Machine Politics vs Beaver Boys, May 2011. Photo by Bruce Carver
I see nothing wrong with them...if someone has the speed and bike control to literally remove you from play without broadsiding or ramming you or playing dirty in any way then I think that's just part of the game. if you don't want to get screened figure out how to avoid it...ride faster or smarter or in other words outrun or outthink. it's not like screens are a make or break tactic in this game...because it's 3v3.
even if you play 3 forward (no goalie) against 2 forward (permagoalie) and both offensive players screen both defensive players for the forward with the ball that still leaves 1v1...forward vs goalie. if that is an automatic goal then play without a goalie. but if the goalie wins the ball on a block, deflection or charge it's a breakaway against an undefended goal...no goalie and the defense is too out of position on screens to stop the breakaway.
if you both play 3 forward or 2 forward then it's still just 1v1 after an effective screen...either 1 forward vs 1 defender or 1 forward vs goalie. 1v1 is going to happen in this game..and should.
screens on offense stop teams from stacking defensive players in front of the goal and the offense can screen the stronger defensive player and get a better matchup 1v1 for their forward with the ball.
screens on defense are technically just one on one coverage...shutting down passing lanes in order to make the forward make a bad pass or have to beat the last defender(s)/goalie alone...which shuts down the option of last second 2v1 near the goal.
someone tell me the complaints about screening...that it's too hard to play 1v1 offense/defense or that it's unfair when someone is more maneuvarable/faster/beter on their bike and keeps you from getting the ball. feel free to cite other sports...
I agree screens as long as they are done properly and not tboning should be legal.
Zackstar and Adam think differently ...probably becasue MKE screened them for days at COG and they got mad at losing
at any tournament run by MKE proper screens will be allowed
haha this is probably why you got drafted so low, cause everyone knew you were gonna be parked in a lawn chair in the penalty box with angelo
Yes to screens.
screens and picks are the make and break tactic in this game.
they are so important strategically...a team with lesser "talent" can employ screens/picks and win intelligently despite being outclassed in other areas.
I think being a tactical defensive player, one that can block for their offensive team-mates to get the ball to the goal, is as important a skill as being able to score goals.
I love blocking offensive players so that they are forced to pass so that the chances of my team intercepting are greater.
I think they're a completely integral part of the game and a team that does them well is a team that is thinking together and playing well together.
I don't understand why someone would think the sport needs to get rid of a perfectly safe, mostly non contact strategy. You start telling people they can't screen and making up rules, and you start defining how people play and taking all the creativity out of the sport.
Fuck all the whistle blowing ideas. Rules on contact and rules on what's a shot are all you need, and for the most part both of those are already figured out.
and worse, screens are basically impossible to regulate anyway. why would you start making rules that you can't even enforce? screens are a natural and exciting part of the game. if you want to play in a game without blocking, go and play grass polo.
Truth. If you have the ball on your right side and someone is challenging on the right side, and you pass through bottom bracket to a teammate coming up left side, you're now in a natural screen because you don't have possession, and it's beautiful!
I just don't get it. You can't ref that. It's how it's played.
exactly...are you supposed to offensively bb pass left and then back off to make way for the defender? on defense...are you supposed to not set yourself up between the two offensive forwards because getting in between them is interference since you are technically screening the non-possessing player off of the ball?
no wonder cascadia isn't coming in march. adam change your silly rules and maybe you can pick up a good free agent. is this why messmann bailed?
I didn't know this was a contentious issue until I was reading the rules for the bench minor tourney:
7. Interference- Actively blocking another player from getting to the ball when you don’t have possession. This rule only applies to player interactions away from the ball. You don’t need to ever worry about interfering with a player that has the ball, in fact they should be expecting to have opponents in their face. One example of interference is when your teammate has the ball and you are trying to keep the other team from getting to them. Moving picks are interference as well as checking a player that is off the ball. This especially relates to opponents in the goalie position. Hitting the “goalie” will result in this penalty unless the goalie is close enough to reach the ball with his/her mallet. Furthermore, while tapping mallets is kosher all the time, aggressive mallet play off the ball is also considered interference (example: tossing an opponent’s dropped mallet across the court, or kicking a goalie’s mallet out from under them away from the ball). To clarify: that move of Rory’s of smacking the goalie’s mallet out of the way as the ball is nearing the net is a skillful and completely legal maneuver as long as you’re not making a slash on the goalie’s mallet and the ball is close enough that you’re trying to keep the goalie from poking it away. Tapping the ball to make it a technical hit and proceeding to t-bone the goalie is illegal; although that wouldn’t be interference so much as roughing. Being somewhere or doing something you shouldn’t be after a footdown is interference. Get the fuck out of the way. If you look in the Cog magazine article with the Cog tournament, there’s a (bad) picture of me leaning into Kremin’s arm, who’s between me and Jake, who has the ball. This is so totally interference.
Maybe this rule is written OK, but I haven't given it much thought. I do think it will be hard to enforce.
A top-level reading of the "interference" part of this rule seems to indicate that if you place yourself between a defender and your ball-possessing teammate in order to protect your offensive move/breakaway, you are "interfering."
So, the solution is to just go run and hide any time the defence needs to go check your teammate? This is crazy. I don't think so.
I feel that this will be the worst thing about Bench Minor. Even if it's a good idea in theory (i don't think it is), i'm guessing it will be impossible to enforce.
My feeling is that Menace wants this because of hockey (obviously) and because he's not a team player, unless he's the guy being passed to. I don't really get Zach's motives wants it, but maybe Jake is onto something.
Screens are gonna happen. It's like a block in football or a pick in basketball, its part of the game. If they try to enforce that interference rule it may ruin the fun of that tournament.
I almost think the rule needs to be opposite of basketball: Moving picks are acceptable stationary picks are more dangerous and often inviting the T-Bone.
yeah i made the football analogy once here and the response was something like "i might as well try to convince a believer to give up faith in god".
kev: zach definitely hates being taken out of plays via screen
x2 on the opposite of bball...stationary picks done on moving players can be brutal.
Ultimately the comments in this thread:
1. Make it clear why proper, skilled screens picks should be allowed and,
2. how futile it is to attempt to regulate. "I just don't get it. You can't ref that. It's how it's played."
So, until we get it back, x2 to all y'all.
http://www.cogmag.com/images/polo_invite_psb_1.jpg
mke definatly has something to do with it
Adam and Zach wrote these rules and i'm asking them really articulate these before BM starts.
In my mind, interference/obstruction/moving pick gets called in other sports for contact between two players. there's a way to effectively screen an opponent in bike polo w/ out contact. I don't feel, in normal polo play, that that should be penalized. i also don't personally feel as strongly about "the screen" as other NYers, meaning it doesn't bother me that much. I do feel like if somone takes the body, lays hands/arm etc like Kremin is in his above picture, you are entitled to return the favor, and put him down.
I agree that this rule, in regards to Bench Minor, needs some further clarity.
What I'm hearing is: you can't regulate a screen, if i pass to a teammate I'm "all of a sudden interfering", interfering is what weak teams do to compete with better skilled teams.... no one likes stationary picks... impossible to enforce... makes the tournament suck.... blah blah.. drafted low..
short and simple: 1)We're not changing the rules, and don't bitch about them because they were posted before the draft, you had plenty of time to plan something else for your weekend. Instead, kindly open your mind to something a little new in a new, progressive tournament. If you pass the ball like in the above scenario you aren't interfering as long as you don't speed up to intentionally to block the defender, or slow down and stop in front of them if they're trying to get behind you. Passing the ball when you get pressured like this is exactly the kind of high-class technical play we're encouraging instead of having you wait for you buddy to screen the other player and neutralize him. See? more passing and less getting in the way. 2) Stationary picks aren't all going to be interference- only when you go out of your way and stop in front of an opponent is it interfering. If you happen to already be stopped on the court for some reason and a player has to swerve to get around you, it's not your fault, and they should have their head up anyway, no penalty. 3) Rules aren't impossible to enforce. You're just an idiot. A ref is a lovely invention that acts as a third party to... wait for it... Enforce rules! Rules established before the game to be mediated on the fly by this magical ref. The ref will be using his best judgment to call penalties. Although magical, he will be human and prone to mistakes, however I'm confidant in his abilities. He's got a good background for it and strong head. If you give him any shit he won't hesitate to penalize your team for unsportsmanlike conduct.
ok, proceed to bs everyone and everything. I don't normally read this stuff so don't expect any follow-up crap. Thanks for pointing the thread out to me, paul.
so let me get this straight; if i were to break these rules in, minor bench league, i would be a DICK??!
Zach, alright - difficult to enforce. Difficulties are part of life and I have nothing but respect for magical humans.
Appreciate you taking the time to address concerns.
good work zach for telling it like it is. the rule is here for a specific reason: to force teams to generate scoring chances using _real_ skills such as stickhandling, getting to the open spot, making/receiving passes, and converting shots while under pressure from the defense. your well-practiced ability to get in someone's way so they can't defend the ball is not a skill. any idiot can get in the way. to be clear: you _MUST_ allow defenders to defend. period. you are not allowed to use your body or your bike to physically prevent a defender making his way to your ball-carrying teammate. i'm having trouble understanding why so many people have difficulty wrapping their brains around this concept.
the original poster is correct when he writes that allowing interference creates more one-on-one situations, but do you really want to see the game played this way? is your idea of an exciting sequence the one you describe -- in which two defenders are neutralised via interference by two offensive players, which leads to a shooter-on-goalie interaction which results in either a) a boring shootout style goal or b) a save followed by an uncontested end-to-end empty net goal for the other team? if so, it's a good thing you're not coming to the bench minor, because those aren't the type of games we're trying to have here. our goals will result from either excellent offensive skill and team play, or atrocious defensive breakdowns. i expect to see a good deal of both, and either way is much more exciting and fun than the "i've got your screen, walk to the net and tap it in" method you seem to like.
another question asked by the original poster is - paraphrased - "if i'm not allowed to interfere with a defender, what the fuck am i supposed to do as an offensive player if i'm not carrying the ball?"... is this a serious question? just a couple of free ideas to get you started: find an open spot and expect a pass, set up on your blue line to cover a break the other way in case of a turnover, or if you really have no idea what to do, just ride toward the fucking net with your stick down. more often than not, this is the correct thing to do.
finally: our refs will be making the calls. there is _no_ "don't be a dick" rule in this tournament. our rules are specific and enforceable. if you don't think this interference rule is enforceable, watch the games and find out. it's much more simple than you think.
"you _MUST_ allow defenders to defend"
This oversimplification is ridiculous. There is a dynamic situation in front of the goal. Offenders have more moves at their disposal than taking passes. Blocking will always be part of this game. If defense is on my right and my mate is on my left, I am going to create more room for my mate and take space away from the defender. It's the defender's job to avoid being blocked out or he has to figure out how to get in the play in some other way than waiting for a Ref to blow a whistle. (BTW, I have yet to hear a whistle blow at a polo tourney and I have no problem waiting for that day to come.)
I do believe in having a ref who can call fouls or interference. I have only a vague sense of what's acceptable. I think it's tough to understand the nuances. It's OK, we can still have tourneys and sometimes the "dick" rule has to carry the day.
And I think these written descriptions are weak at best. It is extremely tough to describe in words. If someone built a video compilation of fouls we could look and point and have a useful debate. Maybe some day we'll have refs who get it and can do it reliably enough that others will get it.
The good part is we're having the debate. We all want the same thing: fast smooth play, pretty goals.
nice job paraphrasing...completely wrong but entertaining. a different poster brought up the scenario of...two offensive players heading downcourt with the player on the right having the ball...the defender is on the player with the ball's right...the player with the ball passes b.b. left and is then in a natural and common screening position between the offensive player receiving the pass and the defender on his/her right...what should the offensive player do in the split second after he/she passes? ...and please feel free to actually answer this question rather than responding with some dumb shit like...get open and score a high class technical goal like we NYC players do... this isn't even some poor floridian's question...but I'm interested in the answer in case this impacts polo outside of NYC.
I think more people would be interested in what you have to say Adam if you didn't belittle people while saying it.
And if you guys have any more questions about the tournament rules, I put my email in the rulebook for a reason. A lot of this stuff is exactly the kind of outside insight I wanted to help clarify the rulebook, which I'll be doing tonight.
I'm curious...it sounds it like it could be more fast paced...I'm not asking about the tourney but in general.
so on defense...
A. you can't simultaneously play "one on one" defense because nobody can "cover/interfere" with the non-ballhandler?
B. you can't clog lanes and intercept passes because blocking lanes is "screening/interfering" with the non-ballhandler?
C. where are you supposed to go/be when one of your defenders is already covering the ballhandler?
D. is it progressing to picking your "player" on defense and only covering him/her...and only once they get they ball?
E. if it progresses to one on one coverage only...would there be the option to "switch" on defense during play?
F. are there going to be set positions that you cannot leave..zone style?
I still think you just outfinesse a physical team...seems strange to want to change polo itself rather than your own play. screening leads to one on ones which is the same as what no screening leads to...screens just make it tougher to feel like a superstar cause you gotta earn every goal by beating a team and not just one player.
still interested to hear how it turns out...
it seems that what you really don't get is that interference is a very specific and obvious thing. you're thinking of it in way too broad a sense. interference will only be called when a player physically interferes with a defender attempting to do his job - defend. the only other sense in which an interference gets called is on a body check away from the ball. clogging passing lanes and sticking close to non-ball-carrying members of the offensive team to prevent them receiving passes are not penalties, i don't know what gives you the idea that we want to make them penalties. all it is is that you're not allowed to impede someone's progress by parking yourself in front of them or forcing their line to change via your own positioning. it's funny how you talk about using skills, speed, intelligence, and creativity to counteract cheating (interference), when you really should be using these exact same attributes - if you have them - to get open, move quickly and make quick accurate passes to pick apart the defense and generate scoring chances. you say screens make it harder to feel like a superstar, but the exact opposite is true. anyone can look like a superstar and carry the ball to the net and tap it in if his teammates are allowed to clear a path to the net for him like in american football. that's not what we're playing here. real superstars are able to make plays while under pressure from the defense, not while defenders are being interfered with and never even have a chance to get close.
so in you tournament interference is only called when an offensive player physically interferes with a defender? what about if a defensive player is doing the same thing to an offender?
"Actively blocking another player from getting to the ball when you don’t have possession." is a broader rule than "interference will only be called when a player physically interferes with a defender attempting to do his job - defend."
its all academic for me as i'm not going to be there, and i don't think this rule will be picked up for many other tournaments, but i'm curious and i'm sure many other people are curious about exactly how you're going to enforce this rule
x2
I don't think either one of the NYC kids noticed that every one of my questions were specifically about...defense. an offensive screen is an obvious move to identify and penalize even by their rules...but on defense you can screen as well...when their weaker/est offensive player has the ball and it's a matchup with your stronger/est defender...the defense can screen the players off the ball and force the offense to win a 1v1 stacked in the defense's favor...plus, screening the offensive players keeps them from getting second chances close to the goal. you just edge them out...positioning like corner kicks in soccer, rebounds in bball, passes in football, etc...but it sounds like only offensive players can't screen for other offensive players.
you got it. defensive players will only get called for interference for bodychecking someone who isn't in possession of the ball. incidental contact is okay, a purposeful hard bodycheck on someone who isn't in possession is not. boxing out, fighting for space in front of the net, all that's good.
offensive players screening for other offensive players -- preventing a defender from defending via physical interference -- is the penalty.
this could be a fun game...I already have practice games where I tell my teammates not to do any screens...just practice passing and getting open for passes. a lot of newer players get into the habit of 1. screening immediately whenever they don't have the ball which for me usually means the ballhandler now has one less person to pass to if they get into a tight spot. 2. thinking that when they get the ball they should take it all the way to the goal and everyone should be screening for them. 3. not looking to make passes which I think is the most effective way to disorient the defense. oury to teach out newer players to hold the ball just long enough to make the defense commit and then pass/reverse to the open player(s). screening is not something you have to teach...I agree on their being less a skill to screening than passing accurately and getting/creating open looks. on the other hand I like when someone tries to screen me because you just outride them and they are then screened themselves and out of the play...
I said earlier in the thread...screens allow a less technically skilled team to strategically compete with a more seasoned team. bike control is part of the game. I kind of like that different cities are experimenting...I would like to play a no-goalie tournament where the goals are the size of an average bottom bracket. you can defend all the way to the goal but no tripoding or trackstanding in front of the goal waiting for the ballhandler.
a- wrong
b- wrong
c- be wherever the hell you want to be. this makes me regret hitting refresh btw.
d- if you mean progress instead of progressing, then im still confused. maybe you think "covering" means youre wrapping your arms around them. I suggest playing a team sport like soccer or something before you make yourself sound any dumber.
e- sure, i guess. why would you want to have a definite answer to this? Wouldn't the play action dictate?
f- you could play like that, but it sounds like a bad idea.
Why aren't florida people more knowledgeable? I know you guys don't have anything better to do. go learn yourself. and stop talking about moving away from florida and actually be the first of your friends to pull the trigger. its the only way out.
wow! zach is a real dick! isnt he jas? so condescending and what not... welcome to the pit dude the only place where menace will ram you into your girlfriend and send you guys sprawling and zach wont even talk to you until you are acually in a game with him and all of a sudden he knows your name then says fuck you pass me the ball. if you ever do make it up to nyc check out paul AKA the "Harrier" or skeet AKA the "Hawk" and chombo AKA the "Crane" leave thy nest young chick and spread your wings! zack you had a good point there...
Zach- you never responded to my emails when I brought up questions regarding the screening several months ago. so it makes it seem like you really dont care or listen to what folks had to say about the rule.
anyway ill see you on march 20th.
I guess some people don't know what interference means in this type of sport. It all makes perfect sense. I like it. I'll be there and i can't wait to play the sport the way gentlemen should play it.
Throw a pick up on me and i'll hit ya, i'll just ride right through ya. I don't like doing it, but it what? You want me to yield my position? It all ends up being bush.
It's going to be a nice refreshing change. I look forward to a skilled polo weekend. Good job Zach, Adam and Paul.
Thanks Ange, ah, crap I just got something in my eye here..
please refer to the Rulebook 2nd edition:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AX79vnJNQ88PZGduamMyMjhfMGRneDlwbmhy&h...
Christ, takes a fucking canadian to make sense on this thread.
ps- I was unfortunate enough to live in florida for 7 years, it's a black hole. It sucks people in, and it takes initiative to get the fuck out. It's also where old people go to die. I have nothing against southerners. Just floridians.
It's also where old people* go to die. I have nothing against southerners. Just floridians.
*new yorkers
hey i like that.. florida, where new yorkers come to die
your inability to "pull the trigger" for 7 years has nothing to do with me...I've lived all over and there is nowhere else where year round you can typically go snorkeling, kayaking, surfing, swimming, etc...without a wetsuit or layers of clothing on...not to mention playing "shorts and a tshirt" polo in the middle of the winter.
thoughts:
. Simple rules are better. "Egregious moves away from the ball will be penalized at the ref's discretion" Egregious means fucked up.
. x2 on video examples for announcing weird rules on the interwebs. Show someone dicking up good game flow as an example of what gets penalized. Show some real defense that doesn't get penalized.
. Point out that penalties make part of the fun here ...penalty box ... bench flow style and all. Sounds like a blast.
. I'd be a bit insulted if this rule got called much on a team defending my team. What, we can't get around the turd hurlers so the ref needs to help us out?
. Having a shitty time for a long time in another state says more about how much shit you're capable of taking than it says about the state.
edit: *wink*
Devin
Screening was a magic moment in a recent tourney here in Melbourne.
Jan 26 (Australia Day) Anthony, visiting Memphis Polo Player, organised a Bench Tourney, inspired by the upcoming NYC Bench Minor and East Van Bike Hockey. (just to get in first, and try a new dynamic for a tourney) total rip off we all acknowledge, but it taught us a few things. And we had to deal with a few things that you won't. First up, this is no invitational, it was wide open, and as a result, we got a few players with only a few weeks experience. We also a bus load of players from Frankston, 1 Hr from Melbourne, where another polo crew has started up.
3 teams of 7 players, 3 periods of 20 min per game.
How each game managed their interchanges varied alot. And how the weaker/newer players were fielded also varied alot. As it turns out, our nevest player (with the weakest ball handling skills at the time) became a great asset to us, we assigned him to screen whoever the strongest player on the other team was at the time. even if the ball was loose and nearby, he was more effective taking other players out, rather than going for the ball.
This strategy was a game changer, and he was one of the happiest visitors at the end of the day, knowing that his contribution was as effective as the others, albeit in a different way.
So screening is also a great tactic for new players to get into, especially when they know their ball skills aren't as developed as their competitiors in any given game.
exactly. if you don't have any skills and can't play the game, cheat. nice one guys. no sense practicing and developing any skills, just get out there and get in someone's way. that's not strategy, that's clownery.
""you are not allowed to use your body or your bike to physically prevent a defender making his way to your ball-carrying teammate. i'm having trouble understanding why so many people have difficulty wrapping their brains around this concept.""
Because that's a difficult concept. How determine what is an interference and what is a "im going my way, i want to be just here what you want to be too". In Geneva we have this disscuss a lot of time, for example, a man want to get into his own empty goal to prevent a shot, and an offensive player want to get to the goal too to take the potential bounce of the shot. Should the offensive player let the priority to the defensive one? Even he's faster?
If you are sitting in the opponent goal, wait for a pass to make a lil' shot, should you let a potential goal keeper take the goal to defend?
The matter for me is that a rule like that is a lot about intentionality, if the man you ref-call didn't even think about screening but just about getting to a good position whitout thinking about the moving defensor he could block in doing this, does it realy need a ref call?
BTW, im not against checking new rules, and maybe this could be easiest to enforce than it look, and make the game smouther. Can't wait to check that!!! youhououou!
i think you've got it mostly right. it is pretty obvious when you watch actual gameplay when a person is intentionally interfering with someone and when they're simply moving to a spot in response to the play. when two guys are chasing down a loose ball, the one who gains body position will naturally block the other guy out, because they're riding to the same spot. no interference here, he's trying to get the ball, not specifically trying to block someone else's line. interference only gets called when you intentionally pick a defender so that he can't move where he was already moving. if you're an offensive player who doesn't have the ball and you're moving toward an open spot or toward the net with the intention of receiving a pass, you're fine. as you say, it has everything to do with intent, and in normal gameplay it's usually pretty clear if a guy is specifically blocking a defender from moving to the ball carrier. he's not even thinking about getting somewhere to receive a pass, and he'll often even say something like "I've got your screen" and give himself right away.
p.s. i need your jersey number!
85 if that's possible.
I see what you want to say. I hope that ref gonna make clear difference between un-intentional and intentional screening. But for me, there's a grey aera in this rule that should be in favor of "non-ref call".
85, you got it.
the refs know what they're doing. the games aren't going to be called super close, it will have to be pretty clear what you're doing to get whistled for a penalty. we're not trying to alter the flow of games, just to build in some responsibility for goonery and bush league play so that teams score with skill and teamwork rather than with smash-and-run.
Bike polo is played sitting on a 5ft long barricade on wheels that can basically only move forward. I think this makes the pick a natural part of the game. In Milwaukee we pick a lot but we can handle, shoot, and pass too, i think this style of play is very holistic.. ya know, when used by a good team that have all the other team skills you speak of. A team like e.van is great at setting up picks and they are very good at all the other elements of polo too, and they did pretty well last year (we did too). In fact, Drunkie's picks on brian and myself durring the NAHCBPC in the semi-finals had a big hand in beating us. Besides, it would be pretty hard to win a tourney if a team had no skills other than stopping in front of people, so why are you guys so threatened by that? If your defender got picked while the other team scored, that guy just got beat.
Also, bike polo is not ice hockey.
joe- they are threatened by it. when they first set up this tourney it was gonna be regions versus regions and they were scared the MW would destroy , so they made that rule. Now they are trying their hardest to come up with reason why the pick is a bad play and despite their reasoning imo havent really explained their side except that by saying "you are not a good polo player if you use a screen, learn how to pass blahblah"
i expect to see a example or description of what will be enforced and called at this tourney before we start, and it is their tourney so well play by their rules.
it seems the poloverse is on the side of picks/screens so don;t worry just have fun in NYC
This does sound like fun.
And I get the vibe if not the verbage of this rule... doing stuff rather than undoing the other team's stuff. Perfect idea imperfectly captured.
This Saturday during pickup Rev Phil proposed that the top assist senders would get free tix to his bike porn show that night. I like that kind of constructive thinking. Then he showed everyone his junk! Check it out. His co-hostess is lovely and she can sing.
http://bikeporntour.blogspot.com/
Devin
Jake,
don't flatter yourself. my motivation for suggesting the draft was honestly to mix it up. i didn't want to listen to the "who's on NY's team..." argument for 2 months, wanted Europeans/West Coasters (too bad) to register, and thought this tournament would be different enough that a draft might work.
and I ended up on a Midwest heavy team anyway, so it looks like it worked out for me in the end!
Wow, this thread gives me a headache. I think it's funny that jake and co believe we're threatened by their mad screening skills (because we've never been able to beat them before), when it's obvious that the polo.ca community is threatened by us trying a tournament that's a little different from the norm. I could care less if most of you don't like the rulebook I helped write, because most of you weren't even drafted for this tournament. I don't expect any of these rules to catch on for use with other tournaments, so why the hell do you have so much criticism for them? If you are going to be at the bench minor I think it's going to be a blast. I'm looking forward to every aspect of this game, and also getting feedback on how it plays out.
and why can't I just not like floridians? I was in middle and high school there, didn't have much say as to where we could move at the time.
zach- im really just playing devils advocate here iam all for tryign something new and knew this rule well in advance and still decided to reg. for the draft.
the "threatened by" post was 98% sarcasm 2% sliver of truth. im sorry it seemed to come out strongly.
im very much so looking forwad to this tounrament and I know that this rule will not make or break it so see ya on the 19th!
These threads are like that game that most of us had to play in elementary school where you start out whispering something to the person next to you and by the time it gets through the whole class it is a completely different sentence. This one started out "offensive/defensive screens, love em or hate em?" and ended up as "weallfuckinghatezachadampaulfortryingsomethingnewandeventhoughwearentbeingforcedtoparticipatewearegoingtotakethisopportunitytowhine". Its a reasonable question that is asked in the OP and one that deserves discussion. Personally, I have some mixed feelings about it. I played soccer and, as many of you know, the "obstruction" rule in that game can seem arbitrary at times but with a decent ref its pretty easy to enforce. It always seemed like a natural part of the game and everyone knows when you are "playing the man while off the ball", that you may be called for it. We need Commissioner Schultz to issue a ruling, one that will stand forever, one ruling "to rule them all!!!!" bwahahahah
it seems that what you really don't get is that interference is a very specific and obvious thing. you're thinking of it in way too broad a sense. interference will only be called when a player physically interferes with a defender attempting to do his job - defend. the only other sense in which an interference gets called is on a body check away from the ball. clogging passing lanes and sticking close to non-ball-carrying members of the offensive team to prevent them receiving passes are not penalties, i don't know what gives you the idea that we want to make them penalties. all it is is that you're not allowed to impede someone's progress by parking yourself in front of them or forcing their line to change via your own positioning. it's funny how you talk about using skills, speed, intelligence, and creativity to counteract cheating (interference), when you really should be using these exact same attributes - if you have them - to get open, move quickly and make quick accurate passes to pick apart the defense and generate scoring chances. you say screens make it harder to feel like a superstar, but the exact opposite is true. anyone can look like a superstar and carry the ball to the net and tap it in if his teammates are allowed to clear a path to the net for him like in american football. that's not what we're playing here. real superstars are able to make plays while under pressure from the defense, not while defenders are being interfered with and never even have a chance to get close.
So is this the basic jist of the interference rule? Or did this opinion change after Bench Minor?
Rory on right, Joel on left. Martin is picking up the ball on offense to the right of the picture. I believe both defenders were in/near the goal preparing to block the shot. Photo by PDX MVP Cecilia.
7. Obstruction- Actively blocking another player from moving forward with your body/bike. There's a difference between being in the way, and getting in the way: The latter is a penalty. Especially if the person you're obstructing makes contact with you, as this makes it very obvious to the ref that wrong-doing is afoot. If you put a footdown and you haven't tapped in yet, it will be super easy to earn a min or two in the box for obstruction. Get the fuck out of the way.
This was clean play from my perspective. Is this rule trying to create some sort of contact-free polo, or is it just poorly written?
yes(in my understanding) that would be illegal under the bench minor/ESPI rules. not really about being a clean/dirty play. not really about contact. It's about allowing defenders the right to press the man with the ball.
personally i like the rule, because i think it opens up movement on the court. in games where one team is constantly picking or obstructing the other team's defense, everyone is coming to full stops to avoid clipping the obstructors' real wheels. the flow of the game is jerky and to me at least aesthetically unappealing.
i rather see cross court passing and offenses making runs to spread out the defense, than one guy taking the ball to goal while his teammates have the defense pinned down.
I agree passing is more fun to watch than blocking. But a combination of the two can be a winning strategy.
I think the interference rule is too hard to police and is going to change the game too much. People will be intentionally crashing into their opponent to get the penalty. Oh god this is going to be soccer soon. Everyone I talked with this weekend in Portland thought the Bench Minor (ESPI now) rules were a joke...but none of us have experienced them. Maybe I'll hear back from SMILE after ESPI. I've heard from New York friends that these rules don't change the game much...then why have them.
Anyway at least the Worlds and North American Championship will not be using these rules.
taking the fall happened at espi 5 and it won a certain team a game and will continue to happen if this rule continues to exist
Joel thanks for posting this picture up here. I think it's really wonderfully demonstrative of what they're trying to prevent. I think it's also really good because everyone should recognize it as something that they've done, is a reasonable action, and that you and that immovable wall that is rory are not killing each other in some epic crash.
i don't think it's just about epic crashes. i think the point is also that what rory is doing there is not at all indicative of his polo talent. That could be anyone in that picture, a crappy player who understands the smallest bit about positioning.
in Madison where i used to play and in Toronto, we have always had a rule during pickup when there were only 5 players, so the team that had three players wasn't allowed to place picks on the team that had two players, for obvious reasons. it's pretty easy to extend that to three on three and i think it makes good sense.
That could be anyone in that picture, a crappy player who understands the smallest bit about positioning.
Must call bullshit here Kev. Lesser players than Rory try to box me out too. A crappy player would be looking for the ball or doing something less useful for offense. Rory makes it look easy. Trust me, some crappy player is not going to wall me off like Rory. Many try. That's part of the game.
Joel, you are on fire!
I totally agree with you on this point. Rory manages to screen you out, and from what I understand about your description on martins positioning, is taking you out of the play while being in the play with his team as well. Doesn't sound like a crappy player to me at all.
i've had plenty of crappy players box me because that's all they were able to contribute to defense. and the bigger they are, like rory, the easier it is to box. luckily rory has plenty of other skills.
one other detail... Rory's effectiveness at screening is also based on his abnormal perspiration, everyone wants to give that a wide berth.
as the general rules we all more or less play by stand, picks are legal. there is certain skill to setting them and they can be clean and fair. i can't imagine that people will ever stop setting picks in their local pick up games. perhaps this is an argument against trying to prohibit them in tourneys.
that said, as we are still a young sport developing a rule book, it's interesting to try new rules like this, that don't fundamentally alter the game, but do steer it toward an ideal.
I'm also of the less contact is better school, and would love to see the game become essentially a minimal contact sport, allowing only incidental contact between players on the ball. maybe I'm just getting old but the game seems dangerous enough without people throwing checks against 3 foot high wooden boards while going full speed on bikes. I can't imagine that many agree with me though.
I can't imagine that many agree with me though.
There are only a couple people in our club that play rough at all, the rest of us would prefer a no/minimal contact game. I bet that is pretty common. I too accept the contact as part of the game and try not to get bent out of shape too badly when I think someone does something dangerous.
Jav, I totally agree with you. There's some light contact that goes on in portland and seattle but it's not a rough game. There's also a lot of screening. I don't like getting physical with other players, it's not fun and honestly it scares me. I think that picks, or screens, can be made without contact. Most often I see them without any sort of hit at all.
Week to week here in Melbourne there's minimal contact and we still manage hard fought games.
Maybe we'll see a day where every team has a whip-thin lightening fast striker, a skilled-at-remaining-stationary goalie and a massive bear-like "screener"
I hope not.
T
Question for those lovers of the moving pick... do you feel it's legitimate for the defending player who is being obstructed from getting to the ball to shoulder check a player who does not have the ball, but who is actively getting in the path between the defender and the ball? Is it illegal contact because it's not near the ball?
Is this one of those questions where I answer it and it turns out to be a trap?
That play you describe is one I don't like. I, for the most part, think that contact never really needs to happen purposefully. Taking a close line and in the key are situations where shoulders are going to touch but I don't think that these two players, both without the ball, need to be muscling it out. Change your trajectory, move to a different spot, the attempted play has been foiled but there are hundreds of others. I think that was Joels' statement before when he said that a bunch of chumps have attempted to block him out but depending on the player he changes his mind and does something else. I might be paraphrasing.
Checking is never necessary and always bullshit. If checking/ramming/t-boning is illegal then write a no-checking rule. When a defender rolls out a moving pick there is usually shoulder-to-shoulder contact. The distinction is subjective but the idea should be simple: you can lean & push but you can't hit.
A shoulder check, to me, means rolling with some speed into someone, shoulder down, with the intent to knock them over. It's illegitimate and would make you a lot of enemies if you played that way out here.
Checking is never necessary and always bullshit.
. The checking part is tough to call. The locals/refs/officials should take responsibility to set the tone for acceptable aggressive play.
I'm confused, what is your stance?
I'm confused, why aren't you at Ladies Army?
ha, I wish. would rather be playing polo than debating it,
but new york was/is sadly prohibitively expensive
your FLAdies did really well but you might have carrrrrried the straight edgers to the podium.
It's challenging to describe "checking" with written words. Thanks for the question though, let me try to answer it...
I stand for clean, friendly polo.
I stand for aggressive polo where players walk away with mutual respect.
I stand for the host setting the rules.
To a certain extent I stand for rules that are shared, even unwritten. That's partially the reason why I struggle with this notion of illegal picks/interference. I don't get it. To me, illegal interference is a mallet head under/hooking the opponent's wheel, a hand grab, maybe a chicken wing depending on the situation. I think Rory nailed it when he said that if it's too tough to consistently call and infrequent then why make a rule?
Ok, lean/push with your shoulder, whatever you want to call it. But yer saying that this kind of contact off ball should be OK?
come on...the offensive player setting the screen doesn't need to resort to shoulder checks to set the screen so why does the defensive player need to resort to shoulder checks to get through one? the screen only works on players who have less bike control/speed/finesse than the player setting the screen. if someone slower and less stable tries to set a pick or screen you just outmaneuver them...if nothing else you turn the screener into their own player and cause them to screen the goal from their own teammate which effectively makes them a 4th bike to shoot through, one less option offensively and one less passing lane to clog...
Very good question Kev. Can you describe for me exactly how this defensive player would check the offensive player without the ball?
shoulder to shoulder. it's probably more of a "lean", like joel says, but size will matter a lot. Joel isn't small, but if you reverse roles in that photo up above, Rory could probably drop him.
Obstruction was called at ESPIV a handful of times at most. I don't think it was ever called during any of the elimination round games. I don't think it was very well explained, i think a few more visuals could help a lot if this is going to be used more. Personally i like the rule as it encourages a passing game, and reduces off-ball contact.
For your last question, about an offensive player without the ball blocking a defensor:
For me, if the opponent play always with fuckin screen who block the game you have the right to T-Bone them (slowly). Ive made this move one or two time. you are just getting for defense against the better offensive player in europe and his teamate blocking you the way to get to ball 3 times-> 3 goals. I think that making a false accidental T-bone like " o my god, is screening me and i didn't notice it! sorry for your Pringlesed rear wheel" isn't a very bad move. I know that's shitty polo, but getting screening all the time make the screened players angry and more dangerous.
That's why i love the BM or ESPI rules idea. But it's always hard to enforce.
Maybe that the idea is also to allow defensive screen and make illegal the ofensive one.
Edit:
What about the most ugliest screen:
You get back to your goal after an interception, trying to save a goal comming from a 2 offensors attacking.
When you arrive at your goal, the offensor who didn't have the ball and who is positionning between you and the ball driver go into the goal to block you the access for goalkeeping.
It offers for the opponent an half open goal.
On the drawing:
Red are offensive, green the blocked looser. And grey the shooting range.
These kind of situation make me feel that if there is no obstruction rule, then you need to make a goal-aera who works a lil' bike like in hockey. For example you can pass trought, but not staying in it. Only a single defensor could stay in it.
To answer a second time to your question kev, for me in this situation, the green player can even push the red with his arm to make him move away from his goal...
there is no right to real estate in polo! that includes the goal area. the moment your referring to alexis, who was on offence, was there first and was already stopped perpendicular to the goal line when the defensive player tried to come into the net to post up. the defensive player was not trying to get to the ball which was no where near the goal nor was the shot off making the play in goal live. technically the defensive player could have been called for t-boning.
what you saw there was clean polo.
Coach I agree with you on the good clean polo call on that play, frustrating for sure but definitely legitimate in thworld of goalies. It teaches them to be more flexible, they should see what is happening (especially if the opponent is parked there) and make somethign else work. Alexis kind of neutralized himself from being able to act quickly if the play turns around and if the shooter is driving down then make something happen. Especailly as nets are used more the anti goalie maneuver is going to be good but possibly risky.
On the otehr side of that, as much as I agree with defensive screens in polo, I do think that the "goalie" was gettign to teh ball. We all know where the ball is ultimately aimed at, the goal. I think that by gettign to the goal you are getting to the ball at the very least in terms of "eminent domain". I think Adam said somethign along the lines of "defenders must be able to defend" I think that goalies getting blocked off by an opposing player is similar.
That being said. I love screens, and the "Anti-Goalie" is a completely legitimate move. I think that the letter and intent of the defensive screen laws could be the begining of a "no fucking with the goalie" idea and is a bit of trouble.
Until there is a designated goalie who has to stay on the defensive side, or on the first defensive quarter of the court (or some other way to demarcate their domain)
I hope this never happens personally. I like "goalies" who can come out and play. Defensive mindedness is awesome, and a personal choice on how you play it, but it would be soooo boring if one person couldn't leave the defensive side.
exactly, it's only a three-player game. three-player sides are hamstrung if they have a goalie that just sits in net the whole time.
goalies is for games with four players and up, the game needs to maintain it's three-dimensionality which it couldn't do with only two offensive players.
I don't want to see special treatment, just a little reasonability in terms of how rough you are on a stationary target. I think play can get rough towards the goalie and as we move on to the world of nets, sometimes heavy and metal, people need to act with safety in mind. A few shoves and a pull on a mallet is fine, a hard hit that bounces someone off of a fairly solid net is dangerous. Yes you can wear pads and helmets are generally required in tournaments but a welded metal goal would still be a bummer to take to the ribs.
I think your teams provide a really solid example of a team that can get away with solid defense without having a person parked in goal. Though, MVP does tend to stick closer there then I've seen other teammates do.
I do agree a designated goalie is inappropriate for a 3-person game.
I think we will need some special considerations in the rules as it relates to contact around the net. Someone parked in goal is a target for hacks, t-bones and all sorts of other "fouls". Some things that are fine out on the court are a lame when done against someone set on defending the front of their goal.
Example questions:
If the goalie is set, is it OK for an offender to set a block on the front wheel to keep the goalie from moving?
Can an offender do nothing but harass the goalie with mallet lifts/hacks, shoulder pushes, etc...? Is it the goalie's job to hack and push people away just so they can do their job? It can also lead to offense dabbing in front of the goal creating a big pileup. Ugly when that happens.
There are probably a lot of different answers to these questions.
If the goalie is set, is it OK for an offender to set a block on the front wheel to keep the goalie from moving?
HA HA! I LOVE YOU JOEL!
I love you too Dan! You are so good at cheating that you make people enjoy it and ask for more!
Last night was just pickup so friendly cheating is all good. This thread already went over riding into goal to block out defenders. We had more of a wheel-to-wheel thing where we both got there at the same time. On hindsight I shout have tried the Big Foot play: wheeling up and over the top of you to get in front of the goal.
Anyway, the thing I'm wondering about is what a ref is supposed to do when two people focus on positioning, pushing, hacking, whatever in front of the goal. It only happens there, anywhere else on the court is different.
Joel is just butt-hurt because as he was about to set up in goal, I rode in front of his front wheel to prevent him from completely blocking the goal with his bike. Then he t-boned me. repeatedly. And when that didn't cause me to dab, he just shoved me over with his hand. In the most loving manner. And then I larfed. good times.
and to top it off, he dabbed when he pushed me over and didn't tap out. No matter how much I cried and cried and cried and cried and cried.
the answer to all of Joel's questions are 'Yes'.
I was duped into thinking there were actually 9 more comments I could reply to on this thread. Honestly I'm kind of glad there wasn't.
You SF gentlemen sure are cute.
it was called against crandall with one minute left in his game against doug/paul/zach. the game was tied. jake and drew held them off for fifty-nine seconds, then they both broke down and dpz scored. the game ended with that final score. an interference call decided this game. it was a harmless "foul". the players and spectators deserved better. doug more or less baited the ref into making the call. enforcement of this rule is not up to par yet.
i missed that game, but x2 on the enforcement inconsistency, it hasn't been communicated very clearly to either players or refs. i also think that 30 seconds would be better than 1 minute, it basically gives one scoring chance not two or three. we need some videos and better diagrams if this is going to work.
i agree on the shorter time period in the box, just think of what a disadvantage it is to have a player riding to tap out for five seconds for a foot down. 1 min is way too long. also, if i'm understanding you and the espi rule correctly the two or three score potential isn't there. the power play is for one minute or until the offending team (whose player broke the rule) gets scored on.
With two tap outs and minus mechanicals, i've never seen anyone take 5 seconds to tap in a tourny.
Also it's one min or a goal, so it can be less than a min. And I did see teams do a good job killing a minute. It's no guarantee to score. 1 min is fine.
please also refer to the roosters thread " the league needs some fun trashing"
kevin- it was called in my teams game on Crandal against doug paul zach in the final minute of play and the game was tied and NYc had power play to go up 5-4.. it changed the entire game that call...also one minute is way too long a penalty for obstruction
From what I gather this weekend, the "screening/interference" rule was designed with players safety in mind. I know it was in the NFL as well. My problem is that a screen can be performed safely and doing so is a highly developed skill. The inconsistency of reffing this rule was a major issue this weekend. A good screen is safe, and should be allowed. Checking over the boards is dangerous and shouldn't be (no i don't care who does it)
I would like this rule to be an "endangerment" rule. You get the penalty for putting another player in a dangerous situation. I think that is also more clear cut to ref.
x2
It then comes down to strong and well informed reffing... tricky!
x2
It then comes down to strong and well informed reffing... tricky!
Tricky yes but when you watch a game of pick up, or a game in a tournament, can you spot dangerous play? I feel that a lot of players at this point know what to call dangerous and what to say is just person being in the way.
[quote=Kiersten
I would like this rule to be an "endangerment" rule. You get the penalty for putting another player in a dangerous situation.
x2
One thing that Occurs to me about this rule and it's very obvious path to polo from Hockey is the level of mobility that is present in a hockey game versus a polo game. Hockey players can stop, move in a completely different direction very easily, makign it almost a moot point to try and get in someones way. You are also playing with 5 players who can all move in this same way, this makes it very exciting and should allow for spectacular interaction for the teams on the ice. In polo, you are fairly limited in your mobility, you are limited to a straight line or or generally loose turns, I understand that there are players who can "zero point turn" but this is not with the same speed or immediacy that hockey players can acheive. Also with fewer players it is an important tactic to eleiminate the threats against your team.
I have also encountered very few situations in which blocking someone was a surefire way to have a teammate score a goal. The theorhetical happening of two players on the offensive team blocking two players on the defensive team leaving a one on one with a "goalie" is rare and would require some serious blocking and lack of skill from the defensive team. The succesful time a player is able to block out another in my experience is usually only a few seconds, This is where the skill is recognized. Creating your team an extra few seconds to create a play seems pretty skillfull to me.
One thing that Occurs to me about this rule and it's very obvious path to polo from Hockey is the level of mobility that is present in a hockey game versus a polo game. Hockey players can stop, move in a completely different direction very easily, makign it almost a moot point to try and get in someones way.
Wrong. This is actually one of things that make hockey and polo so similar, that players in both sports take long arcs to turn around. While possible, it's very rare in hockey that someone slams on the brakes heads back 180 in the other direction, it's too slow and takes too much energy. But it's beside the poing, because even in other sports where it is easy to turn back 180, there are still rules against obstruction / screens on defensive players. See http://www.nba.com/features/misunderstoodrules_051128.html#Illegal_Scree...
You do have a point Kev. Thank you for pointing that out. It's been a long time since i've been on skates.
Thank you for linking to the NBA rules, though I think it is interesting that they allow picks and defensive screening but not dangerous play where the offensive player cannot see the defender. This at the very least makes me feel justified in the idea that as long as it's not dangerous to another player it's an acceptable maneuver. I think this is a large part of our debate in these rules, or at least the most understandable one. Misplaced screens can lead to rough contact and dangerous situations. I am fully in support of any rule that penalizes dangerous play, I just don't think that a blanket statement in regards to screens is what needs to be done. Keep your head up, look for a pass or another way to help your team, but sometimes just being in the way (Safely!) is the best option.
The NBA allows picks but not moving screens. Maybe the idea of "being set" should come into play when it comes to screens.
Can you explain "being set"? I'm not familiar with the terminology.
In basketball, to set a pick on someone you actually have to be set or it's a penalty. "Being set" means stopped. Here is more I found on How to spot an illegal screen:
Look for contact. Check to see if the player setting the screen makes bodily contact with the opposing player. If the player setting the screen is in front or to the side of a player who is not moving, the screen can be set as close as possible to the opposing player. However, if the player setting the screen makes contact, the screen is illegal. An NBA referee should call a foul.
Watch the position. If the player setting the screen sets the screen behind a non-moving player, the screen must allow that player to take a full step back without making contact. The opposing player is not expected to be able to see the screener behind him, and therefore is allowed room for movement. If that opponent is not given the space to change direction or go around the screener, the screen is illegal and considered a foul.
Check for movement of the screened player. If the opponent is moving, the screener must stop in enough time to give the opponent the opportunity to stop or change directions. The legal distance between the screener and the opponent is determined by the rate that both NBA players are traveling. If the screener does not permit the opponent enough time to stop or change directions, the screen is illegal.
Notice the direction or path of both NBA players. If they are traveling in the same direction contact is made, the player that is slightly behind the other is responsible for the contact. It is legal for the player in front to stop completely to set a screen or moderate his pace. However, it is illegal to move backward or sideways to screen an opponent.
Thank you for finding that. It's a perfect explanation of the rules, as you would hope they would be.
I am officially biased enough at this point for this to read to me as "as long as it isn't flagrantly dangerous it's a reasonable tactic, and permited withing the rules". I should probably stop debating my opinions on this rule as I've expressed it over and over. Thank you Stevenso you have released me.
Mikey, the situation you described above of two players blocking out the other team is exactly what enabled Team Bannanas to beat Chris and Mark and Martin last year at the crown when I went coast to coast to score the winning goal. Kev, what really sucked about Doug drawing that penalty was that it was a really smart strategy for his team first off and second that he had to pull sway to get coach to call it. He literally bitched and goaded coach into putting Eric in the penalty box for the last minute of the game, kinda dirty if you ask me.
literally bitched and goaded coach??
I said nothing. Maybe I uttered "hey". I put my hand up and simply looked at the ref (coach) to see if there was going to be a call. and there was. Then I kept playing.
I'm surprised you're calling that dirty.
really smart strategy for his(my) team??
I was on defense and making a line for the ball. Eric who was just ahead of me on my right, looked over his shoulder at me and steered left into my line and slowed. The ball was not near either of us.
I thought it was a very clear interference, and the ref did too.
Anyway I thought that was a pretty clean game over all, not sure why you saw it differently timtim.
And for the record I didnt know it was the last min of the game. I was thinking about the lack of clocks at tournys, Save NYC in MAD, We could use a sponsor to buy count down clocks and send them to tournys so there can be a big clock/score board combo on the side of the court.
I was on defense and making a line for the ball. Eric who was just ahead of me on my right, looked over his shoulder at me and steered left into my line and slowed. The ball was not near either of us.
FWIW, I appreciate this description and the call. It clarifies the idea of an illegal moving pick. I think the idea behind this is that Eric blocked you without giving you enough room to steer out of his way. He's free to set a block, but he has to give you time/space to avoid it. Simply turning a corner on someone's front wheel to take them out of the play is illegal.
Going back to that Rory picture...the difference there was that Rory was holding his line rather than steering into me or coming to a stop in front of me. I had time/space to brake up and get behind him.
Well, what I saw was probably a little clouded by emotion, and by volume form spectators, I saw you and Eric ride into each others lines and then I saw your mouth open with an angry face(game face of intensity) some lip movement and then I saw coach put Eric into the penalty box. I think you are right about big old clearly visible time clocks, that would be rad. I wonder what it would cost to make em. also this for me clearly brings up how it is alsmost impossible in some instances for refs to judge intent of players, and I have to give coach some props for sticking to his guns.
Love them figure out how to go around defenders. If my teammate is getting the ball off the board I'm not going to let anyone charge him/ her while getting the ball.
at the same time you dont want to crowd your teammate when they are up against the boards. who is he going to pass it to? i like to stay out of the pile up, because its just like zombies, they see the ball and there they go, all three of them creep towards the one with the ball.
stay out, let them pass it to you, or if someone else gets it, they might have an awkward pass which will allow you to pick it up, because you were there waiting for it the whole time. or, if its a really awkward pile up and its stuck in a corner, someone is bound to dab. i've seen 3 people one time, all dab trying to get the same ball that was wedged in the corner.
2 comments
|
People complain about screens/picks? As long as you aren't cutting people off so that they crash into you, screens are a great and skillfull tactic.