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

2011 NAH Rules

These are the rules that will be used during our inaugural 2011 NAH Tour - the seven regional qualifiers, the North American Hardcourt Championship and the World Hardcourt Championship.

Many thanks to the people who called and emailed with questions and suggestions, refs who made notes and passed them along and all the players who contributed to and helped edit this very much living document.

2011 NAH Rules

1. Teams - Teams will consist of three players. Substitutions will be allowed only in response to player injury or unforeseen absence (cancelled flight, etc.).  Proceed as follows:

  • If the player injury occurs more than two weeks prior to the tournament:
    • the substituted player must be chosen and declared before the first day of tournament play.
    • this team is then set for the duration of the tournament.
  • If the injury occurs during the tournament:
    • a substitute of equal or lesser skill maybe be chosen to place the injured player. Any member of the opposing team may raise an objection to the substitute chosen if they feel the substitute possesses greater skill than the injured player. This objection must be brought to the attention of the court referee or tournament organizer who will mediate the situation and make a ruling. The ruling is final.
    • a substitute may be chosen from another competing team. However, if the two teams sharing a teammate meet during the tournament, the substitute will play with their original team.

2. Equipment -  All equipment must be inspected and deemed safe before a player is allowed to step on the court. (See General Rules of play, section 5). All equipment must be free of jagged edges and dangerous protrusions. All mechanisms must be adjusted correctly and be in safe working order.

    Bike

    2.1 - Any common type of bike is allowed. (BMX, road, track, mountain). Trikes and recumbents are not allowed.
    2.2 - Bikes must have at least one reliable brake: coaster brake, hand brake, or fixed drive train with foot retention, minimum.
    2.3 - You may not add anything to the bike to help block shots (e.g., a bar under your BB, netting in the front triangle) with the exception of wheel covers.
    2.4 - Handlebars must be capped. Bullhorn handlebars are not allowed.

     Mallet
 

    2.5 - The end of the mallet handle must be capped / plugged.
    2.6 - Mallets must not have any sharp, jagged or otherwise dangerous edges or protrusions

    Helmets

     2.7 - Helmets are mandatory.

    Uniforms

     2.8 - Teams are required to wear matching colors.

     2.9 - Teams are required to bring at least two different colored jerseys in the event that both teams are wearing a similar color. Team with best record will be required to change. In case of like records, a coin will be tossed.

3. Courts
   
    3.1 - Courts should be no larger than 180' x 80' and no smaller than 120' x 60'

4. Goals

    4.1 - All goals will have nets.

    4.2 - Goals should be no larger than 200 cm x 95 cm and no smaller than 180cm x 85 cm

    4.3 - The goal line will be marked.


General Rules of Play

5 - Registration and Pre-match
   
    5.1 - Each tournament will have a system by which teams will check in and have their equipment inspected (stickers on equipment, wristband from registration, etc.)
    5.2 - Teams must be able to show that their equipment has been inspected before participating in any match of the tournament.
    5.3 - Failure to have equipment inspected may result in match forfeiture.

6 - Basic match structure

    6.1 - The ball will be positioned at center court.

    6.2 - Each team will proceed to their side, facing center court with rear wheels touching the back wall.

    6.3 - After making sure each team is set, the court referee will shout "3 - 2 - 1 - Go!"
    6.4 - At "Go," each team will "joust" for the ball at center court.
    6.5 - After a goal is scored, the referee will stop time.

    6.6 - The scoring team will return to their half of the court.
    6.7 - The conceding team will return to their half of the court with possession of the ball.
    6.8 - The defending team may not attack until the ball or an offensive player has crossed the center line.
    6.9 - The referee will resume time as soon as the ball or a member of the offensive team has crossed the center line.

Overtime:
During the elimination rounds where a winner must be determined and the match results in a tie at the end of regulation time, the game will be stopped. The match will enter "sudden death" overtime where the first team to score will be declared the winner. The ball will be reset at center court. Each team will return to their side and the referee will oversee another joust.

7 - Goal scoring and ball movement

    7.1 - A goal must originate as a "shot," defined as striking the ball with the end of the mallet.
    7.2 - Wrist shots or scoop shots are not considered a "shot," therefore will not count as a goal. This technique may be used to pass the ball.

    7.3 - A "shuffle," defined as a ball that is struck with the broad side of the mallet or mallet shaft. Shuffles cannot be used to score a goal.

  • The shuffle of the ball by the defending team into their own goal will be considered a goal if:
    • the ball originated as a shot from the mallet of an offensive player or,
    • if the ball is mishandled in any way by the defending team so as to put the ball in their goal.
  • The following situations will not be considered an own goal:
    • If an offensive player shuffles the the ball into the defending player guarding the goal. If the ball enters the goal is this manner, it will not count as an own goal; The defending team will take possession of the ball and play will resume as if a goal has been scored.
    • A shot from an offensive player that deflects off the broad side their teammate's mallet will be viewed as a shuffle and will not count as a goal.

    7.4 - Ball-joint and side-joint: Not to be confused with a scoop pass, toss or other ball handling. The ball-joint / side-joint is defined as pinning the ball between an open end of the mallet head and the playing surface and then dragging it. Ball-jointing / side-jointing will be allowed ONLY in the player's defensive zone. Ball jointing / side-jointing in the offensive zone will result in the ball turnover and concession of half-court.
    7.5 - If the ball becomes lodged on a player, bicycle or in the spokes of a wheel in such a way that it cannot be played safely, game play will be stopped. The ball will be dislodged and placed on the ground at the point of incident. The player directly involved in the ball being lodged will get possession and play will resume.
    7.6 - The ball cannot be played with the feet. Intentionally touching the ball will be counted as a foot-down or "dab" (see below) and that player will be required to tap-out.
    7.7 - "Buzzer" shots will only count if the ball crosses the goal line before the sounding of the final bell, buzzer, whistle, etc.
    7.8 - If the net is dislodged or moved from it's proper position and the ball crosses the line of where the net should have been, a goal may be awarded.

8 - Foot-down or "Dab"

    8.1 - A foot-down or "dab" is defined as any player placing their foot on any horizontal surface (e.g., ground, mallethead, ball, fallen bike, another player, top of the boards.)
    8.2 - When a player "dabs" that player is out of play and may not interfere with the ball or other players until they "tap in" at one of two designated center court points. Interfering with play will result in a penalty.
    8.3 - If a "dabbed" player is unable to ride to the tap out spot due to match play, the player must let the play pass. If the dabbed player was acting as goalie, that player must immediately exit the area as soon as possible.

    8.4 - If a "dabbed" player stops a shot from going into the net, at the ref's discretion, it may be ruled a goal. Example: a defending player in front of the net loses their balance and dabs. The defending player remains in front of the net - intentionally or unintentionally - and blocks an incoming shot. If there is no doubt in the referee's mind that the shot would have resulted in a goal, the referee can declare a goal. If it is also determined that the defending player intentionally blocked the net when out of play they will be awarded a two-minute penalty.
    8.5 - The "tap-in" area will be located at both sides of center court. 
    8.6 - If a player crashes or falls off their bike, play will continue unless a player is injured. At this point the referee will stop the match and attend to the injured player.

General Court Behavior and Physical Contact

Contact between bodies and equipment is permitted, as defined below. However, depending on the severity, any physical, mallet or bike play that is considered by the referee to be excessive, reckless and potentially dangerous to the safety of the players will result in a warning or a penalty. Essentially, the choice to check/pick/mallet-to-mallet is not the issue. It's how you do it.

 
9 - Permitted contact and restrictions

    9.1 - Body-to-Body contact:

  • Shoulder-to-shoulder contact and the use of forearms is permitted.
  • Hooking, holding or otherwise restraining another player by grabbing that player, their clothing or any of their equipment using hands, elbows, feet or mallets is not permitted. Hooking is defined as using a mallet to restrain a bike or player. Holding is grabbing a player, their clothing or their bike with your hand or elbow, a.k.a "chicken winging."
  • Pushing with the hands is not permitted.
  • A "Cheap Shot" defined as excessively pushing or checking someone from behind is not permitted. Physical blows about the neck or head, any punching or kicking will also be penalized.

    9.2 - Mallet-to-Mallet contact:

  • Incidental contact playing the ball is permitted. 
  • Defensively hooking, lifting or holding another player's mallet is permitted.
  • "Striking" - hitting another player's mallet with excessive force - known as "striking" - will result in a warning or a penalty.

    9.3 - Bike-to-Bike contact:

  • Incidental contact is permitted.
  • Throwing a rear wheel or skidding into another player's bike is not permitted.
  • T-boning is not permitted.

    9.4 - Mallet-to-body contact is not permitted.
    9.5 - Mallet-to-bike contact is not permitted.
    9.6 - Body-to-bike contact is not permitted.
    9.7 - Checking along the boards:

  • For boards 4' or higher - checking is permitted.
  • For boards 3' or lower - a play for the ball along short boards that results in a player going over the boards will be heavily scrutinized. If the check is deemed appropriate and the opposing player simply could not maintain their balance, play will continue. If, however, the check against the boards is deemed excessive, reckless or otherwise thought to have little regard for the safety of the opposing player, the referee has the option to issue a warning or a penalty.

    9.8 - Goalie contact: A player may use their mallet to hook, shift, move, etc. the mallet of the player in goal in an effort to get them out of position or prevent them from stopping a shot. Body-to-body contact or any   incidental bike contact with the goalie is permitted only if the contact is between the player with the ball and the goalie.

    9.9 - Clear intent to injure another player or repeated dangerous and reckless behavior after receiving two warnings is not permitted and will be met with a two-minute penalty or ejection
            from the match.
    9.10 - Throwing of mallets is not allowed at any time, in any situation. Intentionally throwing a mallet will automatically result in at least a 30-second penalty.

    9.11 - If a thrown mallet stops a ball from going through the goal the referee may use his discretion to award a goal.

 
Time-outs
 
The referee reserves the right to stop the match for any reason. Time-outs will/can be called for the following reasons:

  • A goal is scored. Time will always be stopped after a goal, but an extended time-out can be called for a mechanical, or water, etc. Each team can call three of these extended time-outs.
  • The ball goes out of play. The referee will stop time until the ball can be retrieved. The defending team will then get possession of the ball, half-court will be conceded and play will resume.
  • Mechanical problem. The team with the player having the mechanical problem has the option to call a timeout or "mechanical" only after they take possession of the ball. If the team experiencing a mechanical problem is poised to score when the mechanical arises, they may opt to continue their attempts until such a time as, still in possession of the ball, they may call a mechanical timeout. After fixing the mechanical problem, the ball will be turned over to the other team and play will continue as after a goal has been scored.
  • Serious injury.


Penalties

These are the penalties available to the referee. Some infractions have predetermined penalties, such as ball-jointing in the offensive zone (see below). Otherwise, depending on the severity, the referee have the right to use any of these at any time in any order for the infraction in question.

  • Warnings: For most infractions the referee will issue a verbal warning. A verbal warning may also be followed by being instructed to tap-out. Repeating the same behavior will result in a more severe penalty.
  • Tap-out: The referee may instruct a player to tap-out at either side of center court. If required, a player must hit the tap-out point with their mallet or they will still be considered "out." If a player does not physically touch the tap-out with their mallet, they may be asked to tap-out a second time. Tap-outs will always happen without stoppage.
  • Ball turnover: The penalized team will return to their side. Once the team in possession of the ball crosses half-court, either with a player or the ball, play will resume.
  • 30-second penalty: This penalty will follow verbal warnings or will be used to penalize players for a more serious first-time rule violation. When the referee observes an infraction, they will whistle, stop time and call for the offending player to exit the court. The timekeeper will declare when they can re-enter the game. The resulting game play will be 3 on 2 for a full 30 seconds unless the innocent team scores during the power play. At this time, the penalized player may re-enter the court. 
  • Two minute penalty: This is reserved for striking (see below), excessive force or reckless behavior that draws blood or otherwise results in serious injury or any other dangerous behavior that has been met with two prior warnings. The penalized player will remain off the court for the full two minutes, unless the innocent team scores during the power play. After the innocent team scores during a power play, the penalized player may re-enter the court.
  • Ejection: This is penalty is reserved for fighting and acutely reckless or willfully dangerous play that either results in or is deemed as having the potential to cause serious physical harm. The penalized player will be removed from the game. The game will continue as 3 on 2 until the end of regulation time.
  • Delayed penalty call: a delayed penalty can be called. If the innocent team retains possession after the infraction, play with continue until the opposing team gets the ball. At this point, the referee will blow the whistle and stop the match. Each team will return to their side. The ball will be given to the innocent team. If the infraction results in a time-penalty against a player, this player will come off the court at this time. A goal by the innocent team will end the penalty. The penalized player may then return to the court.

Infractions that can result in a warning / tap-out:

  • foot-down / dab
  • leaning on goal
  • Throwing rear wheel or skidding into another player (1st offense)
  • Striking another player's mallet (1st offense)
  • Hooking/holding/grabbing and otherwise restraining another player (1st offense)

Infractions that can result in a 30-second or two-minute penalty:

  • Hooking or holding (2nd-plus offense)
  • Cheap shot (1st-plus offense)
  • Striking (2nd-plus offense)
  • Mallet throwing
  • Throwing an opposing player's mallet
  • Making body-to-body or incidental bike contact with a goalie without being in possession of the ball

Infractions that will result in a ball turnover:

  • Tossing the ball out of the court - This is a delay of game penalty. The ball is given to the other team and the match resumes as if a goal had just been scored. A shot or shuffle that deflects off a mallet, wheel, goal post or other surface, the ball will simply be placed on the court at the point of exit and play will resume with no ball turnover.
  • Ball-jointing / side-jointing in the offensive zone. Scooping the ball, throwing the ball is permitted.
  • Sweeping wheels with the mallet. If a player sweeps out another player's front wheel with their mallet causing them to footdown - regardless of intent - a delayed penalty can be assessed.
    • If the innocent player's team retains possession of the ball and maintains a clear advantage after their teammate returns, the offending player will simply be required to tap out. Play will continue with no turnover.
    • If the offending player's team gets possession after the innocent player's wheel has been swept, the whistle will be blown and the referee will stop the match. The innocent team will get possession of the ball in their own half. The match resumes as if a goal had just been scored.

Court Referee Guide

Duties & Responsibilities

  • Checking of all equipment before a match. Mallet and handlebar plugs, unsafe protrusions, brakes, bullhorns, etc. should be identified and resolved before the match begins.
  • Keeping time
  • Keeping score
  • Having the final decision on a calling a goal. Goal judges will be positioned at each goal, however the court referee has the power to overrule a goal judge.
  • Announcing time remaining at regular intervals, roughly in halves based on match length. (For example, a 10-minute match will be called at five, two-and-a-half, one-minute, 30-seconds, 10-seconds, and 5-second countdown.

Equipment

  • whistle - for stop/start of match play, indicating timeouts, penalties and goals scored.
  • stopwatch
  • radio
  • score sheets


Got a few questions/clarifications...

2.2 - The bike must have at least one handbrake.
So the fixed drivetrain doesn't count as a brake anymore?

6.8 - The defending team may not attack until the ball or an offensive player has crossed the center line.
I've wondered for a while, when the offensive team is taking the ball up in this situation, are they allowed to take a shot before they cross half court?

-Brett

notquitealibrarian wrote:

2.2 - The bike must have at least one handbrake.
So the fixed drivetrain doesn't count as a brake anymore?

Two reasons for this:

  1. Simple safety. If any part of their drive train fails, the brake is there.
  2. If the performance of most fixed-brakeless polo players is any indication, it's not a great option. Over the years we've seen that, with the sudden stops and starts and the fast pace in this game, most fixed riders just can't cut it with legs alone. There are a handful of skillful fixed riders out there (incidentally, most of whom use a lever that pulls one if not two brakes) who can engage with a fixed gear at a high level of play in a safe manner. With a one handbrake rule, when an out-of-control player is warned by a ref that their riding is reckless, they'll a brake to rely on rather than the hope that their bike handling skills vastly improve at a moment's notice.
notquitealibrarian wrote:

6.8 - The defending team may not attack until the ball or an offensive player has crossed the center line.
I've wondered for a while, when the offensive team is taking the ball up in this situation, are they allowed to take a shot before they cross half court?

No. In this situation, play doesn't start until either the ball or a player crosses half, therefore the soonest a shot can be taken is half court. Good detail to make clear, thanks.

That rule about the hand brake is overly bureaucratic and is going to make a lot of people angry. I thought NAH was established to organize an ever growing community of people and ensure them fair representation. Everything you guys did to make the regional qualifiers fair, giving everyone an equal opportunity to play -- that shit was great.

But I get the sense that a rule set like this, what with your demands of helmet use and your demands of a hand brake, NAH is trying to feign legitimacy by instituting rules that just really don't need to be there. It is taking the role of "organizing body" and turning into a "dictating body". This rule alienates a large portion of the bike polo community, as well as a large portion of the new comers, and that can only have negative consequences. People will begin to see bike polo as too structured and imposing, much like they view all the other sports they haven't chosen to play. All for the sake of a falsehood concerning safety on the court.

Fixed brakeless riders are not the problem. Ban the action, not the bike. "Crashing into goal and t-bones are illegal". That pretty much covers it. There's no need to go any further.

as a fixed gear player, i have no problem with this rule, even if i didn't have a front brake i'd still think its a good idea at a tournament. i think this is a rule set for tournaments, not pick up every week. brakeless fixed gears belong in a velodrome if you ask me. no where near a high level polo match.

i think your passing judgement on a body of work that lots of people have worked hard on to put forth.

so we can regress from actually getting something done, like having a rule-set for TOURNAMENTS in north america or do nothing and let the sport fall apart. this sport will need a solid framework like this to get to the next stage in development, which is what these nice hard working people are trying to do.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

YasMada wrote:

... i think your passing judgement on a body of work that lots of people have worked hard on to put forth.

so we can regress from actually getting something done, like having a rule-set for TOURNAMENTS in north america or do nothing and let the sport fall apart. this sport will need a solid framework like this to get to the next stage in development, which is what these nice hard working people are trying to do.

Oh my god, hyperbolic much? He didn't attack the people. He attacked the rules he didn't agree with.

Nowhere in any of that did he say anything about anyone personally. He didn't put down their efforts etc.

Now, I don't agree with him in his assessment... but I JUST FUCKING WISH EVERYONE WOULD STOP USING THAT: OH LORDY! SO-AND-SO WORKED SO HARD ON THIS-OR-THAT SO LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT WAYS WE CAN MAKE IT BETTER BECAUSE THAT AUTOMATICALLY MEANS THAT WE'RE ATTACKING THEM!!!!! It's like the worst argument EVAR!

They did a great job so far. Some people will have issues. Some won't. If you really want to help you'll try and work this out with Nick logically so that the people who are doing this can pull some useful info out of your guys' discourse. An emotional paragraph doesn't help further bike polo, which you say really needs to happen.

Do you realize that there are literally libraries full of shitty legislation passed and not passed that has been worked on by nice hard-working people? If that were the litmus test we'd all be dead right now. Thankfully there are people and organizations who can wade through the oceans of shit and try and make things better by offering their opinions and criticism.

OH MY GOD, I'M GOING CRAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok man i'll smoke a joint and think about it, you happy?

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

yes, thank you.

i thought about it, and i can see how my opinion came off as harsh, but i'm just trying to support a rule that i agree with, nothing more. i have have no malace for Nick nor did i mean to attack him, its just my opinion which the last time i checked i'm allowed to have. i'm not as such an eloquent and clever writer as yourself, so things that i try and communicate are sometimes lost in translation. i was trying to say people should have brakes, no matter the type of drive-train, and i'm grateful to all the people responsible for the organization of this sport, including this rule-set.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

You've been backing me up way too much lately, Daniel. It's starting to freak me out.

Also, I talked about this with some como buddies tonight and I sort of withdraw my former comments. Just felt that NAH needs a little libertarianism. AKA ILL WEAR A HELMET BECAUSE I WANT TO NOT BECAUSE YOU TELL ME TO! I like that you can get hurt playing this game. Whats polo without blood?

At most major tourneys you'll be required to wear a helmet for insurance reasons. Not just because "someone told you to".

I like that i can hurt MYSELF playing bike polo. I don't need people who can't control their bikes properly hurting me or damaging my bike.

There is no way anyone can argue that they can control themselves better WITHOUT a brake. Simple fact: you're going to stop faster with a brake than without one.

Remember this rule only applies at major NAH sanctioned tourneys. It has absolutely no bearing on what people do at pick up.

I'd say it's possible to have more control fixed than with a back brake, especially in wet conditions. Maybe it doesn't rain in Sydney, but it's a reality 3/4 of the year here. I'd also argue fixed drive trains give you more control in slow, close quarter play. So simple fact: you're generalizing.

Saying something that you don't wanna hear is NOT generalizing.

Regardless of whether playing fixed gives you more control in slow, close quarter play (which i disagree with), my point was only that you can stop quicker with a brake - and I notice you didn't attempt to refute that. No one is stopping you from playing fixed.

ok...

quote (you):"There is no way anyone can argue that they can control themselves better WITHOUT a brake. Simple fact: you're going to stop faster with a brake than without one."

You conflate these two points yourself. I would have hoped you would allow me to do the same.

One of my points, mindful reader, is that brakes suck in wet conditions. This allows a fixed drive train to reliably stop faster than rear brake alone, which I (following your example, mindful reader) equated, in part, with control.

quote (you): "Simple fact: you're going to stop faster with a brake than without one."

I attack this as generalizing, because you're making a broad statement without regard to specific criteria, ie. rain, brake pads, front or back, etc.

If you're still unsure of whether you were generalizing, you should consult a definition of the word.

No one is stopping you from playing with a brake, either.

Fixed with a brake will still stop faster than fixed without a brake.

The difference might be less in the rain but it's still there.
A sucky brake will still do something to aid your stopping, where a non existent brake does nothing (Oh man can you believe that!)
No one mentioned a brake ALONE, no one is trying to make you play freewheel.
Is it going to HURT your performance to add a brake? Shit, you don't even have to use it if you're so proud of your foot skills.
He's not generalizing, shit's a fact, you're simply misunderstanding what he's saying.

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

You haven't been keeping up with you're reading. Please read things before saying dumb shit.

EDIT:
Fuck that, I'm not taking this thread further off the rails, just to help matx2 gain a better grasp of simple concepts.

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

get em rob.

Get rad

matx2 wrote:

One of my points, mindful reader, is that brakes suck in wet conditions.

I attack this as generalizing, because you're making a broad statement without regard to specific criteria, ie. rain, brake pads, front or back, etc.

matx2 wrote:

This allows a fixed drive train to reliably stop faster than rear brake alone, which I (following your example, mindful reader) equated, in part, with control.

I attack this as generalizing, because you're making a broad statement without regard to specific criteria, ie. rain, brake pads, front or back, etc.

don't worry there is still enough danerous play to put some blood on the court.

1) brakes fail also (and more to the point, often suck). Might as well add "if it's raining players must have salmon pads or fixed drive trains". And shit might as well regulate tire tread patterns while your at it.
2) you cede that some fixed riders "can cut it" without a brake with the word "most". So at least you're acknowledging you're generalizing and excluding people, but that doesn't make generalizing and excluding any better... Furthermore, people with brakes often ride recklessly. Brakes don't make people less reckless, the players do.

I'll admit I play a lot better with a front brake, fixed, but mostly because i know i can stop a lot faster, which, paradoxically, makes me a much less cautious and more reckless player (not that I'm all that reckless..). And last, my jankiest polo bike ever was a freewheeled bike with two brakes. Saying 'safety = brake' is nonsense.

So, dumb rule and dumb defense.

I'd ride a protest brake if I didn't already use a real one.

matx2 wrote:

I'll admit I play a lot better with a front brake, fixed, but mostly because i know i can stop a lot faster, which, paradoxically, makes me a much less cautious and more reckless player (not that I'm all that reckless..)

It's reasonable to assume that the parenthesized qualifier "(not...all that reckless)" immediately following "more reckless" means to underscore your ability to be more confident and aggressive while maintaining control. This is the point. This isn't an exercise in generalizations and exclusion as you suggest. This is a rule (and moreover a ruleset) designed for a specific sport and a specific context (i.e., not pick-up). The brake on your bike allows you to play with the control and speed necessary to compete at a high level. Exactly.

Experience - on average 5+ years of playing and reffing at major tournaments - has much to do with the perspective of the people who were involved in the development of these rules. Now, these statements are true:

  • Rim brakes can fail
  • Janky bikes can be dangerous
  • Players can be reckless or controlled no matter the brake system

That said, we're not operating in vacuum. Logic and experience have to act in concert. So it may not seem immediately apparent to you why such an rule "excluding" others has been created but that doesn't mean it is without merit.

Therefore, "Saying 'safety = brake' is nonsense" doesn't really hold up. Adding a brake to a machine that would otherwise completely rely on the skill and leg power of another human does in fact add an element of safety. This is also a primary motivation for these rules: introducing expectations and precautionary measures to address a higher level of play.

And on that note, our rules mandate that all equipment on the court must be dialed. We're taking issue with all equipment issues that may pose risk to participants - shitty mallets, janky bikes, etc. These issues have no place at a high level tourney. So, don't take it personally - we're raising the bar all around.

Actually, my parenthesized hedging was to underscore that I'm not a super aggressive player. It does however still show that I am more confident with a brake, which allows me to be more reckless and out of control while still maintaining an illusion of control: the possibility to "stop quicker" with a brake. I maintain that I was a more cautious player who crashed less without a brake.

I understand the logic behind this rule, but it is silly, or at least incomplete. The best thing I've done to improve my control and safety as a fixed rider has been a lower ratio. The best thing to improve stopping power of a fixed gear bike is to add a front brake. The best way to improve the stopping power of a bike with rim brakes is to dial it in, which having those fancy black/salmon mountain pads do a lot for given variable conditions, and the best seems to be those disk brakes. The rules don't really cover things like this, which is fine. I would have been fine with the rule "no janky bikes", but instead the rule singles out an issue which don't really even address the problems it sets out to solve. It just says "brakes are great!". If you're going to go through the trouble of making rules like this, you need to make more of them. If you won't make more of them people (like me) are going to give you shit because it's absurd logic and reasoning.

And honestly I'll give you shit when you make all the rules, except I won't have logical arguments for you, I'll just say "this bureaucratic shit is fucking dumb".

Ah. Argument for sport.

Have you met DanielNOLA?

I expected him to be smaller than he is when I first met him. I don't know what that means.

CORRECTION: I ARGUE TO SATIATE MY BOREDOM, NOT FOR SPORT!

noted, noted. my bad.

matx2 wrote:

And honestly I'll give you shit when you make all the rules, except I won't have logical arguments for you, I'll just say "this bureaucratic shit is fucking dumb".

you're an ass

I just don't like unnecessary rules that exclude people, even more so when they don't make sense.

I'm less of an ass in person, I swear.

Who are you defending?
What brakeless fixed rider must you see at these 7 tournaments?
Who's being excluded?
You meet the criteria to play, so what's the problem?
Are you sure your brake makes you more reckless or more confident?

*edited because it wasn't constructive or relevant.

Consider yourself the advantageous one in the rain or in case of handbrake failure but get out of here with that jazz.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

you guys should fight.

Ben, i think in this situation that a ball becomes live onces a player crosses half court as well. So a shot can be taken if a player crosses half line and the ball is still behind.

True. "Ball or Player". Thanks, Jonny.

What about the clock in this kind of situation, does the ref have to start the clock when ball or player cross the line? Or does he never stop the clock after a goal (usual situation i think).
In this case, if your team is leading 4-2, just let the other team score to 4-3, then take the ball, don't cross the line, and wait to end of the game...
no?

ah yes, the "bring it over the line, you pussies!*" clause.

*Doug D., Midwests 6 in Dayton.

good point. Should there be a time limit a team can hold the ball on their side?
15-20 seconds max, seems reasonable enough.

*Somebody please think of the children!!*

From the rules, on the stoppage of time.
"A goal is scored. Time will always be stopped after a goal, but an extended time-out can be called for a mechanical, or water, etc. Each team can call three of these extended time-outs."

Reading the rules, there's nothing I saw to say they can't score and then wait forever on their side of the line, but the game wont continue until one of them crosses the line, so it doesn't really help them any.

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

I've never seen time being stopped after a goal... but it might be because I don't play in NA.
One thing that doesn't make much sense in that rule is that if time is stopped after a goal, and play doesn't start untill after the ball crosses the mid-field; then you really don't need to call for a time-out. All you have to do is keep the ball on your court for as long as you want.
Unlimited time-out of unlimited time.

*Somebody please think of the children!!*

notquitealibrarian wrote:

6.8 - The defending team may not attack until the ball or an offensive player has crossed the center line.
I've wondered for a while, when the offensive team is taking the ball up in this situation, are they allowed to take a shot before they cross half court?

No. In this situation, play doesn't start until either the ball or a player crosses half, therefore the soonest a shot can be taken is half court. Good detail to make clear, thanks.[/quote]

If play starts when the ball passes half then wouldn't a shot from over half still be possible? You can shuffle across half but not shoot? Will courts have a clearly marked half then? If a teammate crosses half I can still blast one end to end?

so i have these boards that are 3.5 feet high...

just kidding. looks great, NAH.

this looks really really good. thanks for all the work guys

x2, good work everyone

for my own info, and other people's- court dimensions in metric are approximately

54.9m x 24.4m maximum
and
36.6m x 18.3m

this change strikes me as particularly problematic, for two reasons. first- a north american hockey rink is 61 m × 26 m. second, a triple tennis court halved is usually about 33m x 16m. neither of these setups can be divided in a way that fits into your range.

last year's rule was:
6.2 - The minimum court size will be 30.5m X 15.25m (100' X 50') (Tennis court or basketball court) and maximum size will be 60m X 26m (200' X 85') (NHL rink)

this nearly allows a NHL rink to be split into two courts, and 3 or more tennis courts to be split into two bike polo arenas.

given the incredibly varied nature of bike polo facilities in NA and across the world, does anyone else think area would be a better classification, combined with minimum lengths/widths?

i would propose something like a minimum of 560m², with minimum lengths and widths of 30m and 16m respectively, and a maximum area of an nhl rink (really big, but no one hosts major tournaments full size NHL rinks anyways)

yes! this is a good ruleset!
re: court size: just googled tennis court sizes in feet, and the current guidelines allow for court sizes about 30 feet (9.14 meters) smaller than 3 tennis courts in length. the minimum width is the same as half a tennis court. I couldn't find standard dimensions for roller hockey rinks before i got bored of looking...

good points

also. It would be great to have metric measurements in the rules. (or at least bi lingual)

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

I have a question about 9.2:

Quote:

"Striking" - hitting another player's mallet with excessive force - known as "striking" - will result in a warning or a penalty.

If I am sitting in goal and someone hooks, shifts, moves, etc. my mallet (9.8), I can't strike theirs?

Do you plan on using "excessive force" to do so?

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

No, I plan on using just enough force. I guess the call just depends on who's reffing..?

"Defensively hooking, lifting or holding another player's mallet is permitted."
In goal like that you're not likely to be winding up, most of what you do is probably going to be more of a hook or lift anyways, I don't think you have much to worry about.

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

Yeah, I know what you mean. It just seems like the interpretation of "excessive" can (and will) vary.

I read "striking" and "excessive force" as DAMAGE

if there is no damage, play on.

It's not bike polo if players can not smack mallets.

Doug D
Brooklyn, New York
hardcourtbikepolo+gmail+com
hardcourtbikepolo.com

So, what if a cheap-ass mallet gets bent from a seemingly mild hack? Would you consider that damage?

Or a nice mallet miraculously not getting bent by wild and violent repeated hacks.

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

This is much more likely. I have a fixcraft pole that's really beefy and has no dents at all. On a few occasions, people have full-swung at it and done no damage. I still think full swinging at a mallet shouldn't be legal regardless of damage.

Agree.
What about if the damages are on the agressor mallet? I had one who broke a the mallet of the swinger one time...
Usual damages can be a good indications for the ref, but maybe not the key of this rule.

I my opinion, we should allow all the lifting of mallet from ground to air, and make illegal most of the striking from up to down. Play huge strikes is too easy, too dangerous, and too stupid to be part of this sport.

The up to down rule would be too hard to enforce. I think we should just do our best to tell the difference between over-aggressive mallet whacking and strategic mallet manipulating. It's hard, but I doubt there's any other way.

don't worry I don't think you will break too many mallets in one game. unless there is intent.

I remember this argument.

I would also like to add that this kind of contact should be to gain control of the ball, with exception of trying to upset the goalie or a player tripoding for position on the court. At what point should a player release? I've been hit in the helmet by hooked mallets coming above the top tube. Hooking, lifting, or pushing mallets is one thing tryto de-mallet someone is another.

P/M Hardcourt

contact should also be allowed when someone is running interference on a player who doesn't have the ball.

There are special protections given to goalies but a goalie is not defined in the rule set. Granted the protections given to the goalie are similar to the general rule set. That being said i can't think of a sport that gives special protections to players without designating them some way.

another good call.

Can on offensive player play a person posted in goal any differently than the other defensive players?

If the answer is no then there's no need to mention goalies. If the answer is yes then it might be better to explain how play on the goalie differs from other defensive players.

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

This rule set states that you can not have body to body contact with a "goalie" unless you are the ball carrier. So no pre-checking the goalie into a goal and getting him to dab before your teammate comes with the ball.

So other than the goalie I could, at anytime in a match, shoulder or forearm someone off their bike regardless of their relation to the ball?

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

Under goals:

Please add (for the benefit of morons and the rest of us) that two nets in any given game are the same size.

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

"2.6 - Mallets must not have any sharp, jagged or otherwise dangerous edges or protrusions"

A few of my mallets are made like this. Does this classify as a "dangerous protrusion"

if that photo doesn't work check it here
http://i53.tinypic.com/21a0hn5.jpg

  • Photo on 2011-01-30 at 14.41 #2.jpg

if i was reffing this game, this would be a firm "yes".

Looks like i'm gonna have to start putting the bolt on the inside of the tube.

the picture's kind of fuzzy, are you saying you wouldn't let someone play with a mallet that has a bolt going through the head?

Thats how the majority of people make there mallets?

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

with a nut sticking out?

Most mallets I have seen and a few that I use. or screws but they bust to fast.

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

right, with a nut sticking out. most of my mallets have one, so i'd like to clear that up.

If polo has taught me anything it's to never leave a nut sticking out. It's just asking for it.

Have you looked at your bike what is not protruding? I think it was Drew from Seattle who was saying we should get rid of peddles, and handle bars because people could get hurt from them and players should not ride fast because people could get hurt and he is 100% right. I could also write over 100 ways people could get hurt at polo but then we would all just be sitting on the court looking at each other drunk high and board(hay more dangerous things). Lets focus on developing a ruleset that keeps the game fair and prevents other players from killing each other then we can develop and modified equipment. Things like mallets and wheel covers are the two things that players will always make because it is fun to create your own stuff and it is cheap.

If we are going to complain about bolts in mallets I would like to complain about zip ties in wheel covers and courts with short boards and axel bolts or quick releases. I got smashed into once and when I fell my arm hit his wheel cover and I am pretty sure it was the zip ties that cut my arm..... so no more zip ties!! We are not moms keeping are kids in bubbles protecting them from the world. Every one is aware that there is a level of danger to the game.

I hear the NHL is banding skate blades because of the possible injuries?

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

x3

x2

It's a fucking nut. That's ridiculous. I have no problem with the way the rule is written, but if it is going to be interpreted to that extent, then I'm saying CHILL THE FUCK OUT!

ya you all have a good point.

although i still think this is a janky way to build a mallet. better use locktite or something on that nut.

At least the bolt through it isn't protruding out. I've seen players that have upwards of 1/4" of the bolt protruding from the nut. T-nuts are your friends, people.

thanks for the reply kev. i really wasn't asking to be a pain in the ass, i just wanted to know what to expect as far as officiating.

personally, i'm moving away from that design on my new mallets for several reasons. but i think trying to ban it outright at this stage in the game would cause problems for a lot of people. i'd change that opinion if i knew that people were getting seriously or regularly hurt because of this design.

thanks for being reasonable, and for all the hard work.

lock tight to what?

I smell bullshit.

Some things can't be changed and are an inherent risk in playing any sport, such as a pedal protruding or hockey skate blades being sharp. You think the NHL would allow protruding bolts on the end of the hockey blade? Can I attach spikes to my axles Mad Max style to prevent folks from running into me?

Exposed chainrings and unplugged bars/mallets are frowned upon and "against the rules" for damn good reasons. Sharp, protruding shit on your mallet is in the same boat. Unnecessary, easily worked around, and can prevent serious injuries.

There is risk in everything in life, from getting out of bed to walking down the stairs to boiling water for tea. Limits on all sorts of things are put in place to minimize risk. You are correct in that you cannot eliminate risk entirely from much of anything and people will find new ways to hurt themselves to matter what. Making sure mallets are not unnecessarily dangerous to other players makes it safer for everyone and just makes good fucking sense. Tough shit if you can't figure out how to make a mallet without protruding metal, there is plenty of info available out there to show you how and plenty of people at tournaments who are willing to talk about design for hours on end if you ask around.

It's 2011, we as a polo community have been doing this for a while, it's time to let the good ideas rise to the top and push the dangerous hacks out of the game. You know, just like we all did with hay bales for boards, eh?

mr anderson wrote:

If we are going to complain about bolts in mallets I would like to complain about zip ties in wheel covers and courts with short boards and axel bolts or quick releases. I got smashed into once and when I fell my arm hit his wheel cover and I am pretty sure it was the zip ties that cut my arm..... so no more zip ties!!

Yeah, and ban brake levers cuz one went through my arm. Fuck brakes. Go fixed. Go Malice.

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

This kind of mallets are way too dangerous, for me that's clear that they don't have to be on the court. A mallet hit on face is way enough dangerous to add more metal shit on hit. They are a lot of way to make mallets without any bolt outside. And yes, all the bike are dangerous parts, but you don't swing your bike into the air every 20 seconds.

I guess I always thought it was making sure that the screw or nut was not sharp, or jagged. So when I made mine I usually buffed it out. Didn't think the nut would be a problem.

I'm okay with reexamining how to make mine, if its dangerous but never had a problem with it.

Spot on with so much of this stuff. I too wonder about the goalie situation. I think the rules are overly favorable towards a player designated in a position or not. Goals are good for polo.

Tandems?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

It says 3 players, but it doesn't say 3 bikes!

fucking great ruleset...comprehensive and well-written...NAH handling shit!

I have a few suggestions that are nothing more than suggestions...

1. 6.3 - After making sure each team is set, the court referee will shout "3 - 2 - 1 - Go!"

I think we should drop the "3-2-1"...people just go at "1" or earlier anyway...how about ref asking first one side and then the other "ready?" and upon confirmation just yelling "POLO" or "GO" or "KILL" or whatever...eliminates the early starts which sometimes result in unfair and unearned goals.

2. 8.4 - If a "dabbed" player stops a shot from going into the net, at the ref's discretion, it may be ruled a goal. Example: a defending player in front of the net loses their balance and dabs. The defending player remains in front of the net - intentionally or unintentionally - and blocks an incoming shot. If there is no doubt in the referee's mind that the shot would have resulted in a goal, the referee can declare a goal. If it is also determined that the defending player intentionally blocked the net when out of play they will be awarded a two-minute penalty.

is the two minute penalty assessed in addition to the awarded goal? in other words does the team get the point, then get a two minute power play when the offending team brings the ball back in?

3. 9.2 - Mallet-to-Mallet
"Striking" - hitting another player's mallet with excessive force - known as "striking" - will result in a warning or a penalty.

I think the current wording is a little ambiguous..maybe stating "that first offense only will result in a warning OR a penalty at ref's discretion" and adding "warning THEN a penalty"...otherwise it reads like the ref can give an arbitrary amount of warnings at their discretion (whether through ignorance of rules, short memory, or biased reffing however unlikely and unpleasant the possibility...).

4. 9.8 - Goalie contact: A player may use their mallet to hook, shift, move, etc. the mallet of the player in goal in an effort to get them out of position or prevent them from stopping a shot. Body-to-body contact or any   incidental bike contact with the goalie is permitted only if the contact is between the player with the ball and the goalie.

there is no mention of the warning/penalty system for this offense...

5. If the offending player's team gets possession after the innocent player's wheel has been swept, the whistle will be blown and the referee will stop the match. The innocent team will get possession of the ball in their own half. The match resumes as if a goal had just been scored.

how many "unintentional wheel sweeps" (during a game and ultimately during a tourney) finally equal a penalty? if a player is known to "accidentally" sweep wheels it can alter the play of opposing teams...fast breaks, fast head-to-heads, etc...fear of injury shouldn't be a part of on-court strategy intimidation...

basically anywhere it reads "warning or penalty" should be more explicit I think.

also maybe I missed it but does it specify what constitutes a goal in relation to the ball itself?...crossing the front of the goalline, crossing the halfway point of the goalline or crossing the entire line? which part of the ball must do the decided above?

once again...awesome job...love the thoroughness and attention to detail.

thanks for posting these.

for anyone that's ever had to buy insurance or convince a city or private property owner to let you use their facilities, forcing players to make concessions on safety equipment (especially during a tournament where money is changing hands) is a good call. it can mean the difference between having a place to play or not...or worse.

it would probably be a good idea to define the type and size of ball to be used, too...unless i missed that somewhere.

also just a thought...if you're going to grant special protections to the player in defensive goal, you'd be better off defining a crease area so that a single goalie is more defined instead of relying on a judgement call..unless the intent is to award the same protection to two defensive players in the goal area.

@txgoldsprints

Body to body or bike to bike contact instigated by a goalie? Penalty against goalie?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

7.8 - If the net is dislodged or moved from it's proper position and the ball crosses the line of where the net should have been, a goal may be awarded.

Who resets a dislodged goal?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Also what if a goal is made where the goal shouldn't be?

doesn't count.

it was counted in madison for NAHBPC. i ran into the goal trying to defend it and the ball went into the goal where it had been moved not where the line was drawn. just saying.

They got the score wrong anyway, we really beat you 6-3 not 5-3

I agree, but just sayin'

Process for ref selection?
Ref expectations?
Could biased or inconsistent refs be relieved of their duty?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

i like these three questions, the third one should be considered at least.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

Reffing is going to be the biggest hurdle. We're going to need practice enforcing these rules.

We created a brief guide at the end of this ruleset, laying out ref responsibilities.

We are looking at each tourney for experienced players to help oversee the ref selection. We did this with Justin Gullickson's help in AZ and it worked really well. That said, the process is still, "who can help?" This will become more refined.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect that, if particular person clearly needs more practice before reffing tournament matches, that they be asked to step away from the whistle. It's very early. But we also have to be careful not to undermine the authority of refs and create too much space for debate every time someone disagrees with a call. Ten years from now, this will all be much improved but people will still blow calls. We have to be able to tell the difference between, a) who has no clue, b) who has a clue and blew a call and c) when a player's just whining.

Thanks Nick. Great points.

I would suggest some supervision by tournament organizers in early games to make sure the refs are confidently and correctly making calls. This may prevent the case where you have refs aggressively warning players but never making a call...

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

I refed all weekend in AZ and everything went great. There was less then a handful of penalties. People where explained how it was going to go down and for the most part people where very respectful. If they had their mallet under someone and they went down they just dabbed on their own with out being told to. The refing was more to keep people cool, to not allow them to get to the point where they are going to snap and retaliate. Goal judges where consistent for the most part and all the people I talked to about how the refing went was great. They all said the same thing, they where not getting all involved but made sure people would be called if they do something stupid. So all in all I don't think consistency in refing each tour stop is going to be hard to fallow if ever tourney is as smooth as AZ.

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

Regulation on court surfaces?

also this all looks great. thanks to those putting in the effort and their time. unsung heros of our game.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

x2

if not a rule, at least an _understanding_ of court surfaces.

How smooth or rough is acceptable? (or just how smooth or rough is it?)

eg, the court is 40m long and 19m wide and is this rough/smooth.

How to articulate this in a number...
(there a system for the smoothness of roads (IRI), but I reckon theres a better one out there already in the land of tennis and basketball court people)

Not a big priority, but if anyone is out there talking to plexipave international sales reps, ask the question. some numbers around how good/bad the surface on the new east van court is might have helped the funding application to have it upgraded.

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

I wrote this highsticking rule the other week as I was updating the Australian rules for the Australia Day 2011 tourney (last week)

I was attempting to update the rules to make them generally consistent with NAH 2011, but as they weren't available I used NAH 2010.

I nearly lost my front teeth last year (1cm lower would have done it) and whilst I will always wear a cage from now on, I think this is important for the future our our sport and our teeth.

This rule is far more realistic than the 'handlebars' rule we've all heard before. That rule, and any rule that any and every player routinely breaks in the normal course of a game is not doing its job properly.

Highsticking
A “high stick” is above the height of an opponent’s shoulders, near an opponent.

Players must be in control and responsible for their mallet.

A player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent only if the swing is a normal windup or follow through of a controlled shot.

A swing without posession or not at the ball would not be considered acceptable and ANY CONTACT TO AN OPPONENT ABOVE THE SHOULDERS shall incurr a penalty.

This is a new rule that replaces the handlebars limit, it is based on NHL rules.
*edit* NHL rule 60 here
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26352

60.2 Contact - minor penalty
60.3 Injury - double minor (accidental or careless)
60.4 Intentional - major penalty (ejection)

--
bikepolo.com.au
urbanbicyclist.org

After multiple hits to the dome leaving various scars about my face, and me being dumb enough to not get a mask yet, I'm very very much behind an addition like this.
I should probably get a mask anyways, but still.

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

To clarify:

"Sweeping wheels with the mallet. If a player sweeps out another player's front wheel with their mallet causing them to footdown - regardless of intent - a delayed penalty can be assessed."

Does this mean that a penalty CAN be assessed for the sweeping for an opponent's wheel regardless of intent.
Or does this mean that a penalty WILL be assessed for the sweeping for an opponent's wheel regardless of intent.

Would a player be penalized if their mallet was pushed by an opponent, for instance during an attempt to resist a defensive mallet to mallet hook, into the wheel of that opponent? That is to say, your opponent inadvertently pushed your mallet into their own wheel.

Chuckles wrote:

To clarify:

"Sweeping wheels with the mallet. If a player sweeps out another player's front wheel with their mallet causing them to footdown - regardless of intent - a delayed penalty can be assessed."

I have a question on this rule as well, but in regards to the goalie. If in goal and an offensive player with the ball comes up to try and score on me. I reach out to poke the ball away and end up getting the players front wheel and (s)he dabs. Can I be called for a penalty? What if I do poke the ball away from the player, and the player's momentum causes them to run into my mallet and dab. Is that the same?

There will be a refined ruleset to look at soon.

Nothing major, just further definition/detail on the goalie, highstick, reset of dislodged goal, the "bring it over the line" DD clause, etc.

Thanks so much for all the feedback everyone.

ben schicago wrote:

There will be a refined ruleset to look at soon.

Nothing major, just further definition/detail on the goalie, highstick, reset of dislodged goal, the "bring it over the line" DD clause, etc.

Hey ben, not sure what the DD clause is? What exactly happened?

Midwests 6, Dayton, OH. Doug D. is playing on a hometown team against (I believe) a Lexington team. Towards the end of the game Lexington is leading by at least 2 when Dayton puts in a goal. Lexington is then taking their sweet time returning the ball to play as the clock ticks down. There were no rules about stopping the clock after a goal, in theory Lexington could have just delayed indefinitely and won (Not that they would have). So Doug D. shouts "bring it over the line, you pussies!" to hurry things along. At the time it stood out in my mind as an example of polo governing itself. Who needs a rule when you can just shame/heckle your opponent into doing the right thing?

yeah, but there's still too much of a margin for error. Maybe they decide to keep being pussies a while longer and it affects the outcome of the game because the buzzer goes off 5 seconds before a game winning shot. I think some sort of rule whereby the scored upon team has either 10, 15, or 20 seconds to bring it over the line before the other team can rush them unless they've called a time out and the clock is stopped could be effective in keeping things consistent. In a tournament, consistency is key.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you aren't sinning, Jesus died for nothing.

should be a penalty though (change of possession at least) if the team fails to bring the ball across in the allotted time. otherwise team with a lead can hold it it and force the team that's down to steal it at a disadvantage. or just have the clock stop at every goal and not start again until the ball crosses half court, no time lost at all.

-my stomach is a pickle-

I was there, but sometimes I need reminded. thanks.

hellochris wrote:

At the time it stood out in my mind as an example of polo governing itself. Who needs a rule when you can just shame/heckle your opponent into doing the right thing?

times. two.

so looking through some pics from the 1st qualifying event of the season, i see multiple players riding bikes with no hand brakes... just sayin is all

Shit. Now we have to start all over.

what if someone has a coaster brake?

Then they are playing on a setup that is the worst of both worlds and they have other problems to worry about.

Also, if a coaster brake throws/breaks a chain they are in the same boat as someone on a fixed gear with no handbrake.

I really don't see how a fixed player breaking a chain is any different than a freewheel back breaker that snaps a cable.

I've not snapped a chain since my race days, but i can't count how many snapped cables i've seen.
but there relly isn't a reason to not have a brake on a bike. if you don't use it then how is it negatively affecting your game?

and a freewheel with a front could break, or a doubler could break. anything could happen. if a fixed player with a chain AND a brake drops a chain, id say theyre the best off eh? im completely for the fixed w/brake rule, ive been run into too many times

Get rad

x2

Having any single point of all brake failure is dangerous. I keep a standard brake arrangement w/freewheel so I can drop my mallet (or not) and grab the rear brake if I lose the front. Doug here in SF rolls with a front brake fixed - I think it's ideal - wish I had his and Shitty's rotato-adjustment skills so I could shoot fixed.

--
Credo quia absurdum

this post made me think that if you're going to enforce a wheel brake on a fixed gear, you should be enforcing two hand brakes on a freewheel.

two brakes for everyone!

See, I just haven't been run into by many fixed brakeless riders. And even if I have, that number is no more than the amount of times I've been run into by freewheelers with poor bike abilities. And even the noobs on fixed brakeless - they're never going that fast. What's it fucking matter, you're going to beat those dudes anyway.

It's a discriminatory rule, but I'll say no more about it. It's obviously not even being enforced.

What Ben said!!!

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

This is the same in ever rules thread, people talk about something it gets resolved and then it get rediscussed. Some times more then once! Once it has been gone over it should be no longer up for discussion.

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

Alright throwing these into the backup brakefest.To start though - nice ruleset - well done!

A few of the games at DPI III would have benefited from matching team shirts contrasting the others enforcement. And here's an idea: organizers can stand by the refs at game start to hawk tourney or club shirts - easy sale that everyone will appreciate.

Another best-practices ritual for refs, maybe: Ask both teams if they'll want to switch goals half way through the game. Ask before the game starts, get consensus (but default to no switch, if no one asks) and then enforce the switch at an appropriate time like a change of possession near the middle. It seems like a few games got their mojo messed up by having a conversation about switching during the middle of a game. Mostly important when the sun is low on an east-west oriented court I guess.

anyway, thanks again,

Devin

--
Credo quia absurdum

If there is a a bright shinny sun in one teams eyes that is fine we did that in AZ. But for a 10 -15 minute game there is really no reason to... or is there?

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

Yea - I agree and I was there. The point I want to make is that discussion about switch or not switch at ~half should happen before the game starts. Otherwise you're having an awkward 7 person discussion in the middle of a tournament game. Even if you stop the clock, it seems better to have the decision made before the game starts. Just my 2 cents of course.

--
Credo quia absurdum

The requirement for a hand brake is fucking weak.

Are you also going to require freewheel riders to have a front and a back brake, each with different mechanisms, to ensure safety? If not, then rethink your justification.

"Ban the action, not the bike."

MALICE for the people.

Not only fucking weak, but fucking stupid. Just because you require me to have a hand brake on my bike doesn't mean I will use it. It is a style thing more than a safety thing, and you are trying to pass of your stylistic preferences as safety. Bullocks.

MALICE for the people.

I do kind of agree I have been smashed by a lot of people who don't ride fixed, just lack of focus and bike skill! I know when I rode fixed I never crashed into someone because I was not able to stop, I have once or twice because I was looking we where both watching the play. plus if your chain brakes use your foot on your wheel or put your feet down? it worked for me.

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

Great point. I'll BMX toejam all day long. That's two independent brakes. Count 'em.

And, for that matter, having played dozens of "high level" tournaments for over five years now. I don't recall ever seeing a broken drivetrain on a brakeless fixie actually be an issue. Ever.

Ben et al, please rethink this rule.

MALICE for the people.

I think a toe jam or top of the back tire are fine backup brakes. Maybe not as quick - but that arguable and depends on rider skill.

Maybe a better rule for the same end is to add to the safety inspectoins. On top of bar end and mallet caps have a brake inspection. Find the guy with the burliest forearms and have him smash the business brake of every bike. Or have a lock ring wrench, and a 4 and 5mm allen and give every bike 90 seconds of love before the first games.

A dude at the ball whackers ball lost his lockring this past haloween. Destroyed his frame, fork, and landed hard on the concrete and wood bleachers over the boards. He was OK but limping. Anyway - I think the intent of the rule is good.

Devin

--
Credo quia absurdum

Dear NAH Committee:

May I please request a formal review of rule 2.2 - The bike must have at least one handbrake?

Please respond to each of the following points.

1. It is inconsistent and prejudicial: It requires two independent braking mechanisms for fixed riders but not for freewheel riders

2. It is unenforceable: You cannot make anyone actually use a hand brake during a game.

3. It is extraneous: You can enforce reckless riding.

Many thanks.

Yours truly,

Chukker V

MALICE for the people.

I <3 Vidal

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

these are NAH rules no? you are in europe no?

They are for the Worlds.

MALICE for the people.

Chukker Norris wrote:

Dear NAH Committee:

May I please request a formal review of rule 2.2 - The bike must have at least one handbrake?

Please respond to each of the following points.

1. It is inconsistent and prejudicial: It requires two independent braking mechanisms for fixed riders but not for freewheel riders

So what. Explain why this matters at all. If I had SPAM for breakfast does that means that the Earth is flat and if I go the two tournaments, my brother is a leprechaun who cries tears of gold who came into existence 14 billion years ago? Oh cool... we can both make two statements that aren't germane to the issues.

Who says they're even counting "fixed" as a braking system? Ohhhh... you assumed they were. For sake of this document assume that the only recognized "braking system" of NAH are rim or disc brakes. So now it is neither inconsistent nor prejudicial. NEXT!

Chukker Norris wrote:

2. It is unenforceable: You cannot make anyone actually use a hand brake during a game.

The point is to make sure it's available should anyone want to use it to stop from crashing into each other, not to make sure they use it. DOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYy!!!!!

Chukker Norris wrote:

3. It is extraneous: You can enforce reckless riding.

Extraneous? You know what that means, right? How is having a hand brake irrelevant to safety? It's a safety precaution, in case anyone wants to use it, it's there--as a baseline. It's better for it to be there and not have to use it (especially if it doesn't have a detrimental effect on the rider) than it is to need it and not have it.

Chukker Norris wrote:

]
Many thanks.

Yours truly,

Chukker V

MANY THANKS

YOURS TRULY

UNCLE SLAM OF THE UNITED STATZE5 OF AMERIKKKA., STEP UP AND GET THIZZED OUT THE GAME!

First off, I think we can agree that this rule was not created for the case of chain failure. It was created because NAH thinks it is unsafe to play on a fixed gear without brakes because they believe that you can not stop fast enough in emergency situations and they believe that fixed brakeless riders cause more accidents. Agreed?

Who decided that fixed brakeless players cause more accidents? This has not been my experience in the world of polo. You know who causes accidents? Shitty bike riders. The only thing you have to regulate is the action! T-boning and using your bike as a projectile of any sort is explicitly banned in the rules. If there is a fixed rider that does this, he will get a penalty. If he does it repeatedly, he will be repeatedly penalized and will lose games because of it. He will force himself out of the tournament. WHY the need to ban the bike? Ban the behavior that you have decided as a rule committee to be unacceptable in a fair game, and then enforce the ban of that behavior. That's all you need, and it alienates no one's style. It keeps polo fluid, open and personal - that's why people are drawn to it. The rule is unnecessarily oppressive.

Yes, "Just put it on, it's not like it's in the way" is a fair assessment, but I think that conceding to a bad rule 'just because it doesn't get in the way' isn't a good solution. I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy of some sort.

No one is being prejudiced against fixed players. Choosing fixed gear is choosing your drivetrain for your bike, in similar regards to gearing. It's not choosing your braking setup. That has been handled seperately with this added rule. Just because you potentially CAN stop without a brake on a fixed gear does not equate to having brakes on a bike.

Oh really? If a fixed drive train is not a brake, then how have I been stopping for the last five years?

MALICE for the people.

A fixed drive train is a drive train. A brake is a brake. Look it up, AMERICAN, BITCH!

So then Im going to ride around with a dozen AIDS needles protruding from my bike and nobody can say anything to me until I actually infect someone. We are, after all, regulating the action itself, right? Oh cool, two minutes for transmitting a terminal disease, and fuck you for putting your rules on my bike.

How is adding a brake "alienating [your] style"?! If you really truly (and I mean really, truly) believe adding a hand brake somehow will fundamentally and detrimentally alter some style you think you're accomplishing without a handbrake even being present, you (royally) are a real fucking idiot.

How's that for a fallacy?

BWABWABWA!

You're too funny, so long as you're not disagreeing with me.

edit: double post...

DanielNOLA wrote:

Who says they're even counting "fixed" as a braking system? Ohhhh... you assumed they were. For sake of this document assume that the only recognized "braking system" of NAH are rim or disc brakes. So now it is neither inconsistent nor prejudicial. NEXT!

From a previous draft of the NAH rules (and also traditionally in every set of bike polo rules since the beginning of hardcourt until this set of rules):

2.1 - Must have at least one mechanism for stopping. (ie: handbrake, fixed wheel)

Still inconsistent, still prejudicial.

MALICE for the people.

Like you said, that was a previous draft. Rules evolve. Rules change. Again, that's a weak argument. OH THE RULES WERE LIKE THAT *BEFORE* SO THEY NEED TO STAY THAT WAY.

Maybe you should move back to America, eat some apple pie and shake off the stupid, BIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTCH!

HAHA, god, you're dumb.

x2.

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

Mostly on the pie shit.
Serious burn right there.

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

Breakless-fixed players who can qualify themselves for wolrds are maybe 3 people in whole europa. In Usa i doubt there is more than that.
The three last people in europe we see are: James Brown, Chukker N, and Steffen from clowns.

Are this a rule really relevant for less than 10 people on 1000 players?
Are this players more dangerous than any another freewheel disc brake player?

They should be better players with a brake for sure, maybe a lil bit less dangerous in certain cases (but not sure). So the matter for me with this kind of rule is more that is ruling for ruling and make some steril disscussion on this board (like my message for example). Does the organizers for every NAH tourney gonna check every brake cable?
Fixed player with low ratio are much more secure than a freewheel player with a shitty rear brake... Does the organizers gonna check and try every bike with only one break?

uolmo wrote:

Breakless-fixed players who can qualify themselves for wolrds are maybe 3 people in whole europa. In Usa i doubt there is more than that.

Mrlemon wrote:

Seeing as the NA rules are intended for tournaments, it kind of goes without saying that anyone thats actually getting anywhere in serious torunaments is probably experienced enough to control their bike

these are also the rules for NA's and for our regional tournaments.
any north american player who registers before the spots get filled up will qualify for their regional tournament - regardless of polo experience or bike skill.

i have no idea why you guys are arguing this one to death, yes you can be a good fixed gear brakeless player, but a brake will make you better. even in the rain, freezing rain, snow, and any other complicating weather conditions. the ability to stop quicker is an advantage, and there is no question in my mind that a fixed gear with a front brake (rear would be silly, and kinda pointless in my opinion if you're able to lock up the rear) will stop quicker than one without a brake. which is among other things slightly safer than one without a bake. the only disadvantage i can think of to a brake is the 3/4 pound or so you add to your bike's weight, and for a polo bike you better get bigger legs before you worry about weight.

whats it gonna cost twenty bucks and a half hour to get a brake on your bike if you so choose to play in a NAH sanctioned tournament?

i'm not trying to shoot all you guys down, or stop you guys from questioning a rule, but i agree with this one, and i play fixed, so thats worth at least two cents.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

YasMada wrote:

whats it gonna cost twenty bucks and a half hour to get a brake on your bike if you so choose to play in a NAH sanctioned tournament?

Brake+Housing+Cable+Lever=$20 Whatever sucky brake you can buy for twenty bucks and set up in thirty minutes you might as well leave off for what good it will do you.

ok man, really? you have never found used parts for cheap? ebay or craigslist maybe?

and the good it will do you is more than you can imagine. so lets you and i sprint down a tennis court and i'll lock up with my 26/18 ratio and a front brake and you with no brake locking the rear wheel with no assistance of brake. then after you fly by me and i cut to whatever side i want and shoot or pass depending on your teams position. i use a used 105 brake from the early nineties and a fuck'd up deore lever, the pull is mismatched i know, but thats ok, its a front brake. it cost me less than twenty american dollars to set up. this system is not what failed on my bike this last sunday, it was the seat stay shearing from the seat lug. the cheap brake set up lives to fight another day.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

question from the London forum

If you are in the offensive half and the ball is stuck on the wall (or in the corner if the edges aren't rounded) I presume 'pulling' it off the wall counts as a ball joint and will cause a turnover?

7.4 - Ball-joint and side-joint: Not to be confused with a scoop pass, toss or other ball handling. The ball-joint / side-joint is defined as pinning the ball between an open end of the mallet head and the playing surface and then dragging it. Ball-jointing / side-jointing will be allowed ONLY in the player's defensive zone. Ball jointing / side-jointing in the offensive zone will result in the ball turnover and concession of half-court.

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

new question:

does/should a joint between the mallet opening and the players wheel disc, the boards, or another flat surface have the same rule applied?

7.4 - Ball-joint and side-joint: Not to be confused with a scoop pass, toss or other ball handling. The ball-joint / side-joint is defined as pinning the ball between an open end of the mallet head and the playing surface and then dragging it. Ball-jointing / side-jointing will be allowed ONLY in the player's defensive zone. Ball jointing / side-jointing in the offensive zone will result in the ball turnover and concession of half-court.

If a player ball-joints in their own half and then releases it, are they then allowed to shoot and score or do they have to pass it first before a goal can be scored?

this rule replaced the old pass rule, so no they don't need to pass

On 2.2, being a brake-less rider i think it make you more aware of your surroundings and what you need to do to stop in time, not hit people, bash the backboards. Going to DPI 2 years in a row w/o brakes i never caused any accidents on the court. I say would even venture to say people on free-wheels and a brake are a million times rougher cause they aren't worrying about having to stop on a dime and when you need to start locking up. but everyone's different and i agree with Mr.Norris "You can enforce reckless riding. "

X10

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

TO ALL BRAKE-LESS RIDERZ WHO VOICED UP:

WHAT DETRIMENTAL, MATERIAL EFFECT WILL ADDING A HANDBRAKE TO YOUR BICYCLE HAVE ON YOU, AS POLO PLAYERS?

ANSWER CONCISELY. THANK YOUZ

get over your selves. adding a brake doesn't make any fucking difference you fucking hipsters. you can still do all your neato skids and backward circles or what the fuck else you want to. this is a stupid fucking argument. i played brakeless for two years. i put a brake on and i'm much faster, much more in control of the game. where a freewheel didn't help, a rear brake did. there was a dude i used to see splattered all over the internet that would ride freewheel brakeless and he could skid like crazy. so using him as an example why bother making freewheel riders use brakes?

Uhh, no bar spin goals. Duh.

whutif ietz on teh bak?

whutif ietz on teh bak?

yeah man, extra cable like a bmx bike. i'm bar spinning all night.

Your answers to my questions were completely incoherent, so where do you get off asking for a concise answer? Anyway:

A hand brake requires extra maintenance. Even if you don't use it, it can get damaged on the court. I don't use a hand brake, and I won't use if it is on my polo bike, so why should I be required to have one. The onus is on you to come up with a good reason, and you certainly have not done that yet.

Are you on the committee that made this rule?

MALICE for the people.

Your questions were incoherent... garbage in, garbage out. I'm the algebraic black-box of the Internet.

That's the best you could come up with? Extra maintenance? Because it could get damaged on the court? ANYTHING can get damaged on the court. Your helmet could get damaged on the court. The court could get damaged on the court.

Of course you don't use a hand brake, you don't have one. There is a base level of safety I think they're trying to establish. It's ~ a £28 expenditure that will help most people, it's a bummer if you don't want to use one. Dudes hate rubbers but sometimes you get into situations where you have to use one to roll and you can either complain about it until she falls asleep or just bite the bullet and strap up. This is one of those cases. If you don't like the rule, don't play.

No, I'm not on the committee... I don't fuck with that shit... I'm just an average guy with above average intelligence who's against stupid.

Troll.

MALICE for the people.

dude is dead on. do you know how much maintenance goes into a brake?you're using all the same fucking logic every hipster is using before they get hit by a car making a turn. just get a one finger lever and a cheap brake and you can finlly stop crying on the internet about how yo sick fixie don't need a brake bro.
this argument is the dumbest thing ever. it's not even a fucking argument.

I am obviously too hip for brakes.

MALICE for the people.

put your brake under your top tube then, no one said it has to be on your handlebars

Heard from the hills, the resounding chorus of all the Europeans when they get mentally smashed on by DanielNOLA.

Answer the questions, von Trapp.

I am American, bitch. And let me just state for the record that I am just in awe of your intellectual prowess. Truly astounding.

MALICE for the people.

So the fact that you're American wasn't for the record; just your awe of my intellectual prowess?

Now we are making some progress.

MALICE for the people.

Good, maybe you're* not as stupid as the neatzzz are portraying you... BIIIITTTTCCCHHHH!!!!!!

*AN AMERICAN, BITCH!

my bike will fucking blow up man. BOOM!

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

someone above made the point that rarely do people break chains...well, how often do people throw chains...all the time! throw your chain brakeless fixed and it's the same as breaking one. I've broken 3 since starting polo...and had my wheel slide in track ends more than once. I agree that having a cable fail is the same as having a chain fail so neither system is infallible so dual brake (fixed with front brake or dual brakes with double cables) redundancy just makes sense.

that was me. i never thought of throwing chains (though usually it just binds me up) but i agree with you 100%

Use a good chain and check your bike before each game in a "high level" tourney. Fixed.

MALICE for the people.

Chukker Norris wrote:

...check your bike before each game in a "high level" tourney...

OH SHIT, ISN'T THAT "EXTRA MAINTENANCE"? AREN'T YOU AGAINST "EXTRA MAINTENANCE"?! I SAY "EXTRA MAINTENANCE" (I'M QUOTING YOU--BTW) BECAUSE IF I WERE RUNNING A BRAKE I WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ANY "EXTRA MAINTENANCE" ON THE CHAIN BEFORE EACH GAME BECAUSE I HAD A HAND BRAKE!

AHHHH DIDN'T YOU SAY YOU WERE AGAINST """"""""EXTRA MAINTENANCE""""""""" SOMEWHERE IN THIS THREAD?! I SWEAR YOU DID!!! BUT I DUNNO, I'M KINDA DUMZ!!!! AUDIENCE???? CAN ANYONE FIND WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT "EXTRA MAINTANENCE" = BAD?!

OHHHHH BUZZZZZTED!!!!

BITC4!!!!!!!

"A hand brake requires extra maintenance. Even if you don't use it, it can get damaged on the court." ~ Chukker Norris, February 3, 2011 - 4:31am #161

I'm just sayin.

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

.

MALICE for the people.

Oh, just cause my sweet fixie whipz i am a hipster eh? Take a look around. No brakes=Less mechanical B.S. to deal with.
And DNOLA have fun playing with my teammate!

Less mechanical bullshit?

You mean like putting in a new cable every year and new pads twice a year?
How about all the tyres you have to go through? Ever popped one in the middle of a game?

No i have never had that happen to me.
I am the goalie bitch the wall you might say

No like when slayer folds you in half and your caliper snaps into different pieces because you told him to stop chickenwinging. Now your front wheel dislikes moving for the rest of the game, so you take it off and are brakless for the rest of the tournament (can't play now?)

This has happened more often than dropping chains or any of the other fabled "common drivetrain issues" that are apparently running rampant outside of cascadia, especially to emo kids that love baked goods.

MontonavousJush wrote:

And DNOLA have fun playing with my teammate!

who your teammate was?

No, Is. we are already good to go and signed up for calgary ;)

eat my shorts.

HA HA

not JUST because. SD prolly influences it a bit.

Spoken well from an east coaster..See you in Calgary? oh wait, you haven't even had your qualifier yet!

Ben Chicago? I am eagerly awaiting your official response?

#biased

MALICE for the people.

This is steril...
Breakless Riders are now like Dinosaurus (nothing against you Matt). But this rules gonna apply for so few people that is utility is near asbolute Zero.

Rule shoud more be: Every rider should have a consistent and efficient brake system. If in any way the riders crash, hurt someone, or make a foul because of his own brake system (old cables, shitty chain etc...) The ref' can kick it off the whole rest of the game.

haha i have a brake. I'd say you have more experience with these brakeless types, lyon's a lot closer to you.

I must say the brake rule seems inconsistent. If you insist on fixed brakeless riders having a handbrake in case of chain failure, then you must equally insist that all freewheel riders have 2 brakes in the event of cable failures.

Also, it strikes me that the only really dangerous people playing fixed brakeless are newbies who can't control their bikes properly. Seeing as the NA rules are intended for tournaments, it kind of goes without saying that anyone thats actually getting anywhere in serious torunaments is probably experienced enough to control their bike without being penalised for their choice of setup.

And as has been previously stated, its never been a problem before, why is it now? Especially as the percentage of brakeless players becomes smaller and smaller.

Are Fixed Gear Riders so Stubborn that they Refuse to acknowledge that a front brake may help them?

I mean, honestly, the best fixed gear rider I've seen (Miguel from ATX) has a front brake.Some of the Scary Larry fixed riders also have brakes as well. I also think Too$hort from LA rides fixed with a brake system too. So while a number of (european I might add) players are on here voicing their opinion against brakes, there are still other fixed riders who use brakes and do it well. Too$hort got MVP at the DPI 3.
So, The brake rule is there for the benefit of your health, and others' health around you (as daniel has stated). If you choose to ignore it then a ref will probably call you on it at some point.

1. Since when are Memphis, Olympia, and Como in Europe?

2. Can Europeans not play in NA tournies, and is this not obviously an issue about setting a world-wide precedent?

3. What does the fact that some good fixed riders use a brake have to do with anything?

4. Thanks for your concern with helping fixed riders and benefiting our health. We appreciate it. Really.

MALICE for the people.

Oh gawwwwwwwddddddd just put a fuckeeeng brake on already. Why are we still having this discussion?!?!?! Use it or don't use it but put it on. Count yourself lucky I wasn't on the committee. You should hear some of the (potentially) useless shit I would have forced you to ride around with. Leprechaun statuette on your bars; Flag with team logo flying VISIBLY behind the bike; Dictated frame paint-job (the aesthetics for which would have been based solely on how much I liked you...and I like none of you); A "Rawbie Boards For President '11" sticker affixed VISIBLY to the frame; Rocket launchers (don't fret, you don't HAVE to use them). And don't even get me started on a proposed dress code (think Machine, only more colourful). Ben, I think Rawbie might be the George W. to your Clinton.

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

actually I think we're unlucky you weren't on the committee. martin for 2012 league commissioner.
and @chukker
1. Since when are Memphis, Olympia, and Como in Europe?
Since you didn't have a club under your profile info. isn't that the point of joining clubs? I'll just assume you're european because you can't agree to the american rules. no offense intended... I know some people but not everyone...
2. Can Europeans not play in NA tournies, and is this not obviously an issue about setting a world-wide precedent?
Who cares? If an european wants to be my third, he'd better have a safety brake.
3. What does the fact that some good fixed riders use a brake have to do with anything?
It means EVERYTHING. The fact that you and others represent a small minority of "brake-less" fixed and you're brewing up the shitstorm that is "fixed" and "brakeless" on this thread whereas others (in the real world) just use a brake and accept that it is better for everyone.
4. Thanks for your concern with helping fixed riders and benefiting our health. We appreciate it. Really.
If I was concerned, I'd tell you riding at a low ratio fixed could fuck your knees up and that your bike isn't light enough for a fixie and you need to invest in some carbon bottle holders so you can cover the open triangle and retain the overall lightness. All I'm trying to make as a point is common sense,. If you put a brake on, don't use it, who cares, but having the brake makes you (and others) better/safer/healthier/happier in the long run.
logically speaking, this was all solved when daniel posted. if you really needed a direct response from ben, you should have emailed him. now that you've made it public and turned half of this thread into the same madness, how can we discuss anything else? my goal is to reiterate daniel's logic. albeit with less panache.

for the record, he did email me.

oh. well for the record,
seriously, I'm done with cluttering this thread more!

Maxxx wrote:

logically speaking, this was all solved when daniel posted.

Apparently flogging dead horses is fun. Malice: This is BIKE polo.

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

The official rules need to require all future NAH qualifier tournaments to use dead horses as tap out spots from now on. Arizona and Arkansas will be retroactively disqualified for not conforming to the standard.

The League of Bike Polo, flogging dead horses since 2011.

Arkansas is gonna have dead birds and dead fish. haven't you been watching the news?!

That will have to go to the committee to decide whether it will be acceptable but I think as long as the mass of the pile of dead fowl/fish is equal to the mass of the average dead horse it will likely be accepted. I'll put a good word in for your but I can't promise anything.

Red Army Falco wrote:

A "Rawbie Boards For President '11" sticker affixed VISIBLY to the frame.

I need two.

Red Army Falco wrote:

Oh gawwwwwwwddddddd just put a fuckeeeng brake on already. Why are we still having this discussion?!?!?! Use it or don't use it but put it on. Count yourself lucky I wasn't on the committee. You should hear some of the (potentially) useless shit I would have forced you to ride around with. Leprechaun statuette on your bars; Flag with team logo flying VISIBLY behind the bike; Dictated frame paint-job (the aesthetics for which would have been based solely on how much I liked you...and I like none of you); A "Rawbie Boards For President '11" sticker affixed VISIBLY to the frame; Rocket launchers (don't fret, you don't HAVE to use them). And don't even get me started on a proposed dress code (think Machine, only more colourful). Ben, I think Rawbie might be the George W. to your Clinton.

"martin for 2012 league commissioner"
x2

I want all of these things at the next tournament I help organize. Martin, I think that you are finally starting to realize the real potential in this sport.

I'm getting the feeling that the libertarians amongst us truly underestimate the creative possibilities that totalitarianism has to offer.

And before you run out, can I get one of those stickers?

Chukker Norris wrote:

2. Can Europeans not play in NA tournies, and is this not obviously an issue about setting a world-wide precedent?

Why don't you quit looking NA for guidance, Charles?

A million guys can dunk a basketball in jail; should they be role models?

Huh, Charles, should they?

We are not a role model.

Yet another display of impeccable logic and profound understanding of the situation.

MALICE for the people.

I GETTED YOUR NIEMOLLER REFERENCE DOWN BELOW, WHY YOU DON'T GET MY CHARLEZ (LIKE YOUR NAME, CHUKKER -> CHUCK -> CHARLEZ-HAHA) BARKLEY REFERENCE ABOVE?! YOU MAKE ME SAD, BITCH!

that's juss turble.

What's the point with this rule? Make the brakeless players better?

It seem's that the basis for this rules is :
Handle brake are the only one who make a game style secure. So everybody should have a handle brake.
The Basis is wrong. In a lot of case, a bad brake is way worse than a fixed wheel (with low ratio) system.

The objective of this rule is: everybody should have a good braking systeme. two option in my opinion:

-Ask people to have a good brake systeme of at least one brake, include fixed. Statut quo.
-Ask people to have a good brake systeme with 2 brakes, double lever, simple with double cable, or one brake + fixed wheel. In this case, every people here who argue that fixed player can easily put one more brake should agree that a double brake systeme is also easy to put on a bike, and safer. So why don't push the thing in this way?

For the record, I personally play fixed with a brake, but still think the rule is stupid.

and yes there are europeans speaking up, but as Matt says, the rest of the world looks to NAH when reviewing their tounament rules, this isn't an issue that only affects NA.

x2

Riki@Tokyo Hardcourt Bike Polo
tokyobikepolo.blogspot.com / www.flickr.com/rikitko / twitter: RikiTokyo

I think everyone is thinking of this wrong. from the frame up all bikes must meet safety requirements before a drive train is even discussed. adding a hand brake is part of that. just because you choose to add a differnt wheel after that point doesn't negate the requirements. if ride freewheel and have 3 brakes i still meet the requirement of one hand brake. (we built a winter commuter for a girl with 5 brakes on it. seriously.disc brakes, caliper brakes, and one on the old kickstand mount.)

or lets say you're playing and someone fucks your back wheel. you put on a spare, and someone fucks that too. now what do you do? can't borrow a wheel because you have no brake. the rule isn't about keepin you down. you obviously don't race. think this rule is unfair or arbitrary? check these out : http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&LangId=1
maybe if he has such a problem we should regulate the rules even more so? get rid of the remaining fun. maybe to the degree of NJS?
yawn. bitch about something else.

like nets. what the fuck? nets?

emoxfag wrote:

yawn. bitch about something else.

like nets. what the fuck? nets?

Hah.

can someone please write a greasemonkey script to hide all posts containing the search terms "fixed" and "brake"?

Perhaps kev could create subcategories for the Rules forum? after all rules are, just as if not, more important than knowing what the pros are using.

For the record:

I'M AMERICAN, BITCH!

question for fixed hand-brake players who had this set up before these rules came out. why do you play with a handbrake?

shorter stops. more control. endo goals. it's not for everyone, though.

hellochris wrote:

It's not for everyone, though.

You're completely right! Having that extremely high tech 20th century advanced brake mechanism offers way to much, sometimes over powering, bike control and varied braking techniques that some people just can't get down. It's too bad, really.

BAMMM!

EVBP
Northern Standard

shorter stops for sure, more control for sure, you'll have to show me endo goals the next time i see you, so when i've got my left foot unclipped to shoot i can still slow down, and i also like it for goal.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

Malice: How will all these rules be enforced on the grippy players out thar? Love: Seems to me to host an A grade tournament with great courts a rule set like this(with brakes) is necessary to put certain non-polo officials at ease(mainly the people saying, "oh yes we would love it if you would please host your tournament on our property"). Now back to the question, lets say you're at a major tourney and you've decided to not follow all the rules and no one says anything about you not following them and you do well, lets say your team even makes podium and the pictures are taken and you're a star/Aplayer and you get home and there on the intra-net is you and your bike and you are famous and cool and everyone on the intra=net starts referring to you as a hay-bail hipster because they see your no-bake bike or your lovely hair...and all know you where not governing yourself. Be cool and follow the Polo-rule------>Don't be a ____<--------

P/M Hardcourt

All the arguments about adding a brake are relevant and true.
But the rule miss something when she talk only about hande brake.
What's the objective of the rules: Make the bike driving safer on court. Tell people to add an hand brake will not. I think that a rule that clearly punish a player who fuck up with is brake because of is laziness gonna be more effective and less endless steril thread style. I come back with my idea:
A big crash, a man cannot brake and t bone another on the court. Ref think that's a brake probleme. Goes on the court, look at the pads, they haven't get changed since 20 years, Major Time penalty for the lazy player. Reason: no maintenance causing crash.

In Geneva we have a guy who play with what we call a Torpedo brake systeme, freewheel but you can brake while pedaling back, does it count as a classical brake system?

In Dutch law it does. :)
But if the chain leaves your cog... No brakes.

This happened to me going down a big hill pulling a baby carrier. True story, very scary!

But this would be a response to an accident AFTER it happens. Let's focus on as many PREVENTATIVE measures we can (like giving Daniel nunchucks in a cage of Chukker Norris clones).

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

I guess that in rule #3 we mean feet? (as in 1 foot = 0.3048 meters)

Rule #4.2 would then be; - Goals should be no larger than 6.6 x 3.1 feet ~~ etc.

First they banned fixed bikes without a handbrake
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a hipster

Then they required two handbrakes
And I did not speak out
Because I already used two handbrakes

Then they required a specific gear ratio
And I did not speak out
Because it did not affect me

Then they banned fixed gear bikes
And I did not speak out
Because I am not a hipster

MALICE for the people.

hahahaha that's a little much there.

And in this thread you spoke out and are not a hipster. What you're saying is let me govern myself. What others are saying, we are at a point where we need to work with people outside of the poloverse to have better courts and attract more players. Sacrifices are being made to progress. One of the best things about polo is, in general the players have been able to govern themselves. As the sport grows however, as we have seen in the "violence in polo" thread some are unable to govern themselves. The rules are for major tournaments and lay down guidelines for people to govern themselves by and to protect all of us and our sport from those who don't.

P/M Hardcourt

I don't know if having a brake on a fixed gear bike is going to let us get 'official' things easier. I'm not even sure 'officials' know what fixed geared bikes are.

And what happened with the violence in polo? It got resolved by the people. People will sort it out again next time. The idea that we need strict rules and governing bodies to hold ourselves accountable is kind of silly. People can work outside of hierarchical frameworks, and will, even as the sport grows.

I'll agree we need a certain amount of 'framework' so that we all agree on certain things, like no punching people off their bikes, but this is more of actually saying things that we all already agree on- I've never seen people punched off their bikes in pick up, and we don't read the NAH rules before our games. Making up rules that don't reflect on how we already play is pushing it then, especially if there's no reasoning behind it. I get it: "play with a helmet- we gotta get insurance". that makes reasonable sense. And I think the organizers are doing a great job in this respect.

2.2 kinda pushes it. but we've heard enough about that, and I'd like to keep my post theoretical.

Very well said.

I still hate you because of your picture.

you're just jealous he has so much cool shit. and a futon.

I dunno, Anne Frank... you're actually painting a pretty positive future here.

so ... about those nets huh?

What about them?

The brake rule for fixed players is stupid. Less whimps in polo. Soon we won't be able to knock people off their bikes. Rules are taking over the game and changing outcomes in games. Let the fixed guys play breakless if the want.

Rory_Bear wrote:

Soon we won't be able to knock people off their bikes.

Now I'm all misty eyed ... memories of PDXII ... <sniff> Miss you man!

Rory_Bear wrote:

Less whimps in polo.

I agree, safety rules are always wimpy, or whimpy, or whatever. In fact, I think we should up the ante, polo is way too soft and sissy as it is. It should be more dangerous all the time. Every time you get on your bike you should have to fight minotaurs and dodge land mines. Your life should be in danger all the time from acid rain and tuscan raiders shooting at you from the sidlines. That way no sissies or wimps or girlie-manz would ever try to ruin this sport that is so hardcore and jawsome. We should all play on brakeless fixed gear tall-bikes with venomous snakes for mallets, using a basketful of adolescent wolverines for balls on a court suspended on rickety pillars over an open pool of lava. Maybe then polo would be cool. For now it is wimpy and you all are losers.

this thread is starting to suck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc&feature=related

I don't know much. But I know I love you...

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

<3

haybales!

hypestirs

P/M Hardcourt

Why can't I have bullhorns? I've never stabbed anyone.
Why can't I play with unplugged bars? I've never cored anyone.
Why can't I play with an uncapped shaft end? I've never stabbed anyone or myself.
Why can't I have any protrusions from my mallet? I've never hurt anyone with the protrusions I do have.
Why can't I opt out of wearing a helmet? I've never fallen and hit my head.
Why can't I play without a handbrake? I've never been unable to stop in time.

This post.

times infinity

Why can't I play without seven brakes? I've never been unable to stop with six.

Love it!! I needed a good laugh, thanks!!

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

Yes I'm starting to see your point. Let's continue: No drinking if you're participating in the tournament. No smoking pot. No doing drugs at all. It's for your safety and the safety of others. You must wear gloves. You must wear shin guards. You must have a face mask. It's for your safety and the safety of others. Do not reach speeds in excess of 15 miles per hour.

If you see anything suspicious, contact the department of homeland security. Conformity for the sake of safety.

They say I dig a hole and jump right in,
Well I don't give a shit about anything,
I don't comply to their silly rules,
All they are is hypocritical fools.

Banned from N america? OK
I never much liked playing there, anyway

Oh look, it's two-thirds of the team that beat charlie at pete the MWs.

On a serious note, Nick, do you have any problem with bullhorns, unplugged bars, unplugged shaft ends, or screws / "protrusions" sticking out from the mallet?

It's just strange to me because someone can take all the "anti-handbrake" arguments and seamlessly insert any one of those things and it would be the same thing. Yet nary a word on those things, I just don't know why the handbrake was singled out here by the "keep your rules off my bike" crowd.

Yes I do have a problem with those things and I see your point. It all comes down to where you view the line between "this is an unsafe addition to the sport" and "this is acceptable". Apparently NAH wants that line to be: put a hand brake on your fixed gear. They don't want it to be, however: you may not play under the influence of substances proven to fuck up your reaction time and make you more dangerous.

See? It's just arbitrary. There are things that they picked to be acceptable, and things they didn't, and there's zero proof that the things they chose to be unacceptable are actually any more dangerous. If you're a straight edge, fixed gear brakeless player and you go to a tournament and watch some drunk jerk off on a freewheel with a brake smash into somebody, you're going to see a lot of hypocrisy in this rule. But if this rule did not exist, the drunk jerk off would just get a penalty like anyone else, and the straight edge fixed gear player won't see any hypocrisy because there's no rule saying that his bike is inherently more dangerous than the drunk jerk off.

But whatever, I'm freewheel double brakes, and if anyone wants to be good at bike polo they should be freewheel double brakes too. OI OI OI!!!

Ya you don't make rules you can't enforce.

First, NAH doesn't want that line to be a handbrake on your fixed gear, they want that line to be a handbrake on ALL bicycles on the court. What happens when someone shows up (I've seen this before) and he uses his foot to brake on the back tire? "What? But there's no rule that says I need a brake! I registered, you can't not let me play! I can use my foot as a brake on the back tire!"
I know I don't have any empirical evidence saying that free-wheel-sole-of-shoe-brakers cause X accidents, but I do know that I've seen him run into five people in 20 minutes. Just like I've never actually seen anyone get stabbed by a unplugged mallet shaft... but intuitively it seems like it could happen fairly easily so it seems like a good idea. The same goes for all the other examples, I haven't seen in person--or a data set--someone fall on unplugged handlebars, but I've seen a picture before and it didn't look good. Maybe it only happens once every two months, but it seems like a simple enough procedure to cover the ends in tape so the chances of it happening are drastically reduced. Again, it just seem to make sense intuitively.

The problem with the booze/drugs thing is with administration, if there were a rule that said "no being sloshed" then there would really be no way to administer the rule short of giving breathalyzer / blood tests to "suspected" drooonks. But as a baseline, it's easy to recognize if someone has a brake or not. I understand this can be considered "safety theater," not to debase my position or anything. *wink* *wink*

I think to be taken seriously you have to argue for all or nothing on this one, you can't argue to leave handbrakes off, then say that capped poles are OK to enforce when there is no discernible difference between the two as far as evidence or reasoning is concerned.


Photo by Miguel Reyes

"Just an average guy with above average intelligence."

That's the beauty of it, Nick. They never see it coming.

DanielNOLA wrote:

That's the beauty of it, Nick. They never see it coming.

...unless they read LOBP.

":A goal must originate as a "shot," defined as striking the ball with the end of the mallet."

I don't feel like this gives a definitive definition as strike. It is very east to strike the ball with the mallet and then use the follow through to life the ball. Is this a shot? I think there is a gray area in the way that this is defined.

agreed. I've recently seen you shovel strike before ;)

So cheater mallets are still OK?

I guess that all depends on what you mean by "okay"?

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

If eighth inch mallets with their "side indention" is okay, and oversized UHMW with it's 2' 1/4" inner diameter is ok.... then yeah, I think sidecuts are fine.

"Allowed" or "Neato"?

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

both.

lame.

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

XX

not even sure what this means?

okay.

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

It seems there are no restrictions on mallet construction/specifications but the use of cheater mallets is somewhat restricted:
7.4 - Ball-joint and side-joint: Not to be confused with a scoop pass, toss or other ball handling. The ball-joint / side-joint is defined as pinning the ball between an open end of the mallet head and the playing surface and then dragging it. Ball-jointing / side-jointing will be allowed ONLY in the player's defensive zone. Ball jointing / side-jointing in the offensive zone will result in the ball turnover and concession of half-court.
Unfortunately under the NAH rules they aren't really "cheater mallets" anymore but I'm sure we can come up with a new name for them...

A. A cheater mallet is a cheater mallet.
B. A cheater mallet is a cheater mallet.
therefore C. A cheater mallet is a cheater mallet.
how's that for logic? Now go shave your syllogism.

I'm sure this took time and consideration from those in position of debate, I can appreciate that. I think these additions are useful and will help make a cleaner game. Also, I would like to point something:

9.3 Throwing a rear wheel or skidding into another player's bike is not permitted.

This rule has always been clear to me. however multiple times I have been scrutinized for swinging my back wheel too close *but not making bike-on-bike contact* in order to get into a better defensive/offensive position. I even served penalty minutes for this, although I did not hit the other players bike. Seems clear, but officials get this call wrong all the time. Obviously my concern is not with the rule itself, but in its interpretation. How can this be cleared up among players and officials so that the skidding bike must make contact with the other bike in order for this to be an infraction of the rules?

"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'
http://www.scarylarrykbp.org/
http://www.fixcraft.net/
http://321polo.net/

I think it's pretty clear and you were simply the victim of poor reffing.

this.

For me a good ref is always communicating to players about whats going on in the game. I could understand if you skidded into a situation, CLOSE to another players front wheel that they would warn you that was close and if you do make contact doing that it would be a penalty.

As for being given a penalty without any contact, i got no idea. That seems bizarre.....

2. Equipment - All equipment must be inspected and deemed safe before a player is allowed to step on the court. (See General Rules of play, section 5). All equipment must be free of jagged edges and dangerous protrusions. All mechanisms must be adjusted correctly and be in safe working order.

Bike

2.1 - Any common type of bike is allowed. (BMX, road, track, mountain). Trikes and recumbents are not allowed.
2.2 - The bike must have at least one handbrake.
2.3 - You may not add anything to the bike to help block shots (e.g., a bar under your BB, netting in the front triangle) with the exception of wheel covers.
2.4 - Handlebars must be capped. Bullhorn handlebars are not allowed.
***2.5 - Protruding wheel axles must be cut off and filed down so that they are flush with the nuts.*****

A guy in Karlsruhe just ripped open a huge gash on his leg form an apparently harmless fall onto someone's bike.

I don't know why this hasn't been included earlier. Axles distroy spokes (and lifes!)...

  • _MG_9638.jpg

*Somebody please think of the children!!*

fucking gross! i hope he's alright.

---------------------------
carve. smash. eat shit.

he is fine, after the incident he was a bit in shock but by tghe aftermmon he was smiling and drinking, so fine
the cut was quite big and needed stiches inside and outside.
the fall was the most stupid fall you can imagibe, both players nearly static, both with straps, so they fall one on top of the other

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

is there a map somewhere of the regions?

in regards to the fixie brake issue, the rule has been amended. We don't care how you stop your bike, only that you can stop your bike, so the handbrake rule has been eliminated, but you will be penalized for crashing into people if you can't control your bike. (brakes or not). We felt it wasn't fair to introduce this after the season has started. We trying to stick to simply clarifying existing rules during the season, and only adding new rules once a , before a new season starts.

Well I think we all know who to thank for this one! I win, Daniel.

I love it Nick you are so fucking subtle, Good work on that. And yah Daniel take that!!

I need a sugar momma so I can work less and play polo more!!

oh nick... a military operation involves deception. even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. though effective, appear to be ineffective.

new thread: http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2011/02/15/2011-nah-rules-thread-2