I guess this means if we did a donkey punch in como you guys would berate us for swinging our mallets at chest height. hmmmm
Scoop shots - legal or illegal and why?
I thought I would do a bit of research into the forums for scoop shots and found there's no rule thread for it! so here goes. this is from a mostly unbiased opinion: I see the pros and cons of having it legal and illegal. thought I'd toss it up to the community to find a consensus hopefully for those throwing a tournament or whom are in a club that practice one or the other side of this rule.
To start: Defining a scoop shot. Using the open end of a mallet to lift the ball and control the trajectory of the ball into the air
How this rule has been set in various tournaments across the country: Looking at the bench minor thread x2 for Bench Minor tourney, it appears they were allowing scoop shots to count. Bench Minor used hockey nets thus there is no "over the top" rule typically associated with cones. Looking at Nationals 2009 thread, "you may not score on a ... scoop", they were using cones.
We here in Denver play at a hockey court with nets routinely and we do not count scoop shots and it's worked fine for us. We're working on all parts of our game especially the 'Top shelf' shots. It's a basic rule for us, scoops are not shots, they are extended ball joints. the only reason we allow a scoop to count is if you finish with a donkey punch. donkey punch = basically a mid air shot.
Swinging the mallet chest height isn't the problem, smartypants. The problem is when you hit someone.
Or you can be like 50 cent and take 7 bullets and live.
fitty, the game... pssh.
Get your history. Talk to El Titan when you wanna get real. Took 27 to take him out. That gets you some monuments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Maceo_y_Grajales
You better believe he was tough against the boards, too.
Do you even know what a Donkey Punch is? There is no way you're doing it right if you are swinging your mallet in the way you insinuate.
If I didn't know what a donkey punch was why would I put it in the first post?
answer: we can do them properly but as always swinging a mallet can be dangerous. which leads me to why I was insinuating the CoMo guys (whom I have the utmost respect for) would berate us. because from my experience they play very good polo and would want to keep everyone safe at the same time.
word of the day: insinuate
6th grade word of the day: insinuate
fixed
but you don't really "swing" the mallet in a dangerous way with the donkey punch. if fact, i'd argue that the mallet is under more control with the dp than with any other move. the real danger is with those defending the dp. that's when the mallets swing high.
I think (I wasn't there) that the rule at the Bench Minor was that the ball could never rise above top-tube high for a scoop shot to be counted as a goal. If everyone had that much control, it would cut down on mid-air mallet swinging, but that's a hard thing to develop. Let alone count on for everyone's safety.
That makes sense, but I still don't like it. A scoop is too similar to a BJ. Why should we say that it's a goal only if it's off the ground for some period of time?
They're distinctly different. I was stopping the ball then flicking it in so it had nothing in common with a ball joint. I used them a bit last year and I thought they were cool, but seeing that they were disallowed in tournaments made me kind of forget about them. I took shots 15 feet out not half-court stuff. I've heard people claim they would be throwing it in from the other side of the court but I consider that braggart non-sense. The scoop is a skill-shot that would add dimension to our game. All that said, I don't miss them at all and I won't mind if tournaments keep disallowing them. If somehow that could extend to disallow ball jointing altogether, I'd rejoice.
you say the scoop is a skill-shot that would add dimension, then disallowing ball jointing altogether would make you rejoice. since a scoop is a ball joint turned airborne more or less... which would you prefer to have in a tournament, people scoop shotting it from a distance and having a goal counted on you or no BJing period, which meant no scoop shooting.
I think some polo clubs are pretty lax on this in pickups but when a tournament comes around, this is definitely something any organizer should have in mind.
the tournaments I've been to (like le jackal) have all disallowed scoop shooting and ball jointing is frowned upon and so on and so forth. I can see various tournaments happening in the future allowing scoop shots but whats important to know is if clubs on either coast are cool with scoop shots and how that affects the gameplay of their club.
I have mixed feelings about it... between this and all the other magic mallet tricks, i'd be a bit worried about how mallets will evolve to make this shit way too easy/boring. Menace, maybe the originator of the wrist shot and creator of this rule, said something about regulating mallets so they all have flat ends, no beveled edges.
x2. I tend to believe folks who think scooping the ball is easy have their mallet head rigged to do so, i.e. beveled or a huge, ball-sized hole drilled out. To do it without takes much more skill and finesse. I do love seeing those low, long scooped passes though!
The scoop is easy with unmodified ABS. With practice people can learn the sno-cone: carrying the ball on the shooting end of the mallet. Can I carry the ball down the court and just toss it past the goalie?
I heard it first in Portland: Scooping is Pooping.
I have mixed feelings. I said somewhere else that I can see an argument for allowing anything that goes through the net to be counted as a goal. There are good arguments against that idea. The reason I still entertain it is that all debate of what constitutes a shot comes to an end: a shot is what puts the ball through the cones.
Disallowing scoops is relatively straight forward. Allowing them means more, easier goals, more fun for some. The idea that the trajectory of the scoop can't go above some point (top-tube? goal?) does not seem enforceable.
The reason I still entertain it is that all debate of what constitutes a shot comes to an end: a shot is what puts the ball through the cones.
a shot is shot joel, it comes off the end of your mallet. i don't see where you are conjuring up this "debate" from, this is the oldest rule in bike polo. i don't see changing the game because SF players can't agree on what a goal is.
Hard court style mallets are < 10 years old. Bike polo is > 100 years old, most of which a shot was off the side of the mallet. As far as I can tell the oldest rule in hard court bike polo is "don't be a dick"...and often times it seems we have yet to codify rule #2.
I tend to agree a shot must come off the end of the mallet. However, that leaves problems with bj release-and-shoot, scoops, own goals, bouncing deflections, etc....
Thus, we have debate. Hopefully we keep it friendly and productive. Open dialog makes it easier to resolve issues ahead of major tourneys.
obviously i am talking about hardtop, there are so few similarities to the original grass game as to make talking about it futile. ball carrier has right of way but can only ride parallel to the sidelines anyone?
"don't be a dick" is not the oldest rule in bike polo. i don't even know where that came from, it popped up a couple years ago as a feel-good tack-on to the end of some tournament rules. in little beirut they for sure don't know what it means. it is certainly without a doubt the dumbest, most argued-about rule in all of bike polo. when a game has some sort of "means-nothing-blanket-rule" that nobody agrees on or pays attention to anyway, you can take it as a sign of just how poor the codification of the sport is.
bj release-and-shoot has been illegal at every tournament i have been to. deflections have clearly been ruled upon years ago. own goals are the tournament holder's call, currently trending toward own goals. ice cream cones are not goals, neither are bj's or shuffles. these are all a done deal. they are easy rules to follow and enforce. they have years of tournament play and are accepted among the community.
The reason I still entertain it is that all debate of what constitutes a shot comes to an end: a shot is what puts the ball through the cones.
the reason that i am giving you a hard time joel is because you are putting into debate the entire fundamental nature of a goal. talk about scoops, but please keep the door closed on getting the ball into the net any way possible. there are huge reasons why we don't allow shuffled goals in polo, just like how i can't pick up the ball and throw it in the net.
otherwise we are on the road toward shuffled goals, shuffled deflected goals, and the de-legitmising of the merits of the "shot" to the game of polo. just because there is debate in SF (as per your other threads) as to what a goal is (strange deflection rules) does not mean that the (fuzzy at best) rules of bike polo should change (because you guys argue too much?).
a scoop is not a "shot" under the current accepted rule structure, it is something else. you can debate the scoop all you like and whether it should count as a goal-- but do not put into question all of the points surrounding the "shot" (bj release-and-shoot, deflections, own goals etc) that have years of precedent just because the scoop arrives on the scene.
the scoop does not change why the "shot" is a goal and why a shuffle isn't, and does not open the gateway for allowing every shuffled ball that crosses the line to be called a goal.
I'm glad to know I'm worth giving that much of a hard time. Thanks for your comments Pieter.
Some points of clarification...
The "everything counts" idea is mine and mine alone. It is only an idea. It has never been played in SF or elsewhere that I'm aware of. I have only mentioned the idea on lobp.com.
The SF club has differing opinions about rules and no one has a rule book to point to. We debated as recently as last night such topics as bj release-and-shoot (against) and bounces (count it even if it bounces off a friendly bike). Maybe we debate more than other clubs, maybe not. I wouldn't really know.
Scoop passing has been steadily growing in usage in SF. Not everyone does it. I find it a little risky from an offensive perspective...easy to over/under scoop and create a turnover. Allowing a scoop to count as a goal changes that equation considerably: No risk scooping for a goal and any rebound is likely to be a dead ball in front of the net.
ben hunter wants government death panels to decide your shuffled goals joely.
most would view the ruleset in place for the north american's last year as the standard playbook as it was an excellent amalgamation of regulations that were successful from the tournaments of the previous year. i can't think of any differences between it and the rules for the world's. cities have adopted these rules because they are solid and are what they will face at the large majority of tournaments in the coming year.
local variations apply for the non-essentials: (nets, cones, court size, time, tap-outs, post-goal, etc), but pretty basic interpretations for the bread and butter items (scoring, equipment, contact, dabbing).
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/north-american-hardcourt-bicycle-polo-champi...
i apologise to SF for all of my above posts. i hereby change every mention of SF to POLOJOEL.
Sub all this for "no offense meant ....none taken"
quoting the Machine from another time, place, and entertaining context.
This is another one of those situations that needs a video demonstration to prevent pedantic arguments. I think that the holler from the court on Monday was "Boring!" ;)
And Kimbo's side won anyway.
And Kimbo's side won anyway.
NOT!
(heehee)
Won the game. Although the consensus on that goal went against what Kimbo thought it should have been.
Haha, he was a little peeved we counted that pinball goal. Now you watch on Thursday he is going to scoop the ball in off someone's front wheel and tell us what an awesome and legal goal it was.
Count. It?
edit: (I don't know if he could see it) He probably saw it better than I did, but as I saw it, was a fireball that hit Kim's rear wheel in the goal, hit the ground, and had enough spin left to walk through. But I wasn't wearing my glasses. And we don't have videographers like the ones that back up Ben Hunter's government death panels. And edit my (ass outs).
right right. I thought you meant won the argument. Very, um something ...
Max scoop shots don't count. And yes there are lots of opinions on the forum addressing this. They just aren't the main topic of conversation.
Scooping is just for passing.
x2 passing only, and no full court bj'ing. i feel we have gone over this many times before, have we not?
I think there is a big difference between scooping and a wrist shot. Being able to make a quick distinctive shot that comes a little off the ground to evade a goalies blocking attempts is a world apart from lobbing the ball high in the air to pass down court over the heads of other players. When you see it in action you can quickly see that one is a shot and the other a passing technique.
Personally I completely agree with allowing wrist shots, but I'm not sold on scooping to pass. Sticks go in the air, it's and accident waiting to happen.
Accidents do happen, too. I'm in favor of the "donkey punch" **EDIT** (I don't mean the swing the mallet and try to score from the air donkey punch) in killing airborne balls (i.e. holding the mallet way up by the head and knocking the ball down in a relatively straight up motion). That's the closest thing I can think of to a hockey player using their glove to kill an airborne puck (unless we take our steering hand off the bars, which I have done before in goal as a reflex).
OH! now I get it when you say "Wrist shot" you mean a chip or what some refer to as a slap shot. A hockey style shot that lobs the ball in the air a few feet off the ground. Yeah those are fucking legal! cause its a shot not a scoop, it could also be called a chip shot. I thought everyone shot balls like that sometimes, you guys are calling that a special skill? and further more giving it the name "Wrist" shot? Who's cockamamie Idea was it to call it a "Wrist shot" and also dub it a "special skill"?
I think you're missing it. You don't hit the ball at all. You get your mallet behind the ball and flick it into the goal. It's all in the wrist!
timtim a wrist shot is the process of pushing the ball in a fluid motion and releasing it without actually tapping the ball. very different from a slap-shot (big back swing and hitting the ball very hard) or a snap-shot which is more like giving the ball a short tap. a chip shot would be closer to a snap shot than the other two.
here is a link to how to perform a wrist shot.
wristshot
This is how it should be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpr_bS7db9Q&feature=channel
(please someone embed this...)
Link to my blog for more details and videos:
http://arkitipintel.com/2010/03/25/sexy-polo-beer-amigo-pt-2/
embeded for you.
Thats a scoop pass.
Marc was also BJing before he scooped it up in the offensive zone. at BM that would have been a penalty. but i doubt the ref woulda called it
that was sick as F&*%! if that's not a goal, then we are creating a glass ceiling for our sport.
i would say that swinging at a ball that high will lead to eye injuries, broken teeth, etc. very dangerous in my opinion. any time the ball is passed in the air the instinct is to raise your mallet. no one will have the restraint to not swing wildly in that situation. i really dont want to have to start wearing full face protection. also there is the debate that it came off his shaft and not off the end of the mallet head. in ottawa we count off the shaft but not everyone else does.
Dont get me wrong it is really cool to see but the percentage of scoring that way will be really low anyway.
Off the shaft -- MARK IT ZERO
Wicked cool, yeah! But technically I think most of us don't count off the shaft baseball type hits as a shot. This is a bit of a novelty at the moment but if it become standard play everyone's mallet will go in the air and people will get hurt.
+1 for sick sick sick play
-10 for the no call on BJing and the shaft strike (although honestly I didn't see shaft strike until steven put a picture of it up)
This is good for thrilling spectators, bad for teams who want to play on a even level.
(although honestly I didn't see shaft strike until steven put a picture of it up)
that will always be a problem with air strikes. the swing is so quick it is almost impossible to tell if it came off the broad side of the mallet head, the end, or the shaft. i had to pause the video to be sure but the angle of his mallet made it look like it came off the broad side to me at first.
In Ottawa we would count this a goal.
In ottawa, bike polo players lose more teeth than ottawa hockey players, confirm or deny?
you haven't played with anyone from ottawa have you?
nope. I got a chance to play and watch with the e.van peeps in LA though. As I'm located in Colorado, have only played a year (in about 4-5 tourneys)...
that's kind of why I started the thread, I was interested in finding out other clubs and their rules on the scoop and what happens after.
Thanks Coach I think I get it now. And I definitely could see how people could confuse it with a BJ. If you actually have to cup the ball to wrist shot in polo it's a gonna get called a bj even if you just do it long enough to shoot.
In bench minor, the difference between ball joint, shot and wrist shot was pretty clear for me and for most of players. When you ball joint you take the ball from up side and press it down to drive here. When you wrist shot you put your mallet behind ball and drive it from bottom to lil' up. You can also make things like passing in front of your front wheel to wrist shot behind, like a suprising shot.
BUT, all this is very confusing for some reasons. It tend to put game into the "passing the line-count IT!" hockey bike polo style. And this wrist shots completely ruins the work than certain people where doing to try to have classicals shots who lifts the ball, like golf swing.
The theory about dangerosity of air play is a lil' bit useless i think. All huge shots are dangerous even if the ball don't lob'. Do we need to make them illegals?
For me:
Allowing wirst shots is some experimental tournaments like the BM is pretty cool and fun. But allowing this in "serious" tournament is to soon. People need to try it everywhere and the solution gonna come by the majority of players.
For the shuffles goals allowed tendance. Does someone here ever try to play bike polo this way? I personnaly never try that, and can't say if it is fun or boring.
"The theory about dangerosity of air play is a lil' bit useless i think. All huge shots are dangerous even if the ball don't lob'." Do we need to make them illegals?"
There is a huge difference between leaning in to someones back-swing or follow through vs.having someone swinging their mallet horizontally head high. If that becomes a norm someone will lose an eye. No more fun and games.
It's not the passing in the air that is the problem it is the reflex of trying to hit the ball from the air with your mallet that is the problem.
Ok but that's not the scooping debate. Even if the vids that yorgo post rocks, that's not the debate i think.
What the point:
Wrist shoot or scoopshots are from hockey inspirated. Does they look cools?
-yes
Are they easier than classical shots?
-yes
Do we want more goals and make the game cooler?
-For me-yes.
My point is also that goalkeeping, even with big 2m goals like in bench minor, gonna become easier and easier with practice. In few months, if we don't allow some new kinds of shoots, i think that a good goalkeeper gonna be realy realy hard to beat.
I like goalkeeping, save some hard or technical shots. Allow wirst shooting gonna make this practice more interessantt.
Wristshots have the advantage to respects the "end of mallet" rule. And i don't think that it's impossible to difference for ball joint shot.Not hard as a missed shot who is indeed a shuffle.
I think goal size will change before the legality of scoop shots. Keep those goalies on their toes!
1) do they look cool? debatable
2) are they easier? agreed
3) do we want more goals? the game only goes to 5 goals
"a good goalkeeper is hard to beat" and "in a few months..."
if you have played or seen mike from seattle, he's got some crazy mojo in front of the goal. Same for tim from L.A. Although both teams were bested by E.Van, a team that (from what I saw) had all three players rotating into the goal (a sign that a good goalkeeper is not necessary, but goalkeeping effort from the entire team is). basically, even dedicated goalies don't beat a good offense. which leads me to the scoop shot
Wrist/scoop shots are cool, but the way I've seen plenty of tournaments run (10 mins / 5 points), it would not keep the playing ground fair. I am with a lot of people on this thread that scoop shots could potentially raise the game and keeping them illegal creates a "glass ceiling" as adam puts it.
one thing is for sure,in a hockey net where the goalie is good at blocking the 3-4-5 holes, the scoop shot makes the 1-2 holes a better option against that "brickwall" goalie.
If a tournament organizer wanted to allow scoop shots (assuming they are using hockey nets), would they have to raise the points required to win (10 mins/7 points?) because of how easy this shot is? would they have to say that only 2 scoop goals can be made throughout a game?
this is all theoretical but it would make sense to have an idea of how this rule would apply in a tournament...
The fact is that in europa, the shortest courts push to play more with permanent goalie. Most of time, 10 min games have score like 1-2, 3-2.-3-3. Not so many teams score 5 in 10 min with perm goalies...
Is that maybe I m for allowing scoops.
And yes, the "coolitude" of this shots are higly debatable.
For me, no need to push game to 7 goals. Just try this rules in daily games and see if it realy realy change the average goaling into 10 min games, and talk about all this after few tries.
I'll be honest, i am really undecided with if we should allow wrist/flicking shots, esp. with talks from my club.
- with more people playing a goalie and their skills of blocking ground balls increasing like pointed out above, i believe could wrist/flick will equal out the playing field more.
or i see at times people getting frustrated and focusing on taking the goalie out.
but with this being said, i'm in favor of having filled in ends of mallets so scooping and bj will cease. and the lines if it was a scoop or shot will not be there and we can just focus on that it was a good shot. either way have fun.
I don't think it is fair to force players to cap their ends. I play currently with an uncapped mallet and i don't use the BJ or the scoop shot much at all. I think that i have a better shot without the end cap and i really prefer an uncapped mallet.
Forcing people to cap mallet is really really to straigt. Mallets are most of time naturally uncapped, let people the choice.
Capping well a mallet is difficult:
-It cost weight
-It make mallets often more dangerous (with fuckin' screw to tight the cap etc...)
-It cost time
The uncap' mallets are also good for lil'moves who aren't really ball joint or scoop, but just put the ball in the right direction whitout tap it twice or three times.
And if it's a rule like the caped handlebar who is never checked in tournament, thats useless.
Do we want that the ball never goes in the air? Are lobs against the games? in majority of the ball games, you can choose if you want to perfom a quick concrect ground pass or a more effecient over defense but slower air ball. Why should bike polo avoid this?
In soccer, lob and air-center increase the number of high-dangerous-kick volley, does they make them illegals?
I can't think of any game that is played in traffic that people are allowed to swing 3 and half foot mallets at head height. It's just not sensible.
hockey.
I don't think so, if the puck goes up they only use their hands to knock it down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-sticking
You could argue Lacrosse but I still think there's a difference because they're using both hands on their stick and their game is played primarily in the air. Our game is a ground game and I'm okay with that.
I bet at one time hockey players started innovating super cool arial shots then people started getting seriously injured and they made a sensible rule. Same will happen for our sport.
To put it very simple, you may be fine but I don't trust some of the cats I play with to swinging mallets in the air. You shouldn't trust them either!
Lacrosse, hurling, probably some others.
I wonder why people don't get their head taken off in those games? Is it because their not on bikes swinging with one hand? Are a few of us just overly cautious about something that is perfectly safe?
agree, i currently play with an uncapped mallet and don't scoop shot either but trying to come up with ideas to erase what bothers everyone. if some people can find a way to do something that they think is easier.. some will. looking forward to going to madison for the first time this summer jonny..
You could also switch to AGS or other brands of liquid-filled balls. They tend to stay down more. Instead of trying to regulate types of shot.
I third the opinion that regulating mallets is against our interests. And that's from someone who makes money selling capped mallets.
Our club banned BJ shots and wrist shots a while ago. They're cool for passing, but we all thought they made shooting too easy.
can you explain how the scoop shot made shooting too easy?
Boston banned wrist shots in our pickup games before ESPI4, because we thought the general consensus was against them.
I personally like them. I think they do take skill, especially if the rule is the ball needs to stay lower than goal height the entire time, as it was in Bench Minor. This prevents the high lobs over defenses, and is fairly easy to enforce.
I also think it is fairly easy to tell the difference between a wrist shot and drag shot. In the former the mallet lip is between the ball and the ground and in the latter the mallet is pressing the ball into the ground.
Some people do drag into a wrist shot, that is they press the ball down then turn the mallet under to scoop it up, but it's easy to see when someone is doing this and make the call.
So yeah, I think we should allow wrist shots because they do take skill, make for dynamic scoring, and make permanent goalies, arguably the most boring development in the game, less effective.
2cents
I think we should allow wrist shots because...make permanent goalies, arguably the most boring development in the game, less effective.
You are saying goalies are made less effective because there's a new type of shot to defend against? Less effective meaning more goals being counted?
If you follow that logic then the scoop shot may make full time goalies more necessary. The goalie who can stay put and block scoops, along with everything else, will give his team that much more of an advantage. Goal tending becomes a critical specialist position.
well I would argue that by making it harder to play goal effectively, you necessitate stronger man on man defense, and makes teams who play two on three in the open field because they got a guy tripoding in goal have to rethink their strategy.
suddenly you have to think about possession time and ball control, instead of just counter attacks after shots rebound off the goalies wheel covers.
i think what the wrist shot does is make it more difficult for a goalie to use his bike to block shots. It gives offensive players another weapon. The scoop shot doesn't make a lot of sense if there isn't a goalie. The best defense against a scoop shot is having a defensive player on the ball. I think the scoop shot brings a player out of the goal which is good for the sport.
x2
Maybe.
It seems to me that top 5 teams in tourneys have goalies. Some teams switch more than others, but even those teams switch, meaning a net minder is always there. This is especially true when they are on defense, the goal is covered before the ball crosses half court. Good teams will shoot from half court or anywhere you don't expect it, no goalie means you just got burned. In my experience, rolling out of goal is a very risky choice when defending. So risky I stay put unless it's an obvious breakaway. If danger, stay put. The possibility of scoop goals certainly does not change any of that for me.
I don't buy the scoop-will-save-us-from-boring-goaltenders argument. I think the only way that will happen is with a rule against goal tending.
I get other arguments in favor, not this one.
east van has a goalie?
x2
the first place east van team didn't have a goalie in the winter polo picnic (the whole team rotated in, but nobody sat around at goal)
"the whole team rotated in, but nobody sat around at goal"
What does one do when rotating in, if not sit in goal?
I agree East Van switched better than anyone else. Yet they practically never left an open net against Joker and David.
Joel, thats just good D not playing with a goalie. In fact one of the reasons why Balls deep is so hard to beat is because there is always someone there in your face and on you, and on your pass and blocking your shot from top of key, its just really strong defense. nobody sits in goal, but they are always mindful of it.
...from ESPI5 rules.
"2. Wrist shots that are scooped up off the ground with the mallet tip will count as valid shots as long as they never go above the goal’s crossbar, and also do not come from the player’s defensive half of the court. This means you can pass with an air ball anywhere at any height, but if you are attempting to score it has to be done from your offensive half of the court (no long bombs), and it can’t ever go above the cross bar on its journey to the net."
So this type of shot would be legal, right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP6pOfajeQM
I love the scoop shot so this is really interesting to me. Seems like someone could approach the goal, pick the ball up and throw it right in-- just so long as the ball/mallet doesn't go above the crossbar, right?
It just seems too easy.
because it is too easy. this is a major departure from previous tourneys.
Kim in SF can scoop into the ice cream cone and carry the ball around as easy as anything. It's funny when he gets to the goal and, realizing he can't just flip it in, looks around like what now?
Is the bj-release-shoot legal or not? What about someone who bj's up to the goal and then simply flips it into a scoop shot?
What's a ref going to do in the final game when someone who gets scored on claims "that ball went too high"? No it didn't. Yes it did. The crowd says it didn't. Fuck the crowd it did. No it didn't. Yes it did.
No it didn't.
Yes it did.
Didn't
Did
Will there be a time limit for this? Are arguments as exciting to the audience as crashes?
I can "ice cream cone" the ball all day long, it's fun but we've agreed locally to ban it from competitive play. This bike polo, not bike lacrosse ;) As much as i would like to pull a Michigan from behind the goal i feel like the best and most straightforward rule is that scoops are not shots.
Scoop shot legals gonna make mallet heads look like spoons. In some ways, with a lil bit of traning and a mod mallet, it's more easy to score with scooping than in shuffle (in shuffle you can't lob easily,..) So why not allow shuffles?
i know they were setting mallet length/outer diameter in the rules, what about maximum angle of mallet heads? do people play with seriously angled heads for lift?
Not angled but drilled like a cup.
I've notice that people talk about the 180 shot with wirst. that's also possible to making some 270°shot, start on your right and finish in bb wrist shoting.
All this make me feel that's suffle gonna become one day legal. Arguing about shooting with wheel, small lobs recalled scoop shots etc...
If the rules in tournaments are permissive of scooping and wrist shots it will be hard to justify not modifying one side of your mallet to make it easier. Once I do make the mod and get into using it I might feel like this is where bike polo should go, but right now I wouldn't feel one little bit sad to see it stopped.
we are just starting out and don't necessarily always follow the rules as they are laid out here...i am able to "scoop shot" where i'm kind of following the ball (not jointing or dragging) with the mallet then moving it forward and following through on a lift/scoop into the air. not sure if this would be legal by the current rules or not? hard to tell.
mostly the rules that everyone follows are easy to pick up on, but this is one where a youtube/vimeo video would be super helpful for new players. anything out there like that (i have looked)?
wrist-shots make it easier for the goalie to use their bike to block the ball.. about a foot off the ground the wheels are at their widest, the crank arms, frame, and body of the rider are also there. also, it makes it way harder for a goalie to use SKILL and catch the ball with their mallet. i don't know about you but i cant maneuver my mallet to completely deaden a ball in midair. i also cant make a save when a ball bounces off my ass and goes in.
hockey has an answer for the wrist shot, polo doesn't. you've got a goalie with a glove and wide stick to help block aerial shots. a 3/4" metal tube is not going to consistently and reliably deflect shots, even if the goalie has the ability to put it in front of the ball. people will still play goalie, it'll just be tough!
EDIT: after espi v i got to see it in action. i like it, like the way the sport is going. i realized that i guess it'll require more use of one's body to deflect shots
I see more and more mullet/side cuts these days. Mullet/side cut meaning a modification to the side of the tubular head that allows for better ball control. The 1/8th Inch heads come with a pre-cut section that presumably has the same function (I haven't played with one of those yet.)
With these side/mullet cuts scooping from the side of the mallet head is possible.
What if someone wanted to wrist/scoop the ball into the goal from the side of the mallet? The physical motion is identical to a scoop shot. Why should it be disallowed?
it's not really the same motion because the length of the mallet head limits side-scooping from most angles. still coming off the side of the mallet, still a shuffle imho. not sure there would ever be more than a rare situation where side scooping vs end scooping would even come up...so much better to scoop from the end (more power, better control over direction, etc).
Is that a scoop shot?
Ok ok, the point for me is to put my new trick on the board. But the question still here...
I saw Pieter do this a bunch at Midwesterns and got super excited. Went home and practiced nonstop until i mastered it... sweet move but i haven't found much use for it yet.
And yes, definitely a scoop shot.
Pieter eh Jackal? At the Midwesterns? Color me surprised to hear that.
If that's a scoop "shot" then is there any sort of carrying & dumping the ball into the goal that would not be allowed? Clearly that is more than a flick of the wrist.
I've seen great, effective wrap-around passes. I'm sure one could completely fool the defense with moves like that. He's also getting a lot more power on the ball than you can with a straight hit in the same direction, where your bike prevents you from getting any swing on the mallet.
That's the guy from Ottawa, right? I might be confusing two people. This guy wore glasses, was from ottawa, and was wicked good. Apologies in advance. {edit: i'm refering to "the peecoque", not "the jackel", sorry guys.}
Maybe "scoop shot" isn't the right word then. It's clearly a "scoop" but the difference between shot or pass is just whether it goes into the goal. I love this kinda thing and wanna see more of it, but part of that is knowing exactly where it fits into the rules. "Scoop passes" should always be allowed, it's the "scoop shots" that becomes a grey area (imo).
ta gueule, that's a scoop.
mark it zero.
so would this have counted as a goal at ESPI this weekend?
This is a pass, a sweet and effective one. It is a pass because it starts with a ball joint as all scoops do. We are all getting so good at the ball joint that we can't even see it anymore. If this is allowed I can effectively score from behind the goal, we didn't count it last week at pick-up when it happened.
My argument for not allowing the scoop shoot is that without slow motion replay it is now impossible to tell where the BJ ends and the shot starts. It has been my understanding that a shot is made in a singular plane. This way all the players on the court know when someone is taking a shot because the mallet head travels away from the ball(the wind up) in the same plane as the shot coming an instant later.
If we allow the scoop shot there will be a major skill gap between players that have copious amounts of time to practice and those who can squeeze just enough time out of their schedules to get their fix once or twice a week. I have a hard enough time recruiting interested people because they think riding a bike one handed with a mallet looks dangerous and nearly impossible. If they did work up the courage to throw-in and then someone scores on them with a 270 shot like the one above they wouldn't even realize how the shot was made.
The argument has been made that people want to see hardcourt progress, how about we focus some of our attention developing more clubs and increasing the numbers of newbies.
This is why if the wrist shot is allowed, there can't be BJing in the offensive end. That was another rule at ESPIs this weekend.
Do I have this right, the 270 example would only be legal as a shot and illegal as a pass? Again this would be a rule that hinders team play and puts a glass ceiling on our sport as mentioned above.
.
this is not a bj because there is no downward pressure on the ball. also, it would be okay as a pass. i saw one or too people use this pass on their offensive side and everybody looked at the ref's to see if it was legal, refs said fine. it's a technicality i guess, but you can always say you were trying to wrist shot and it turned into a pass
In europe you can pass by BJ everywhere, i think that's create easiest rules than the no bj in offensive zone.
For me this kind of move aren't BJ, bj mean more traveling with the ball pressing her down the ground.
I think that you can also allow BJ pass and not BJ travelling.
I don't see the point for not allowing this kind of pass. Not see the point for not allowing BJ pass even in ofensive zone. Plus it seems that this kind of rules are not enforce every time.
I don't like the idea of making to much technicals rules about the way of driving the ball. This make Ref too important and make the players wainting for wistle.
from what i've heard it's just too easy. the beej simply doesn't promote good ball handling skills and for many becomes a crutch. out of all of the players worrying about it, i only saw a warning or two given out for bj in the offensive zone. the espi v planners were right when they said the refs would err on the side of smooth game flow. really not that many whistles and only a few people got put in the penalty box.
"If we allow the scoop shot there will be a major skill gap between players that have copious amounts of time to practice and those who can squeeze just enough time out of their schedules to get their fix once or twice a week."
hahha, this is like saying the NBA should forbid dunks, because it is unfair to shorter players. or tiger woods shouldn't be allowed to hit 300+ yard drives cause it hurts the other golfers' feelings.
if people practice and put in the time to develop skills and techniques that advance the level of game play, isn't that a good thing? we should encourage parity, but not mediocrity.
at espiV just as at bench minor, only the very best players were able to pull off wrist shots against tough opponents when the game was on the line. i would guess no more than 5% of the goals this weekend where actual wrist shots, and most of those probably were taken in the more lopsided games.
Yeah, this divide is only going to get bigger. There are plenty of people who want camaraderie and good-times polo. There are also plenty of people who have a real need to test their skills, win big polo matches, and figure out who the absolute best players in the world are. I'm not sure these two groups will be able to enter the same tournaments much longer, unless there are going to be enough courts to do tons of swiss rounds.
Until we get a lot more people into this sport, we all love, who are willing to pay 30 to a bazillion dollars to pack out, say, the Staples Center there won't be any NBA(like) salaries or Tigers of Hardcourt. What I was getting at above is the lack of discussion in how we plan to grow this sport to the point where we can compensate players for the time they practice. Professionals do earn a living at their profession do they not?
Oh horse manure, I'm ranting again!
Really I'm sure the tournament was great and would of been there in a heart beat if at all possible. I'm for rules we can enforce without refs. AT THIS POINT in time. If we have a simple rule set that doesn't intimidate potential tournament organizers there will be more competitive polo played. I'll start a topic on the general forums for other ways to progress our sport other than making rules.
So what's the consensus after ESPI V this weekend...the polo world that didn't attend wants to know:
Did the wrist shot change polo?
No. Of all the little things, the wrist shot made the least difference IMO. But I hope we will have renewed conversations about goal size, timed v. to-5, and the interference rule. With several tweaks of the rules/format/equipment at once, I'm still processing which elements were actually responsible for it being a real run & gun style tournament (in my opinion). Oh, also court size. NYC did an awesome job on the courts, but I wonder if the court length had a role in the very high scoring as well. As an experiment in expanding bench minor type rules, I thought it was a huge success. I'm not sure yet what I think should or shouldn't be adapted more widely from ESPI5.
Awesome...great to hear the positive feedback on the rule format. I'm really excited to hear more feedback about all the tweaks and changes - and which ones people feel should be used going forward.
i agree, definitely didnt make a difference this tournament but has the potential to make a bigger impact as people get better at using it in play
no. but the donkey-punch mallet did. judge texas has found you all guilty.
I'm for the scoop pass from any where on the court and for the donkey punch. As a shot I think the scoop is too easy and requires less skill then a slap, chip, or tap of the ball. In my opinion it will lead to sloppy polo and will be hard to judge.
First things first, "wrist shot" is a stupid name. Its a Scoop.
Secondly, I think that the players this weekend didn't make a lot of use of it because it just isn't instinct yet. If you played like that for 2 months at home it would be a lot more common. I used it twice for scoring on Sat of ESPI and kicked myself for not using it more. Each time I had a Scoop-shot, I had to stop and think about doing it. I think it was fun to try for the weekend, but I don't think it belongs in bike polo. I dont think I heard anyone argue for its permanent addition anyway.
If you allow scoop shots to be goals, you probably have to allow BJ shots to be goals. And full court scoop shots are pretty easy to hit if you know what you're doing. Not to mention that allowing it will create more opportunities for the goalie (and others) to swing his mallet at chest height. I'm against it. It's not a strike.
Pro-friendly bike polo!