. The material used to make the frames pretty much held up to regular play. Without them being bolted down, you're going to find it hard to make nets that don't move at all. Granted, they could have been weighted a bit more, but I don't think it played that controversial a role at ESPI. And they were still safe if you ran into them. No one was injured by a net frame or obstruction.
The height was pretty awesome. I didn't hear a complaint about them in reference to top tube and handle bar heights.
The netting was a bit tight, but that was what we had room for in our budget at a kind of last minute fix. Sorry, but they were still usable and with goal judges it made it easier to establish goals in, even if they bounced back out right away.
The cost was lower than any other that i've heard and we had to keep it that way for the budget. In total we spent $350 on all 6 nets. This was pretty crucial in our planning.

So for those imperially challenged that works out to 86cm x 183cm.

Wasn't having a go at the nets as far as the netting tension, just making a note so we can keep on working towards that perfect goal. Y'know, constructive criticism and all that.... I agree they still did a fantastic job regardless.

In regards to Matt's comments, your right about the weight, they could have been a little heavier, but the dimensions felt about the best I've played on to date.

Some combination between the construction of the Lexington goals, and the dimensions of the Philly goals and we'd be pretty damn close I think..... (the Lexington goals were a little tall for my taste)

oh i know you weren't. the tension and weight were discussed when we tried a pair out the week before the tourney but figured they'd be good enough...and it was too late to really make a change.
...but i know you weren't attacking the espi nets

hay it eric plaxton from toronto and im wounding if any one knows a good place to get netting for the nets im building outher then crappytire or walmart

Outdoor sporting store that sells bulk fish netting.

a tennis court at 3AM.

The nets for the Northside qualifer were awesome. Very well crafted Eric. I have one criticism, the height. The cross bar are right at handle bar level not allowing the player to post up with their wheels on the goal line easily and making it difficult to turn the front wheel in goal. I know everyones bikes are different but an average height that is between the top of the wheel and the bottom of the stem would be perfect. Six inches lower and those would be the ideal polo nets.

I disagree, i thought the height was fine. I did not have any trouble flashing my front wheel or getting my bike close to the goal line, i dunno maybe my bars are higher. I also think even with a 700c wheel you should be able to shelf it above the wheel, forcing the goalie to move in all three dimensions. The nets were a little wider and that forced me to play back and forth, it was a harder net to defend. I think smaller shorter nets are not the right answer.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

The only matter with the height handle bar sized ( for a lot of bike) was more the fact that they were moving really easily after a small touch from handlebar, an heavier basis or just some sand bags could fix it. The fact that the top bar make the lazy goalkeeping mor difficult is good, agree.

So here in North Texas we are thinking about buying or putting some goals together, has there been an official ruling on what regulation size is going to be for certain yet?

Polo at Mack Park in Denton Tx Sundays 5pm-10pm

What about something like these with a different net? http://www.amazon.com/Mitre-Soccer-Folding-Steel-6x3-Feet/dp/B000RLC5Q4/...

Don't think it would be best for permanent installations or anything but for people who need to transport there goals they seem pretty decent, already the right size too :)

Polo at Mack Park in Denton Tx Sundays 5pm-10pm

Just did a search on them and found out they have them at walmart for the same price down the street so im really thinking about trying these out....and its walmart so if and when we break them or hate them we can just bring em back.

Polo at Mack Park in Denton Tx Sundays 5pm-10pm

I am sick of nets that move around. Time to start making those maf's out of solid steel. Calgary was especially horrible for this (despite their creativity to wrap the bottom of the goals with rubber tubes which did help) because there was a giant fence between people with the ability to help and the goals. This creates so much unnecessary controversy over goals or non goals on a net that was out of place. Polo players are generally good enough on their bikes to avoid 150+ pound moving objects. I think it is fair to assume the same caution could exist with an inanimate object. If not steel some sort of non permanent non surface damaging anchor system would be great. Polo playing engineers please get going on this. While your at it can we get a better ball already please. Something made out of mylec but heavier would be really nice, thanks.

And what's the deal with airline food? I mean, fuck.

PS - prototype fixcraft hardcourt ball is being played with right now for experimentation. Exact weight of a Franklin red, supposedly a little harder like a mylec. Haven't used it myself, just a heads up.

X2 on the nets in Calgary, if i looked at them the wrong way they would back up six inches let alone if i touched them with a wheel. I was cursing those nets as i had to reset them myself while trying to keep an eye on the game too. I think tubular steel goals are the way to go.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

This may be a horrible idea, but......

me and another player here in Saint Pete were discussing using the yellow HDPE tubing for goals...

Yes the same stuff alot of use for mallet heads, based on the strength i feel like these would be a good option.

anyone agree or disagree?

also how did the Wal-Mart goals hold up Blindsight?

St.Pete Bike Polo

I think the mitre folding goals would be a good option if you have to transport your goals with you, they fold up nice and are pretty light. The biggest issue is that instead of just 2 pipes they use a bunch of smaller sections that snap together so its not very sturdy. I could sit on my bike and lean on the goal with my hand and it did ok but if someone leaned over on it really hard or took a spill in front of it and fell on the top bar it would probably collapse. Might be a way to stiffen them up with some bracing but I wouldn't recommend them for a permanent install.

Polo at Mack Park in Denton Tx Sundays 5pm-10pm

Missoula just finished up our new goals last week. 6' wide x 3 'tall x 2.5' deep. Kind of a mix between Melbourne's and Milwaukee's.... Pvc with thicker heavier gas piping on the bottoms...deer netting to keep it Montana rugged. We've only played with em once with no problems...we'll see how they stand up tonight. Has anyone tried filling the bottoms with foam or anything else for a little more density?

  • goalsfront.JPG

steel or nothing built strong in toronto by eric plaxton working on making them shipable and portable 6 by 3 by 2 money

  • P6280368.JPG

Awesome!! Keep updated on the shipping availability.

"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'

WOW! Leave it to your hockey playin' canucks to build a hockey-style polo-specific goal.

Up til now the Lexington goals were (imo) the best option so far. But with the addition of curved rear corners and bright red tubing... everything you need, nothing you don't.

This is the new standard.


Northern Standard

#189 looks like something you could have built up pretty quick at your local muffler shop and end up with a very similar net. Sand could be dumped into the frame on a lot of these, to weight down the base tubes.

After travelling a lot this summer, i saw a lot of nets with top bars. And there is more issues than the actual Genevian no top bar nets. More nets moved by player, bikes and handlebars, even the eavy ones.
More issues also with rules, because of the "don't lean on the goal with the hand" rule. With just never have this issue in Geneva with our nets.
during my whole trip, i saw a lot of goalkeepers playin' with a hips on the top bar, make them really hard to put down.

At the end the only real advantage is for ball on contact with the top bar and the way they look. But i only saw one ball in 3 months hitting the top bar. And i see only one issue about bungie bounce in more than one year playin with no-top bar nets.

My opinions is clear now, fuck top bar nets!

We're just getting ready to get rid of our cones and we've planned top-bar goals. It takes considerable time and money so I don't want to regret the effort. uolmo you make many valid points yet despite the advantages of no top bar, America has gone with top-bar goals. Has any club out there made nice goals but seen uolmo's concerns realized and now wish they had gone the no top bar route?

Such harsh words Clement!

The only reason anyone does anything.
For the lulz.

he is right tho...

Zaragoza Bike Polo 2015
Berlin Bike Polo 2010 - 2015
London Bike Polo 2008 - 2010

Distinctly possible. If for nothing else the inability to lean against the goal is a nice way to enforce that particular rule. That being said, we still have 5 sets of goals and probably won't change any time soon.

The only reason anyone does anything.
For the lulz.


Top bar add nothing but a way to help the goalie "cheating", impossible to ref by the way.
In the Worlds for exemple my handlebar get right in the height of the top bar, nothing like that happend without it, you can ride closer to the goal and it's even less dangerous.
Plus, when falling on it, the goalie move the goal A LOT, wich never happend without topbar, the goalie fall but the goal stay in place.

Building strong nets with no cross bar costs twice as much as building them with a cross bar, cause they have to be way stronger. Crossbar-less goals posts are far more likely to bend.

Id rather have quality, strong, inexpensive goals, that don't require regular maintenance (tensioning the rope across the top to prevent sag).

Also, goalies that fall into nets with no cross bar can get tangled up much more easily, causing play to stop entirely.

Finally I really don't think leaning on the goal is that much of a problem. Good goalies just don't do it, except maybe if the play is at the other end of the court, in order to relax, and then who cares? No touching the nets and playing the ball. Just like no fucking with the goalie if the ball isn't close.

Nailed it with the sag issue. That is my biggest problem with bungied top bars (see the Seattle pickup nets for proof)

Also, possibly an unpopular opinion but: Who the fuck cares if a goalie's hip/ass/etc is touching the frame of the net? I don't give a fuck. Just beat the goalie with your shots. That's all you've ever had to do anyway. Stop nit-picking and play better.

Okay catfish, I'm going to move my mouth like this...

Former nets, but that was the biggest reason that for worlds we built the goals we did. We needed durability and trust worthyness without specualtion as to what would be needed to do that with a cross bar free goal.

I also agree with the second point as well. Most people who are a true pain in the ass in goal don't need to hold onto anything. The people that would need to hold on to a net to stop a shot aren't usually an issue.

The only reason anyone does anything.
For the lulz.

I disagree that leaning on the goal isn't that much of a problem. Yeah, the best goalies out there don't lean on the goal, but there are several relatively good teams with permangoalies who are constantly leaning their hips/forearms against the goal. I've seen these permagoalies lift their mallet straight in the air, hold it there for a looooong time to avoid getting swiped, and somehow manage to not shift their weight or move their bike to facilitate staying up. But once they came out of the goal, they foot down like they're on a swing bike for the first time.

Of course the dude from portland is talking about swing bikes.

The only reason anyone does anything.
For the lulz.

DUDE! I was just logging on to say "Wow, you really are from Portland now."

Worth noting: I commuted to 8th grade for 3 months in the fall and winter on my neighbor's swing bike because mine got totaled when I got hit by a car. I learned to fall as gracefully as a ballerina leaping from tower 2.

That is the most wonderfull, completely tactless, story I have ever heard. Pete, I am very happy you live close to me now.

Leaning on the goal is a problem, not everyone is a virtuous player. I know when we designed our goals we discussed having no top bar and there are a lot of options that make it a feasable choice. We finally chose to go with a solid top bar net out of a desire for durability. Hopefully we will eventually be able to either use a goal that doesn't allow leaning like a soft top bar or govern the rule better. Reffing is it's own thread though.

The only reason anyone does anything.
For the lulz.

kev wrote:

Building strong nets with no cross bar costs twice as much as building them with a cross bar, cause they have to be way stronger. Crossbar-less goals posts are far more likely to bend.

So not true. 3'' steel pipe,will hold up great and has a nice weight to it.
At the EHBPC we had some fantastic goals and we didn't have to spend more than 500€ for 6.
As for the sagging, braiding together 3-5 inner tubes together makes for a top bar that holds true but doesn't let you lean on it.

*Somebody please think of the children!!*

Mr.Carrillo wrote:

At the EHBPC we had some fantastic goals and we didn't have to spend more than 500€ for 6.

wow. those are really expensive goals compared to all the goals I've played on. I bet they're awesome.

I was going to type a bunch of stuff, but I'm just going to agree with everything Kev said. Top bars aren't a big deal to me, and I've gotten my bars caught on the top bar maybe one time because I came into the net recklessly. I guess I don't reeeaaally care too much either way as long as the height is still very similar to what has been used, although I'll have to see these goals with no top bar myself to believe they are as sturdy and solid as the ones we had here at worlds. Bigger nets that are heavy duty and stay in place are all I really care about.

our, the ones that are in the front pictures of this thread, are heavy as shit... so they don't move at all before somebody really really crash in it, and they move a lil' bit, few cm.

At the end a lot (i hope) of you guys gonna travel to europe next year and you gonna check this kind of nets. The only issue i can see is if there is some people gettin' used to goal keep hip on the bar can get some balance trouble with some of our goal.

To answer Martin... fuckin' with the goalie is sometime the only way to play in this sport, and i don't see the point of a goal keeper who don't know how to handle a bike but can stop a lot of shoot just by puttin all is effort on moving is mallet in front of me. Disturb the goalkeeper is part of this sport.

Tulsa gets rid of the cones. Made from old drilling pipe, a resource Oklahoma has plenty of.
They're very solid and very heavy.


That's what I'm talking about!
FBPG.Fucking Bike Polo Goals.

*Somebody please think of the children!!*

These are pretty much a rough copy of the swiss nets. It took two of us two full days to make them plus weld the brackets on to hold the nets. I spent another day making the nets. All the materials were upcycled so they didn't actually cost any money. We used a 70º angle on the sides going back and we noticed that the ball sometimes bounced out quickly if it was hit from the side and we couldn't tell if it was in or not. We added ramps, you can kind of see on the inside, to pop the ball up and into the net solving that issue. We also added the white across the top to act as a crossbar. Our goals are 3 foot by 6 foot.

We have to get these inspected by the parks department before we can leave them at the park. I suspect they may have us fashion some kind of pad for the tops but maybe not. Somehow I think their solidness and the rounded cement tops might be sufficient.

One other thing that was kind of a surprise was that the ball only makes a quite, deep "tonk" when it hits the pipe. I think it is because the pipe is so thick. Maybe use thin pipe if you want that great sound.

We just had new goals made in Lancaster a few weeks ago.
Schedule 40 steel pipe, 2" diameter.
They're fairly heavy, and definitely don't move anywhere. Nets are from a local sports shop.
These ones are hockey regulation, 6 x 4. Second set being made are polo sized, 6 x 3.
Frames cost us $150 from a buddy of mine
Nets were 40 each, though i've since found them at around 15 bucks on amazon
spray paint was 15 bucks.
Turn around was about a week.

  • goal-finished.jpg
  • goal-schema.jpg

agile for my size.

double post,....

....... __o
.... ( )/( ) \o

Nice, I made basically the same drawing, minus the mid support bar. I found a local guy who makes lacrosse nets using steel fence post grade steel, not as heavy / strong as sched 40 pipe, but works great. He swaged the pieces and rolled the corners so there are four pieces that can be taken apart and put together easy. I had to use self threading screws with a cordless drill to make the four pieces solid. Plus I put an old bike tube filled with sand in the bottom tube and it seems to be a nice balance of weight and stability. Haven't quite figured out how to make the netting be an easy on and off system but I'm working on it. I surprisingly haven't taken any pictures yet. Cost was $75 for one net and any adjustments I might want at minutes to do, I watched him. I'll take some pictures tomorrow and post.

....... __o
.... ( )/( ) \o

My helpful (?) hint for the day..
.. Old trampoline frames make great goals!!
They already have the bends in them and are readily available for cheap or $0

Best goal i've seen so fare with top bar: PADOVA 2012. Heavy, top bar under the hips (avoid most of "cheating"goalies). If italian guys can post some pictures it would be great.

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

Best goal i've seen so fare with top bar: PADOVA 2012. Heavy, top bar under the hips (avoid most of "cheating"goalies). If italian guys can post some pictures it would be great.

tnx Clem

I agree fully

The Bisons

I like this goal.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

What is the size of Padova's nets? Is it 180cm?


Anyone know of any portable/foldable goals or plans for one?
Ones that will fit in a car folded. We cant leave nets at our court without them being vandalized.

Walmart has Mitre portable soccer goals that we use. But we switched out the net with something with smaller holes.

shotgun your bike!

jillian.rose wrote:

Walmart has Mitre portable soccer goals that we use. But we switched out the net with something with smaller holes.

I was actually thinking about doing that, or somehow making one of my own with PVC or something..

My GF's dad is/was an engineer and we're visiting them this weekend.. We're gonna ask him if this is something he could help us with.. I would LOVE to get something like this made.. (obviously this is not PVC)

With the 'top shelf' folding in and the bottom folding up..

Drewcifer wrote:

I was actually thinking about doing that, or somehow making one of my own with PVC or something..

We used to use ABS back in the day, but we had problems with them breaking, 'specially on newbie night. I would recommend not gluing them together if you go that route, as when/if they do break you want to be able to fix them, not be forced to scrap it and buy more material (or make mallets if its ABS).

shotgun your bike!

Check out the goals in the FHBPC final video that was posted a few days ago. The set back top bar really helps to stopping goal leaning.

So, I made these folding goals, so they will fit in my car for easy transportation.. Came out better than expected.

I forgot to bring the bottom crossbar in the above photo, so it's the net isn't tensions as tight as it should..

@ EHBPC 2013 Kraków. We're lucky one of our players is able to weld.

  • L1160324.JPG