No typo. We sometimes use a smaller goal because it's more challenging for the offence. So I guess that would mean most people are using 60 inches or 150 cm?
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
Lets talk about rules
So this is the new draft of rules. If you see something you don’t like, rewrite the section and post that. Then we can debate your edit, and maybe come up with something that everyone can work with.
-----
Ionia Michigan Hardcourt Bike Polo Rules
- Two teams of three players.
- Any type of bicycle is allowed. Handlebars must be plugged.
- Mallets must resemble a croquet mallet with a wide side and a round end. Modified ski poles and plastic pipe are the most common materials. The handle end of the mallet must be plugged.
- The ball will be a street hockey ball.
- Goals will be a pair of cones or available substitute spaced 60 inches (150 cm) apart.
- If a goal marker is disrupted it is the responsibility of the player who disrupted it to fix it.
- Some games are timed and end after 10 minutes. Some games are not timed. Some games end at 5 points. Some games don’t.
(This should probably be cleared up and made standard, at least for tournaments.)
- Players may not play the ball with their feet at any time.
- Scoring a goal must be made from what started as a hit(1). A shuffle(2) does not count as a goal; if the ball is shuffled through the goal, play continues uninterrupted. A throw(3) does not count as a goal; if the ball is thrown through the goal, play continues uninterrupted. A drag(4) does not count as a goal; if the ball is dragged through the goal, play continues uninterrupted. Deflections count unless the deflection comes from the side of an offensive player's mallet, this would be considered a shuffle.
1.A hit is defined as striking(5) the ball with the round end of the mallet.
2.A shuffle is defined as striking the ball with the side of the mallet.
3.A throw is defined as propelling the ball with the mallet without striking(5) the ball.
4.A drag (ball-lock, ball-joint, bj, Angelo shuffle) is defined as capturing the ball between the mallet and the ground.
5.A strike is defined as….(I need help here)
- After a goal is scored, the team who scored must return to their half and each team member must pass behind at least one of the goal posts. The team who was scored on takes possession of the ball. There is no stoppage of play after a goal.
*or*
- After a goal is scored, the team who scored must return to their half and each team member must pass behind at least one of the goal posts. The team who was scored on takes possession of the ball, and may begin advancing as soon as any player on the opposing team passes behind his/her own goal. There is no stoppage of play after a goal.
*or*
-After a goal is scored, the team who scored must return to their half. The scored upon team will collect the ball and call out “Polo” before advancing. The team which is now on defense may not cross the half court line until either the ball or any of the opposing team crosses half court.
- Call out the score after each goal.
- Players must not foot-down, or touch the ground with their foot. Each time a player goes foot-down, that player is out of play and may not play the ball until they ride to the side line at center court and tap in. Tapping in can be touching a specified point or ringing a bell. Then they may return to normal play.
-Players headed to the tap in point must not interfere with other in play players or the ball.
- Tap in point should only be on one side of the court at center court.
*or*
-Tap in points will be on each sideline at center court.
(Still debating one or two tap in points)
- Trash talking is allowed. Just don’t let it get out of hand. (Don't be a dick)
- When the ball is passed through the goal from behind the goal line, a goal cannot be scored by the first player to touch the ball. Any subsequent player to play the ball may score.
- If a ball passes through the goal from behind the goal line by any means other than a direct pass (ie: bounce, ricochet, ect) the ball is in play and a goal can be scored by the next legal hit.
-If the defense passes or causes the ball to go through the goal from the front of the goal, a goal has been scored for the offense.
Contact rules:
- “Like” contact is allowed. Player to player (body to body), except grabbing or pushing with hands, is allowed. Mallet to mallet is allowed when both players are attempting to play the ball. Mallet to mallet contact is also allowed with a player acting as a goalie. Bike to bike is allowed.
- Everything else is not allowed: Mallet to player, player to bike, mallet to bike, etc.
- Throwing of mallets is not allowed at any time, in any situation, ever, not even once.
Start of a game:
- Each team will be stopped behind its own goal line and the ball will be positioned at center court.
- Play will begin with a “3 2 1 GO!” from the sideline.
- Players charging the ball should turn left to avoid collisions.
Penalties:
Foot-down: tap in at center court
Playing ball with feet: tap in at center court
Playing on after a foot-down or other illegal action: ejections of offending player from game, -1 point offending team
Incidental illegal contact: tap in at center court
Intentional illegal contact: ejection of offending player from game, -1 point offending team
-----
To keep things more organized, please quote sections you are commenting on.
[quote ]Quoted text[/quote ] Just take the spaces out of the brackets.
i started a thread about this topic a while ago. maybe best to discuss it there:
http://bikepolo.ca/forum/rules/2008/10/31/goal-width
nyc
personally, i like some variation in the rules, i think it's good for the game. but communication is key, so i think it makes sense to talk about where we agree and differ.
it definitely makes sense to have rules laid out explicitly at the beginning of tournaments, so i think it does make sense to come up with a complete set so that all bases can be covered before play starts.
- Call out the score after each goal.
i like this one. we lose track of scores way too often.
- While it is generally considered poor etiquette not to go immediately and directly to tap in once you go foot-down, I think that a player who has gone foot-down should still be able to perform a defensive role in the same way as a player who has dropped their mallet.
i strongly disagree with this. if someone falls over in front of the goal and stays there on the ground more than a second to block a shot i think that should not be considered a valid defensive play. in cases where it's obvious the shot would've scored we count the goal, but of course that's another judgement call that needs to be made. obviously if they're hurt or unable to get up then you have to be reasonable.
i don't like seeing penalties affect the score, especially when it comes down to a judgement call. that goes for penalty points, penalty shots, whatever. accurate impartial rulings are tough to come by.
I guess I agree with you on the point about playing defense after a foot-down. It becomes to grey. Black and white rules are best.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
In my opinion, if you foot down you are in NO WAY similar to someone who has dropped their mallet. If you foot down you need to get the fuck out of play immediately. End of story.
---
Minneapolis Bike Polo information list
A Blog about bikes in Minneapolis
I think you're probably right.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
Indeed... if you foot-down, crash, whatever, you need to get out of the way. Immdiately.
No delay, no obstructing other players (even unintentionally). If you just touched down and are riding out to the cone to tap back in, you have to yield right-of-way to people who aren't down on the way back to the tap-in spot/cone. No getting in the way of the ball, no getting in the way of players, no blocking the goal by pretending you're slow to react that you're down.
Someone who has dropped a mallet still might be able to make a defensive move, or can pick up their mallet without putting a foot down, so they aren't similar situations.
- Call out the score after each goal.
i like this one. we lose track of scores way too often.
Have you seen these? Fits in a messenger bag, made from mallet and wheel guard materials. Pretty cool.
Chicago Bike Polo 2003-2008
St Louis Bike Polo 2008-now
while i like that a rulebook is on the table for discussion, there is, in my opinion, simply too much going on here. It would probably be much easier to separate the issues into individual threads so that people can stay relatively on topic (I linked above to the goal width thread, for example). Some things I like, though, about your rules:
(1) you distinguish a 'throw' from a 'hit'. With Menace tenaciously using his 'wrist-shot', such a distinction is sorely needed as I have already witnessed people vehemently take both sides on the issue of whether or not it should count as a goal. sorry mate!
(2) you have a built-in system for getting rid of problem play by reserving the right to 'eject' anybody from the game. it's about time for a consequence to breaking the inane 'don't be a dick' rule (even though that is not exactly how you have it).
There are also some things I don't like here, but rather than clog things up, I move to discussing each proposed rule in turn, rather than all at once. good day.
nyc
while i like that a rulebook is on the table for discussion, there is, in my opinion, simply too much going on here. It would probably be much easier to separate the issues into individual threads so that people can stay relatively on topic (I linked above to the goal width thread, for example).
I agree and disagree about splitting this post up: I agree that it would be easier to follow the discussion if each rule is split into a seperate post, but we've done that before and never come up with a comprehensive set of rules at the end. I'm hoping that this post will lead to a comprehensive set of rules.
you distinguish a 'throw' from a 'hit'. With Menace tenaciously using his 'wrist-shot', such a distinction is sorely needed as I have already witnessed people vehemently take both sides on the issue of whether or not it should count as a goal. sorry mate!
I'm the only player using a "throw" in Ionia, but it is quite clear that this action is not the same as what we all understand a legal shot to be.
you have a built-in system for getting rid of problem play by reserving the right to 'eject' anybody from the game. it's about time for a consequence to breaking the inane 'don't be a dick' rule (even though that is not exactly how you have it).
We've never had to use this in our games, but it just makes sense. Tournaments breed bad behavior, and there needs to be a mechanism for dealing with it. This section of the rules should probably be expanded to include all intentional rule breaking.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
Special Goodness said (in the "Helmets" thread):
"I don't care about that stuff. I like that this sport doesn't have a lot of rules and I think that everyone making new rules is doing a disservice to the game. Players innovate because they want to be better. The more rules we have, the less innovation we will see."
glad to see you turned this corner!
nyc
It's not that I think we need more rules. We simply need a good, complete set of rules so that we don't need to create stupid rules.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
Got caught there didn't you.
Also...I like your trash talking rule. These are the types of issues I would like to see addressed.
I was slightly mis-quoted. What I actually said was:
I think you are right about it being easier to find courts, permission, sponsors, and make us more legitimate, but I don't care about that stuff. I like that this sport doesn't have a lot of rules and I think that everyone making new rules is doing a disservice to the game. Players innovate because they want to be better. The more rules we have, the less innovation we will see. That said, wearing a helmet is always a good idea. I just don't want someone telling me I have to.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
But yeah, I guess it is a bit of a turn around. To quote myself, I'm "doing a disservice to the game" by adding rules about "throwing" the ball and such, but I think that a minimum amount of rules are needed. It's just a bad idea to create rules just for the sake a making rules.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
You weren't mis-quoted. If anything your only argument against the quote is that it was taken out of context. It was exactly what you posted.
"a bit of a turn around" (now that's a quote)...a bit of a turn around. You just went from saying that making new rules "is doing a disservice to the game" (another quote) to starting a thread about the discussion of rules. That's a 180.
what, you cant handle a little trash talk? some body call montana capriotti's gonna cry.
In a couple days I'll edit and repost the rules with the changes that this thread has suggested, or maybe Kev can delete the thread and we can start it over with a fresh draft of the rules?
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
Are tricycles considered bikes? :P
"If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough"
...probably not. Unicycles probably work though.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
a tricycle is a tricycle and a bicycle is a bicycle
www.mkebikepolo.com
listen up everyone, this guy works for the federation and "teaches" people how to "ride" bikes, so he knows a trike when he sees one.
and in madison montana knew from a track in the snow that there was a unicyclist about; sure enough we spotted him seconds later, so he knows a unike when he sees one.
bike polo rules
nyc
I know, I know, just kidding.
I always wondered what would happen if some ass showed up on a tricycle shouting ULTIMATE GOALIE! over and over.
"If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough"
"3.A throw is defined as propelling the ball with the mallet without striking the ball. "
I'm a little confused by this. Do you mean the scoop and toss from the BJ or do you mean when you shuffle right up to the goal and tap the ball with the end of your mallet just before it crosses the line?
Chicago Bike Polo 2003-2008
St Louis Bike Polo 2008-now
Any time the ball is propelled by the mallet without "striking" it with the mallet. This would include the scoop and toss from the BJ, but a "tap" would be considered a "strike".
For example, the way I "throw" the ball is to place the mallet in contact with the ball (usually the round end, but I can do it with the side too) and then push the ball into the air with the mallet. Since the mallet is already in contact with the ball when I start to propel the ball, it would be considered a "throw".
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
and like most .ca threads, this one turns to shit...
can we get back on track?
two things: 1) if you dab, get the fuck out of the way. 2) every team is responsible for their own goal. if an opposing player knocks over your cone. tough shit. pick it up.
okay, a third: what did you mean by: "If a ball is shot from in front of the goal line and does not go through the goal but bounces out through the goal, the ball is in play and can be scored"?
TOP CENTER 4-EVA
1) if you dab, get the fuck out of the way.
Agreed, I'll make that change and repost a fresh draft of this set of rules on Monday.
2) every team is responsible for their own goal. if an opposing player knocks over your cone. tough shit. pick it up.
I disagree. If you knock the cone over, you should have to stop and pick it up. It's not the other teams fault that the person who knocked the cone over can't control their bike. In a tournament, the ref or someone else should be tasked with keeping the cones in place. The players should only have to worry about scoring goals and keeping the other teams from doing the same.
okay, a third: what did you mean by: "If a ball is shot from in front of the goal line and does not go through the goal but bounces out through the goal, the ball is in play and can be scored"?
I'm out in front of the goal on offense and I take a shot on goal, but it goes just to the left of the goal. The ball hits the boards behind the goal and bounces back between the goal cones and out to me. I can take another shot, and if it goes in it will count.
However...I'm out in front of the goal on offense and I take a shot on goal, but it goes just to the left of the goal. My teammate behind the goal gains possession and passes the ball from behind the goal, between the goal cones, and to me. Someone else has to touch the ball before it can be a goal.
If it's a pass, it has to touch two people before it counts. If it's a rebound, it's in play immediately.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
in east van you are always responsible for your own goal. it's never been an issue.
thanks for clarifying what you meant about that last point!
TOP CENTER 4-EVA
Tonight at the all Michigan tournament, there was typically a person (spectator or timekeeper) who would fix cones so that the players didn't have to worry about it. It worked pretty well, and I think that is how tournaments should work. For general play, I still think that the player who hits the cone should fix it.
With the last point, do you think I should reword that section or maybe just add the line about "if it's a pass it has to touch two people, if it's a rebound it's immediately in play"?
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
the only thing that is a bit challenging is the wording in this phrase:
"If a ball is shot from in front of the goal line and does not go through the goal but bounces out through the goal, the ball is in play and can be scored."
the "bounces out through the goal" should read "bounces off the back wall and through the BACK of the goal" as the wording is a tad obscure/misleading. as the wording stands, essentially what you are saying is that the ball does not go through the goal but does. weird.
TOP CENTER 4-EVA
I think the Republic of East Vancouver should rethink the you are responsible for you're own net. We just like to say "Fix your net" as a taunt. But in serious games most of us will pick up either teams net if it is knocked over and I think the etiquette should be if you knock over a cone pick it up.
there's a whole thread on tap-outs, so i won't go into it too much except to say that i cannot understand having one tap-out. i could if it were at centre court, but otherwise it skews the court in such a way as to give an obvious advantage to the team advancing with the tap-out on their left.
http://www.bikepolo.ca/forum/rules/2008/06/28/tap-out-spots
my biggest beef with this rule-set is the process for following a goal. every sport i can think of pauses between points or goals save basketball. there is a reason for this. first is that there's a natural break so that people can figure out whether the goal was legitimately scored or not, which happens a lot in polo. without the pause things just get out of hand right away. the number of times i've seen someone score and a semi-argument goes on about it while another guy goes in and scores the other way, it's incredible. but the big reason is that a pause allows spectators to know that something has happened, for the score to be announced, and to keep them in the loop. most of the people that i've talked to about polo that don't play think it's exciting and fun to watch, but they can't tell what's going on who's on what team, and whether someone scored or not. resetting the game allows for teams to gather themselves, is fair to both sides, allows disagreements to be worked out and is easier to observe.
most places, including all tournaments i played in this year, are playing with a rule that allows the scoring team to clear half before they get advanced on, and allows the scored-upon team to cross half with a player (not the ball) play resumes. this has also been previously discussed.
http://www.bikepolo.ca/forum/rules/2008/11/11/after-a-goal-is-scored-wha...
Multiple taps out seems to breed the question of which one to use. Having one is simpler, and I don't see the argument of it giving one team an advantage since you don't always come to the tap out point from the same direction. (Can you explain that point more?) The advantage goes to the team that can stay on their bikes, and therefore doesn't need to use the tap out spot. Taping out is a penalty for screwing up. Making it easier takes away from that.
I see what you are saying with the process following the goal, and I think you make some really good points. Your points about spectators are especially important, and well taken. The only thing I can say to this is to try it. The semi-argument thing kinda takes care of itself in general play, because if you are arguing, you'll get scored on. In tournaments, the ref makes the call on goal or no goal. Games played this way tend to be higher scoring, so it doesn't really make sense to argue over one goal when you may score 15 times during a 10 minute game. but...you gotta try it. I think it's a lot of fun. Please try it with your local crew.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
In tournaments, the ref makes the call on goal or no goal.
Is this really necessary? In a chaotic scramble right in front of the net, it's unlikely that a ref on the sidelines would be able to tell what happened. I realize that leaving it up to the "general consensus" of players is risky, but a ref 50 ft away is more likely to make bad/uninformed calls than they are likely to be able to resolve a disputed shot.
It's better to have an authority make the call than to have to fight about it between players every time the ball comes close to the line. Most players are pretty honest, it should really only come into play once or twice a game anyway.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
we got shafted the all florida championships cause of this. all the people on the side thought when the ball went off the cone on a close shot that it had actually come off a shuffle. it would have been the winning goal.
I like two tap-outs but one works also. The benefit of two if the play the play is around one tap-out the player(s) who footdowned go to the opposite tap-out to stay out of the way. I hate it when a footdown player who sole purpose is to tap-out and stay out of my way is funbling towards a tapout preventing me from going where I want.
As for turning around and going immediatly after a score it just seems cheap. Who wants to score cheap goals? Boring. Let the teams set up again then go.
I like two tap-outs but one works also. The benefit of two if the play the play is around one tap-out the player(s) who footdowned go to the opposite tap-out to stay out of the way. I hate it when a footdown player who sole purpose is to tap-out and stay out of my way is funbling towards a tapout preventing me from going where I want.
I see what you’re saying, but, if I go foot-down, I’m going to try to get back in the game as quickly as I can. The only people I will go out of my way to not be in their way is my own teammates. I’m going to get my shit together and make a straight line for the nearest tap-out point. Bike polo isn’t a game if chivalry and niceties. Two tap-out points will result in rules to the effect of: “If you go foot-down you must tap-out at the tap-out point opposite from the half of the court you went foot-down before returning to play. In the circumstance that the game action is in the half of the court of the tap-out point opposite from the half of the court you went foot-down in; you must tap-out at the tap-out point opposite from the game action before returning to play. In the circumstance that the game action is between you and the tap out points, you must go to the extreme edge of the court at the side opposite from the half of the court you went foot-down in (or opposite the game action, if said action conflicts with your intended path of travel) and then move to the tap-out point and tap-out before returning to play.” THAT is a stupid rule, and THAT is completely unnecessary. One tap out is simple, it makes the rules simple, I don’t see how it’s unfair (although I invite someone to explain that to me), and I have yet to hear a good argument for two tap-out points that trumps simplicity.
As for turning around and going immediatly after a score it just seems cheap. Who wants to score cheap goals? Boring. Let the teams set up again then go.
Nobody scores cheap goals if the team that just scored hustles. How long does it take you to sprint from end to end and back at your court? The team that was just scored on has that much time to get set up.
Seriously, you all need to try playing like this before you pass judgment. What you’ll find is a very fast, very intense game. Then again, if you are slow or lazy, you’ll probably hate it.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
R e: Point One (# of Tapout Points:
I fail to see how having two tap-out points is more complicated than one. Tapping is not a tricky thing and (as has been discussed) should occur post-haste. I generally feel that two makes it easier for persons tapping to get back into play with a minimum of muss/getting in the way.
Begin Quote:
'Two tap-out points will result in rules to the effect of: “If you go foot-down you must tap-out at the tap-out point opposite from the half of the court you went foot-down before returning to play. In the circumstance that the game action is in the half of the court of the tap-out point opposite from the half of the court you went foot-down in; you must tap-out at the tap-out point opposite from the game action before returning to play. In the circumstance that the game action is between you and the tap out points, you must go to the extreme edge of the court at the side opposite from the half of the court you went foot-down in (or opposite the game action, if said action conflicts with your intended path of travel) and then move to the tap-out point and tap-out before returning to play.”'
:End Quote
THIS is (if you'll excuse the expression) fucking stupid. Really.
Use whichever point you want, just don't dally.
Oh yeah, another plus of two tapouts: if you do some really bullshit play, one could be prompted to hit both tap-outs as a penalty.
I'm not sure how much sense I've made here.
What I don't want to see is some sort of rule that dictates which tap out point you have to use based on where you are on the court or in relation to other players. I'm pretty sure I said that the "Two tap-out points will result in rules to the effect of..." was stupid, and that I don't want to see overly complicated rules be the result of having two tap-out points. If works out that you use whichever point you want, I can live with that. I don't like the idea of having to hit both tap out points for certain bullshit plays, because it would mean crossing the center of the court and could mean you get more in the way of the other players or the ball.
Overall, I think your post made lots of sense.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
Seriously, you all need to try playing like this before you pass judgment. What you’ll find is a very fast, very intense game. Then again, if you are slow or lazy, you’ll probably hate it.
Oh, and the implication that anyone who doesn't enjoy your style of game is "slow or lazy" isn't necessary. I think people here might be more receptive to yr. posts if they did not tend to end with some manner of jab.
This is meant to be constructive but has not been exhaustively researched.
You put you foot down you have a to tap-out. Penalty. With two tap-outs you can pick either...not the one on the opposite side or whatever you're trying to say above. But again your other role is you as the footdown player needs to stay out of the way of play (people who did not footdown). Two tap out allows for players to stay out of the way. If you want to wait while play moves out of the tap-out area that is close fine . I don't think it is that hard a concept to pick a tap-out that keeps you out of the way. But I really don't care that much...either works and I think it is funny that people get charged up about one or two tap-outs.
As for quick restarts. We've tried it in East Van. Like I said it just seems CHEAP. If everyone of the court is on the same page fine. But there is no opportunity to celebrate, trash talk, tap mallets, review the score, fix a bike etc. But play whatever way you want. But who want to be know as the cheap player who scores goals while everyone else is not looking. Not me.
“Like” contact is allowed. Player to player (body to body), except grabbing or pushing with hands.
I like this part about hands (and should include feet). It simplifies the question of body-body contact by being clear to new people that it's ok to go after the ball and bump and hip-check, and that elbows, knees, hips, shoulders, heads are ok. Hands and feet are not. Any one who is seriously playing is keeping their hands on their mallet/bars and feet on the pedals. People using their hands or feet on other people are just trying to hurt someone.
Mallet-mallet contact should be limited to those in contact with the ball, I think. There's no reason to slash someone else's mallet when you aren't going for the ball. I know I've done it when pissed and to prove a point about dickish behavior (don't be a dick to me, or else I'll be more of a dick to you), but I thought it childish of myself afterwards.
Roughing the goalie potentially could involve mallet/tripod swiping, but the roughing the goalie need to have limits. The T-boning the goalie at 1:13 in this video http://www.vimeo.com/2877387 (and discussed here http://bikepolo.ca/forum/tournaments/2009/01/02/photos-from-nyc-in-madison) is completely fucking wrong. Especially so because they didn't even have control of the ball. Maybe it was unintentional and the person with the ball couldn't stop in time, but still... you need to know your limits when you're sprinting right towards someone. Allowing this kind of roughing the goalie opens it up to any kind of T-boning of anyone for any reason. Which is completely fucking wrong.
Incidental illegal contact: tap in at center court.
Intentional illegal contact: ejection of offending player from game, -1 point offending team
This is too vague and unenforceable. One person's poor etiquette is another person's "incidental illegal contact". I agree that intentional dickish behavior should have consequences and ejection could be one of them (though a bit severe for something *mistaken* as intentional). But if wrestling for the ball in front of the goal, and someone misses the ball and hits someone else's wheel, enforcing a tap-in will be ridiculous. It will just result into either ignoring the rule, or a shouting match of "he/she didn't tap in! no fair!"
Ejection from the game... the only way this would work is if there's a referee to be impartial (i.e. tournament). If player A calls a severe foul on player B that gets B ejected from the game, B probably won't admit it. And B's teammates will likely back them up. So it will devolve into a shouting match of "you did ___ (bad thing)! you're ejected!" "No I didn't, I'm not ejected!" "Did too!" "Did not!" ... The thing about this is that tempers probably flare highest at tournaments (rather than regular local games) when the pressure is higher, so maybe it's not a problem other than at tournaments? (People aren't as likely to be unapologetic assholes to the people they play with every week, so it might not be a problem unless it's a tournament game.)
I left the penalty part semi-vague not to make it unenforceable, but to give the ref authority. The way I see it, you don't need rules to kick somebody out of your regular local games. If someone is being a dick, it'll get taken care of. At tournaments, tempers and testosterone reach a whole other level, and, just like every other sport, if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen. There isn't anything you can do about that, but if you tell the ref to watch the (insert illegal action here), and it happens again, the offending player can be removed from the game. The ref has the final authority. They can let play continue in the "fighting for the ball in front of the goal" scenario, or stop the play when things start to get out of hand. It is vague, and it probably can be better. That's what this thread is for. Rewrite it and make it better.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
Two comments,
1) I agree with this: "When the ball is passed through the goal from behind the goal line, a goal cannot be scored by the first player to touch the ball. Any subsequent player to play the ball may score." And think that any variation, as described above for missed shots and lucky ricochets, is bogus. Keep it simple.
2) I like two tap-outs. Symmetry.
Keep it simple.
I like it.
Any more comments about the number of tap-out points? I know a lot of people play with just one, why is that better or worse than two?
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
I like two tap-outs (tap-ins, whatever) because it is symmetrical.
There are two aspects of this. As other folks noted one factor is the difference between having to tap something that is on the left or right side of your bike. It doesn't matter that we can all do so; the simple fact is that it is different. The result is that one team is playing on a slightly different court than the other team -- and that's not fair.
Another aspect of symmetry involves ones position on the court relative to the tap-out. Earlier the comment was made that a double-tap-out rule would suck because it forces somebody to ride across the center of the court. But with one tapout you're always forcing this. I prefer the idea that one can tap-out on either side and avoid the middle.
This discussion overlaps with rules about which tap-out to use. I think "use best judgment" seems to work well enough. Frankly since you *are* on the court and you *are* going to be in the way, I think, as long as you're on your bike you can do whatever you want (except touch anything with your mallet). This includes riding defensively. Allowing you to be part of the play firmly solves any questions about which tap-out you "should use" because it no longer matters if you get in the way. I respect that folks feel strongly that that shouldn't be the case; but fail to see how they'll enforce it. "Keep it simple".
- max
Ok, I reposted my rules as a new fresh draft. I've made some of the changes people suggested. Please read it again and comment.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
Our games are always 15 minutes or first to five. Two good teams can play for a 1/2 hour without scoring 5 goals but I think 10 minutes is too short a game. A couple lucky goals can win the game.
In Seattle the final game of tournaments is always first to 11 and win by two. I've played in some epic games as a result.
15 minutes works for me. 10 was what was on hardcourtbikepolo.com. We almost always play to five points.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
every city plays by their own variations of these basic rules. when you travel to another city to play polo you have to abide by their local rules. sometimes, you may bring those rules home and adopt them. Milwaukee, for example, uses rules that were originally for a grass game that we adapted for hard court and also several rules that we learned in our first hockey ball hard court tounament in ottawa (some of ottawas rules we left in ottawa e.g. super mario land rule) this is the way that rules are moving toward universal. it's not gonna be some dumb thread attempting to once and for all list all the rules and get evryone to agree on them. i don't even think universal rules are necessary, they are slowly becoming standard because the polo community is becoming tighter but that is the only reason. i personally enjoy the rule announcement at the begining of every tournament and then discussing and dissing those local variations with my team after words, making sure we all understand them and discussing how we're gonna have to tweak our game accordingly. it's fun. trying to discuss every rule at once isn't fun.
-hero squad * milwaukee, wi-
...this is the way that rules are moving toward universal. it's not gonna be some dumb thread attempting to once and for all list all the rules and get evryone to agree on them.
Why is it so wrong and who does it hurt to try?
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
it's not wrong. try all you want because it doesn't hurt anybody. and i shouldn't have said your thread is dumb when i should've said "unnecessary" or "redundant" that wasn't really my main point anyways, it was just that you have to abide by the law of the land when traveling to tournaments. those are the only rules that matter. they are usually variations of rules you play at home anyways.
for a big tournament like the worlds, there should be some regional or city representative to have some say as to what the rules are, but ultimately it's up to the city hosting (in this case philly) and if they want to instate their "philly style" blitz after you get scored on rule, for example, everyone's gotta suck it up.
-hero squad * milwaukee, wi-
I understand that you have to go by the rules of each tournament. However, it would be easier for everyone if there was a standard set of rules that everyone used. That's what this is about. Yes it's redundant. Most of these topics have already been discussed. What hasn't happened is for someone to put all that together.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
"-Throwing of mallets is not allowed at any time, in any situation, ever, not even once."
I think I should change the penalties part to read "Incidental illegal action" and "Intentional illegal action". Intentional illegal action or throwing your mallet would get you kicked out of the game, and your team would lose a point.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
we are working on have goal judges for the SESPI one! hopefully even with red lights to turn on when goals are scored!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Kids-Bike-Police-Siren-Loud-Rotating-Red-LED-Light-T...
Thanks for posting this.
Here are the changes I suggest:
Mallets must resemble a croquet mallet with a wide side and a round end. Modified ski poles and plastic pipe are the most common materials. The handle end of the mallet must be plugged.
I think it's unnecessary to require the handle to be plugged. This basically only effects the player who doesn't have their mallet plugged.
-After a goal is scored, the team who scored must return to their half. The scored upon team will collect the ball and call out “Polo” before advancing. The team which is now on defense may not cross the half court line until either the ball or any of the opposing team crosses half court.
- Call out the score after each goal.
I feel that this is the best way to begin after a goal. These two points could be combined to say that the scored upon team may call out the score before advancing...."
-If the defense passes or causes the ball to go through the goal from the front of the goal, a goal has been scored for the offense.
I strongly disagree with this rule. I believe this rule came about because of a hockey rule that a goal is scored regardless of the team scoring it. That's great for hockey (with 6 players per side including a dedicated goalie), but makes no sense for Bike Polo. If we were to use this hockey rule then we may as well allow shuffles. At least shuffles come from the offensive team. If the defending team accidently puts the ball through the goal it should not count. That being said, in the event of a deflection by the defence a goal should be scored.
Intentional illegal contact: ejection of offending player from game, -1 point offending team
I think a better punishment would be removing the offending player until the next point is scored by either team, and giving the ball to the offended team. Otherwise a penalty would create a 3 on 2 game, which isn't cool.
Well, that's it for now.
Wade from Greenlake, Seattle Polo
I think it's unnecessary to require the handle to be plugged. This basically only effects the player who doesn't have their mallet plugged.
I 100% disagree with this, and this is something I really think is important. If by some freak accident you core sample someone with your mallet, it is your fault. I just don't think it's a big deal to plug them, and it's a lot safer.
I feel that this is the best way to begin after a goal. These two points could be combined to say that the scored upon team may call out the score before advancing...."
Makes sense. A lot of people play this way. I think I may be losing to argument for the Ionia after goal restart, but again, please try it.
I strongly disagree with this rule. I believe this rule came about because of a hockey rule that a goal is scored regardless of the team scoring it. That's great for hockey (with 6 players per side including a dedicated goalie), but makes no sense for Bike Polo. If we were to use this hockey rule then we may as well allow shuffles. At least shuffles come from the offensive team. If the defending team accidently puts the ball through the goal it should not count. That being said, in the event of a deflection by the defence a goal should be scored.
This actually happened to me at the all Michigan tournement in the final game, and it sucked, but that's what the rules were. I put it in here because putting the ball through your own goal is a screw up, and I want to get a feel for what other people think about this rule.
I think a better punishment would be removing the offending player until the next point is scored by either team, and giving the ball to the offended team. Otherwise a penalty would create a 3 on 2 game, which isn't cool.
The idea was to completely remove a problem person, but we can certainly work with it. What about removing the player until the team which still has 3 players scores?
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
I have to agree with Wade on all cases. I think the one that I agree with him most about is the own goals.
Leon
Seattle Bike Polo
i think i realized at the SoCal polo picnic just how much everyone in seattle hates own goals. sorry.
nyc
speaking of local rules, leon, are we doing 360s at the inaugural north american bike polo championship this summer? it would be nice to know in advance . . .
nyc
Inaugural nothing.
North America has had a bike polo championship for years.
It just gets better every year.
Doug D
Brooklyn, New York
http://www.hardcourtbikepolo.com/
I have spoken with a few people and it is undecided at this point but I promise that all the rules will be posted at least a few month in advance for discussion. Although I am willing to discuss the rules that dosent mean I will be willing to change them that will be up to the players of Seattle to decide.
Leon
Seattle Bike Polo
own goals are just goofy. i'd rather a point scored for me by the other team not count so we could finish the game anyway
I agree...I've never been a fan of own goals. It sucks to decide a game based on an own goal. I think it happened at the NACCC a couple times. We hav enever counted own goals in Eastvan ecause of the shuffle factor. You cannot score on a shuffle...on offence or defence.
What happen to me at the all Michigan tournament was that the defender cleared the ball from in front of his goal using the round end of the mallet. I was the last defender back and was maybe 20 feet in front and 15 feet to the right of the goal. The ball deflected off my front wheel and then painfully slowly rolled over the goal line. So technically is was a deflection, but I would call it an own goal because it was my fault.
If I had been able to get to the ball (and if this had happened in Eastvan) and pushed the ball through the goal with the side of my mallet, would it have counted?
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
That's why own goal exists. Because of deflections. I don't necessarily agree with an own goal if you are passing though the cones or just shuffling it through with no one around, but a deflection is a goal.
But that's why I like nets. No shuffling or passing through the net possibilities, and that makes own goal even more relevant.
I guess I don't really understand what you are saying. I get that you like nets and that nets take care of the ball coming through the goal backwards, but you kinda lost me beyond that.
Also, I've played hockey and to compare nets with the two cones in bike polo, I kinda like the cones. Yes the cones create issues that you don't have with nets, but cones move when you run into them, the bottom back edge doesn't stick out so you don't clip it, you can't lean on them as easily, you can find/steal them easily, they aren't made of metal, and they appeal to the DIY spirit of this sport. Nets do make rules a lot easier though.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
i dont understand peoples dislike of own goals. on defense the main goal of the game is to NOT let the ball go in your goal so why should it be okay at any time for the ball to go in your goal. Having own goals causes players to be more careful with the ball around their own goal and be more skillful cause if they mess up then there is a consequence. Compared to if theres no own goals then they can just be lazy with the ball.
plus who will be the first polo player assassinated getting off the plane returning from losing a championship with an own goal?
ben schultz shot one of our guys in both kneecaps on our way back from the espi. ben left him in the woods about two miles from a rest area. its a damn shame, too. he was the best goalie in chicago
So allowing own goals prevents sloppy play and gives us the possibility of thinning the flock.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
I feel it slows down the game. If you have the ball and an opponent is charging you I like to be able to clear it through my goal to stop them from the chance to score. Especially if that opponent causes you to dab and your last action before you feet hit the ground is to hit it through the goal. Plus it is a shity way to lose and to win. No one really feels that good about these goals and don't we play the game to feel good.
Leon
Seattle Bike Polo
I really don't see how hitting the ball to the area behind your own goal speeds up the game or how putting the ball behind your own goal in a last effort before footing down puts you or your team in a better position than getting the ball to the opposite end of the court. Nobody feels good about own goals, but nobody feels good about sloppy play either. The rules, as I have them written, don't prohibit own goals, and so far I'm in favor of keeping it that way. I agree with the earlier points about having own goals preventing sloppy play. I don't agree with the argument that having own goals slows the game down.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
Agreed.
Anything dubious is usually a deflection or an unsuccessful defence... whatever. If you have control of the ball, then why do you need to be able to shuffle it into your own goal?
--
urbanbicyclist.org
we could change
Deflections count unless the deflection comes from the side of an offensive player's mallet, this would be considered a shuffle.
to: "Deflections count, including deflections made by a defensive player's mallet, body, or bike. A deflection from the side of an offensive player's mallet is considered a shuffle."
And remove the section about scoring on your own goal entirely.
This would clarify things a bit.
Wade
Seattle Bike Polo
So you propose taking out the line "-If the defense passes or causes the ball to go through the goal from the front of the goal, a goal has been scored for the offense." and fixing the line about deflections. I think this would clear things up and still allow own goals.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
So you propose taking out the line "-If the defense passes or causes the ball to go through the goal from the front of the goal, a goal has been scored for the offense." and fixing the line about deflections. I think this would clear things up and still allow own goals.
What happens if I try and Pass or Shoot it up field, it hits the opposing teams wheel and goes through my goal. Is that an own goal or a shuffle. The reason I think it slows down the game is because there are a lot of arguments similar to this one that I have seen discussed and argued on the court. I think we should try to keep the game simpler not more complex and that is why in my opinion a goal is scored when some one shoots it with the small end of the mallet through the goal they are attempting to score on.
Leon
Seattle Bike Polo
If you hit the ball up field with the round end of your mallet, the instance you describe would be a deflection. That would be a goal.
With the current wording, I can totally see how an argument could come about from that situation, and that would totally slow the game down. I think there are too many words in that section of the rules. I'll work on it and see if I can make it more simple and therefore more clear.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
So I tried rewriting the scoring section. I think it's a little clearer, but tell me what you think.
Goals scored by the offense must be made from what started as a hit(1).
A shuffle(2) does not count as a goal; if the ball is shuffled through the goal, play continues uninterrupted.
A throw(3) does not count as a goal; if the ball is thrown through the goal, play continues uninterrupted.
A drag(4) does not count as a goal; if the ball is dragged through the goal, play continues uninterrupted.
Deflections count unless the deflection comes from the side of an offensive player's mallet, this would be considered a shuffle.
Any action by the defense that causes the ball to go through the goal from the front of the goal will result in a goal scored for the offense.
When the ball is passed through the goal from behind the goal line, a goal cannot be scored by the first player to touch the ball. Any subsequent player to play the ball may score.
If a ball passes through the goal from behind the goal line by any means other than a direct pass (ie: bounce, ricochet, ect) the ball is in play and a goal can be scored by the next legal hit.
Call out the score after each goal.
1.A hit is defined as striking(5) the ball with the round end of the mallet.
2.A shuffle is defined as striking the ball with the side of the mallet.
3.A throw (scoop, push) is defined as propelling the ball with the mallet without striking(5) the ball.
4.A drag (ball-lock, ball-joint, bj, Angelo shuffle) is defined as capturing the ball between the mallet and the ground.
5.A strike is defined as giving the ball a sharp or sudden acceleration with the mallet. example: If you strike an egg with your mallet, it will break immediately. If you throw, scoop, or push an egg with your mallet, it wont break until it hits something.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
So are attempting to make Ionia Michigan Hardcourt Bikepolo Rules the standard ruleset for all of hardcourt or are you looking for input about the rules that your city uses?
While I don't think that this forum is the best place to try and create a rulebook it can certainly help.
Maybe someone from each city could start a thread with their city's specefic rules. Then we might be able to use the most common rules as a good starting point to make an official standardized rulebook. (If that's what we want)
I personally like playing by different rules when I travel. I may not like all the rules that another city uses, but I may think that at least one is really awesome and want to take it back home and start using. I think that the differences in rules by city is one of the things that affect the particular playing style of a city. I'd hate to see that sort of growth and development stunted.
I started with (roughly) what we play with in Ionia. What's posted at the top of this page is the second draft with some of the changes suggested in this thread. I'll probably make a third draft after more people comment. I'll remove the word "Ionia" from the title on the next draft, since is it now pretty different from how we normaly play. I don't intend for this to be the end all and be all of bike polo rules, but there hasn't really been a place where someone just getting started can go and find a pretty good, pretty universal set of rules. (The are lots of good sets of rules available, but universal they are not.) I hope that is what this becomes. The rules are still evolving, and this should continue to evolve with what people are actually doing.
I hope people from differnt places will comment with what they are doing locally so that the most common rules can be incorporated into this. This could then be used as a starting point for an official rulebook. I'm sure that the individuals playing and the uniqueness of the locations has as much or more to do with the growth and development of local styles as the set of rules each location chooses. That said, it's not my intention to "cookie cutter" this game. I love that each city has it's own style, but I don't think that working towards more standard rules will kill that.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
For a serious offence I agree with Bikescar and removing the offending player sits off to "cool down"for one point. The games goes to 2 on 3. The team with 2 players can still score but it is most likely the team with 3 will score first. Easy to administer and a sufficient penalty. But what type of "poor sportsmanship" would warrant such a penalty?
Actions where the purpose is the intent to injure? Judged by a ref or the crowd a large when a ref is not being use. I think players who've been around for a while recognize overly aggressive elbows and t-boning.
This would fall under "intentional illegal actions" and would include any intentional breaking of the rules that aren't covered by having to tap out/in.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
What about this situation:
You are I are on opposite teams in a semifinal game. Your team leads 4-0 in a game to five. Earlier in the day, I told your mom that she is fat and ugly. You club me in the side of the head with your mallet. The ref calls it an "intentional illegal action" of "mallet to body".
The rules I have posted would mean that you are removed from the game, and your team looses one point, and they have to continue playing a man down.
What you and Bikescar are proposing is that you would sit out, your team would play a man down until my team scores, and then you could continue to play.
Thoughts?
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
I do like the point you have about them losing a point there have been games where I have had shots blocked by someone doing something illegal and we lossed the game because of it. This could resolve that issue. But it is a fine line and could also cause a lot more issues.
Leon
Seattle Bike Polo
not until your team scored...until either team scored. 2 good players can still score on3 players it is just less likely.
I also like Leons point...we polo players know how to take a bump and can tell when an opposing player is just out to hurt people. But soemtimes things happen and in a good game we don't want to ref to make a call a kick someone out a ruin the game if it was just a mistake. Usually it is cummulative thing where repeated violations occur then let them sit out a point.
I would like to add to this rule in that the player that gets the foul against him can have final say over the ref if he or she dose not feel the foul was intentional and is ok with the player staying on than I think it should be that way. I think personally I would like everything that is questionable to first try and be decided on the court and only when there our issues that cant be resolved should it go to other means.
Leon
Seattle Bike Polo
Since this thread is already super long and unwieldy, please make use of the "reply" and "quote" functions where appropriate. Actually you should do this on any thread, but extra attention here. Thanks.
You should re-title this thread "Lets talk about rules we use in Ionia"
---
Minneapolis Bike Polo information list
A Blog about bikes
I started with (roughly) what we play with in Ionia. What's posted at the top of this page is the second draft with some of the changes suggested in this thread. I'll probably make a third draft after more people comment. I'll remove the word "Ionia" from the title on the next draft, since is it now pretty different from how we normaly play.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
is there a rule yet about banning exposed chainrings like in your profile pic?
:P
No, but I suppose that probably could be included. Some city has a rule about punk-rock spikes already. How would you word it?
(Also, since that picture was taken all of the teeth on my exposed chainring have been ground flush.)
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
thats in mke the "Von Munz rule"- no protruding sharp objects from your bike or clothes
www.mkebikepolo.com
I totally agree with you Sveden. I think it's confusing people. If I was new to this whole bike polo thing, I may think that Special Goodness has some sort of clout. When in reality, he doesn't.
So true, and yet some people still seem to be interested in this. Weird.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
Half the posts in the thread have nothing to do with rules, and everything to do with slighting you. And half of those posts are my post's. Of course people are interested in standardizing the rules, they just aren't interested in you driving the conversation.
My pride doesn’t come from my standing on the interwebs. Some of the people posting are genuinely interested in a standard set of rules. Some of the people posting are just here to watch. I’ll keep doing this because I think it is a good thing, and I think other people think it is a good thing as well.
You disagree with me. I’m fine with that. What is your problem?
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
My pride doesn’t come from my standing on the interwebs.
I think by standing you mean reputation. So my response is...neither does mine. As far as polo is concerned, I just want to play a skilled game that is also fair. I'm a huge proponent for rules, and standardization of rules. Pieter just posted below that he thinks this thread is a disaster, and bikepolo.ca isn't the place for this discussion to happen, and he is on the same level as me as far as standardization (or standardisation as he would type it).
Someone already e-mailed me privately asked me to lay off of you and that I was being exclusive. I want to clarify that I'm not trying to be exclusive here, but lack of experience does have something to do with setting rules. If there had to be someone that started a clusterfuck of a thread such as this one, I would not pick you (Special Goodness). You are not the man for the job. I'm sorry. It's a fact. There are plenty of people that have said it and are thinking it but not posting it.
I don't have a problem with you. I have a problem with this thread, and the fact that you think you can iron out the rule set for polo in it. It's not going to happen. Earlier i was joking about the trash talking rule you put in there...are you fucking serious? You put a trash talking rule into your measly post of rules. You didn't address close to the amount of subjects that people have been talking about, and you throw trash talking in there. That's fucking rediculous.
You (Special Goodness) are not the man for the job. I understand that you aren't going to quit, but when it comes down to it, people like Ryan (SESPI), Brian (NSPI), Javier (ESPI), Montana (Worlds), ect. are going to come up with a rule set for their tournament, and I'm pretty fucking sure that they aren't going to consult Special Goodness before they do it.
yeah, i hate to say it because i have been such a proponent of the standardised ruleset from the very beginning, but these two rules threads have been a complete disaster. i think the lesson that i take away from this is that bikepolo.ca is not the place to standardise a complete ruleset, but more of a place to discuss thoughts on what individual modes of play are working and not working in your town. rules should be carefully considered by the tournament organisers in consultation with their peers, and larger tournaments will increasingly be run by those that have travelled out of their state and had a chance to see how skilled organisers and players in other areas are pulling off successful events. at this point i cannot imagine travelling to a tournament and seeing a rule i haven't heard of before, there's not that much variation out there. the only standard rule set i would ever be comfortable with was one that was made by the people that i know and trust with a broad range of playing and organisational experience.
and, for those wondering, a right-handed player that can tap out on their left and receive a pass on their right has a huge offensive advantage for breakaway passes that a player on the other team going the other way does not get. my big learning about the tap-out rule has been how to use it as an offensive weapon, it can be so deadly because it sneaks a guy behind the play. without going completely over the top, i think an assymetrical court even more illogical than a court without beer readily available. also, checking and shoving from behind is so lame i can't get over it, but not as lame as getting in the way on your way to the tap-out. it both cases you've been beaten and you need to let the players that just out-played you do their thing. defensive tapping-out is the dumbest thing i've ever heard of, where's the penalty in that? if you have to pick up your bike to get out of the way, get the fuck out of the way.
I wouldn't say it's a complete disater. I think we can now say, pretty confidently, that Mark
Capriotti and I probably wouldn't get along on a road trip.
Seth Higbee
Hastings/Ionia
agreed. i think we all learned that today!
TOP CENTER 4-EVA
Who knows...if you ever travel, and we ever meet, we may like each other. For the time being I doubt that, but I would love to play the finest team from Michigan someday.
next time somebody tries doing this, i will shut down the thread. i was hoping it would end with the Michigan tournament, which seems to be the real impetus for starting it. Anyway, hopefully it helped iron out something for last weekend, which sounded like a good time.
i'm sorry that the intelligent debates around certain rules did not occur in the threads ALREADY EXISTING for those debates. oh well.
thread closed
(gavel sound)
36 inches or 90cm? Too small. I think most people go with a bike width or some, aka the Pit in NYC, has the goals marked out at 150cm. I know my bike has a longer wheelbase than three feet. Typo?
---
Minneapolis Bike Polo information list
A Blog about bikes
Minneapolis Bike Polo dot Com