I think the nets need to be taller.
Machine Politics vs Beaver Boys, May 2011. Photo by Bruce Carver
North American Hardcourt Bike Polo - Nets
So there has been a group of us appointed to the task of creating an "official" set of rules for North American Championship tournaments, and Regional tournaments, so that we all know ahead of time what the rules will be, and they will be the same at each tourney. We are almost completed the initial draft, I hope to be posting it up on the site here in the next few days. One of the things we've been discussing is nets vs cones. I made some prototype nets. (cheap, simple, easily obtainable materials) and we've been testing them out. So far everyone in Calgary here seems to really like them. So I thought I'd see what everyone else thought about it. I like the idea of nets myself because it makes the goal judges job much easier, and it simplifies a bunch of rules regarding passing through the net, riding through the net etc.....so take a look and let me know what you think. You can see the net prototype here:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZwggtI5salfZHhjNDJyNl8zY3B6Y3oyZ3M&hl=en
I changed this thread to just discuss the nets....I'm starting a new one for the rules.
March 30, 2010 - 8:11pm
#2
March 31, 2010 - 12:36am
#3
curious why?
i was against the nets until the lower crossbar came out. the higher hockey sized goal gets to much in the way.
i am now for nets of the toptube height.
March 31, 2010 - 8:34am
#4
What's top tube height?
March 31, 2010 - 5:19pm
#5
Vince just welded two 3'x6' goals, that height is perfect I think. I'll post some pictures later tonight if you remind me.
March 31, 2010 - 6:31pm
#6
With the net lower you are able to defend your goal from behind the net if you have to ... its a bit of a stretch bit it can be done .. and that's pretty cool ..
March 31, 2010 - 1:03am
#7
how do you defend stuff higher than your bike? Hands & Body? The way some people shoot these days you'd have to start wearing padding if you're planning on blocking shots with your body....not that appealing to me. I think the lower nets are safer too, if you happen to get pushed into one, you can basically go right over it.
March 31, 2010 - 8:40am
#8
How do you defend above the top tube? Don't let them take a clear shot. Use your mallet. Use your body. Yes.
Maybe this was the point or maybe I missed it but how wide and how tall is this? I guess since I said it looked too low I'd like to know if its just that photo giving me that impression.
Just off the top of my head if the goal is ~180-200cm wide I think the height should be proportional. So at least 90cm or 100cm.
March 30, 2010 - 8:11pm
#10
Those nets look great, and i'm all for making nets the standardizing (or perhaps, the "ideal", if we're feeling less ambitious).
But i don't think we're ready to standardize the way that nets are made. I also think there's still room for debate about the width. A lot of people are suggesting 200cm, particularly those who have grown accustomed to hockey goals.
March 30, 2010 - 8:36pm
#11
2x wider nets. Those do look great.
March 31, 2010 - 1:00am
#12
I would really like to see nets become standard at all the big tourneys. We don't have to standardize the way they're made, but I think a standard width and height would be good. I'm not suggesting I have the best design or anything, just wanted to put something out there that could be fairly easily made by anyone. This can be made with nothing more than a pipe cutter, or hacksaw.
March 31, 2010 - 5:19pm
#13
6 feet is 182.88 cm, I think 6' is the best. It makes it so there's probably 6" in front of and behind the wheels if you're set up in the center.
April 1, 2010 - 12:16am
#14
yeah, go to 200cm.
March 30, 2010 - 8:23pm
#17
How tippy are the nets? I have been meaning to make some of these for a while!
March 31, 2010 - 12:56am
#18
actually we haven't had them tip over even once yet. so not tippy at all. If they get hit, they slide out of place a bit, but then so do pilons, except these have the advantage that when you move it back you know its still the right width. I could go with 200cm, I like the idea of wider nets too, I picked 180cm because I based it on some that the Euros made, and 180 does give a bit on either side of the bike. (it's hard to tell in that picture cause Mike is not right on the goal line, he's in front of the net a bit.) The other reason I went with that length though is because 180 cm is really close to 6 feet, and the hardware store sells 6 foot lengths. It will be easy enough to make them wider though, just have to replace the 2 cross pieces. I like the height, personally I don't think trying to defend stuff that's higher than your top tube is really what bike polo is about. Glad to hear the positive feedback so far though.
March 31, 2010 - 8:48am
#20
200cm is too long for regular game play.at bench minor it worked ok but 180 sounds decent to me
March 31, 2010 - 9:45am
#21
in Karlsruhe they were 180cm, and they were perfect
March 31, 2010 - 10:01am
#22
oh right, cool. i support 180cm, that's slightly wider than most of the "bike length" goals.
March 31, 2010 - 10:13am
#23
I was just getting ready to increase it to 200cm, but now I'm hearing support for 180cm, so maybe I'll hold off and see what the concensus is. One additional benefit to 180cm is that you can buy the PVC in 6' lengths which is perfect.
March 31, 2010 - 10:36am
#24
the height needs to be enough for (most) handle bars to travel above. elastic rope as a crossbar i think is a good idea.
May 19, 2010 - 1:29am
#25
Makes the net less durable than having an actual crossbar - that's been the case with the one designed in East Van anyway. I am sure there are other designs floating out there somewhere.
March 31, 2010 - 10:13am
#26
I love it. also think there should be a standard height and width. could be mins and maxes but i think everyone can adapt to a standard size
March 31, 2010 - 10:18am
#27
I've never played on a goal without a crossbar. I'm wondering how that affects the play. Then again I'm not sure that a PVC crossbar would deflect a slapshot.
March 31, 2010 - 11:18am
#28
ABS not PVC
March 31, 2010 - 11:21am
#29
I was just getting ready to increase it to 200cm, but now I'm hearing support for 180cm, so maybe I'll hold off and see what the concensus is. One additional benefit to 180cm is that you can buy the PVC in 6' lengths which is perfect.
Thats good news. I was just going with what qpang said they were made of.
March 31, 2010 - 11:35am
#30
pvc/abs...don't think the material you choose is really that crucial, I can get either one here.....anyway, its pretty obvious if the ball hits the netting and goes in or goes over top.
March 31, 2010 - 11:43am
#31
Use ABS. That way if a net ever breaks for whatever reason you can recycle it and make mallet heads.
I like the 180cm size.
March 31, 2010 - 11:58am
#32
good point. I also have a supplier here for HDPE if you guys like that stuff for mallet heads. Lemme know and I'll save you some.
April 10, 2010 - 10:15am
#35
x2. We learned all about PVC nets in Chicago, 08'. ABS would be much better.
April 10, 2010 - 10:28am
#36
Either ABS or PVC would probably be fine in large enough diameter pipe. Both can be glued with solvent cement available anywhere.
Joining HDPE is a little trickier.
March 31, 2010 - 12:31pm
#37
we've been playing with nets in east van for a about a month with both the karlsrhue "rope crossbar" the london max made and another more traditional "hockey-style crossbar" that drunkie made. i like the hockey-style for lot of reasons-- it gives the nets strength, but most importantly the crossbar gives great rebounds and putting it in off the crossbar is awesome. his design is simple and works great, 33inch crossbar (above 700s and below handlebars so it doesn't get in the way.)
180cm is plenty.
March 31, 2010 - 1:18pm
#38
yay rigid cross bar! Loose top means that a) a shot strikes the rope will react differently every time the ball hits it and b)is not going to be visible enough to see when things get hectic. Netted goals with an abs(?) top bar - painted to match the cones - would take care of these problems.
March 31, 2010 - 1:24pm
#39
well if everyone likes the rigid cross bar, it's pretty easy to change that. One more piece of tubing, and 2 more 90's (subract 2 caps.) If we go that way, I don't think the top crossbar should be glued in for safety, and we might have to look at a ruling if people rest on it.
March 31, 2010 - 1:37pm
#40
The net we use in Van is low enough that leaning on it is tough and not beneficial. If you tried to lean on it with your hip it would just slide out of the way. It is far less tempting, and a lot tougher, to lean on than a hockey net.
We've never really had an issue with it but I think the rule would be that it's counted as a foot down.
Edit:
I'm referring to the net with the solid ABS crossbar.
March 31, 2010 - 1:59pm
#41
it's a dab to lean on the crossbar in east van.
March 31, 2010 - 2:13pm
#42
ya thats what I figured, I'll probably put something in the rules about it nonetheless. I've tried to cover everything in the rules.
March 31, 2010 - 2:19pm
#43
If you had a top bar maybe you wouldn't need that one in the middle.
March 31, 2010 - 2:31pm
#44
probably, although with it in the middle there, it keeps some weight back from the front of the goal, which makes it not tippy....
March 31, 2010 - 4:07pm
#45
This may not happen but I thought the ball may hit the middle pole and bounce back out. Of course you would count but I'd hate for there to be any confusion. If that's not an issue I'll take your word for it.
March 31, 2010 - 1:21pm
#46
I added the link to the rules up at the top now too....so feel free to check it out.
March 31, 2010 - 2:25pm
#47
Just curious. Are the measurements (ie. 72" for crossbars) the cut size or with allowances for the fittings factored in?
March 31, 2010 - 2:33pm
#48
those are all cut sizes, so with the fittings on it ends up probably 73" from post to post (inside)
March 31, 2010 - 3:28pm
#49
A solid crossbar is preferred from my viewpoint. Drunkie's net rocks (he's got a photo floating around somewhere), though I think its a bit wide (this coming from a defender). The 180cm width looks good. Top tube height works well - for clearance and defending.
The net has held up well to being moved around and we haven't had an issue with people running into it. When it moves off the mark its really easy for any player to pick it up while still on their bike and replace it, or tap from behind the post to move it back into place.
Max's net is good, but without the crossbar, its a bit weaker and I have found the wear and tear showing on this one more.
March 31, 2010 - 3:31pm
#50
How did we end getting the width in metric (180cm) and the height in English (somewhere between 29" and 33")?
Will this be the way it shall end always forever?
Edit: I'm looking forward to setting up nets in SF once we get a court resolved.
March 31, 2010 - 3:58pm
#51
in the rules I've tried to list all measurements in both english and metric for our old school American friends, and the rest of the world.
March 31, 2010 - 3:47pm
#52
to be fair mine was broken when being carried to the court... i put the bungee cord in so people couldnt dab on the bar
i liked that drunkies was a bit bigger, so that you actually had to TEND the net...
ps. they are both a bit broken!
March 31, 2010 - 4:00pm
#53
the cross bar at bench minor made a lot of sense. with a hoop at the each end that went over essentially a ball like on a truck hitch but in this case the top of the pylon this way the cross bar breaks away from the rest of the net easily avoiding some injuries.
also i think there should be something off the back to make more of a top shelf.
March 31, 2010 - 6:30pm
#54
also i think there should be something off the back to make more of a top shelf.
and make it solid enough for me to rest my beer on.
March 31, 2010 - 6:58pm
#57
maybe their should be two different topics. This one appears to be nets primarily. I'm interested in discussing the rules.
Yellow and Red cards are an important change.
April 1, 2010 - 12:34am
#59
they would reset after each game. I wanted to have a system that could deter dirty play without stopping play and interrupting the flow of the game all the time. It also allows for honest mistakes...for example, if you put your mallet in someone's wheel and pull his bike oput from under him....pretty dirty, but possibly it was actually unintentional...so you get a yellow card and carry on. You'll probably be more careful about it after that. You do it three times in a game, then its not looking accidental anymore, and you are penalized. With the ref having the discretion to go straight to a red card as well, this should stop people from thinking they get two "freebies". I'm not sure that it's a perfect system, but I think it's better than what we've had, and it can be refined and fined tuned over time. I really wanted to stay away from stopping the flow of the game as much as possible though.
April 1, 2010 - 6:50am
#60
Justin, i know we talked about this before but i wanted to put it on the forum. I really think that the penalty offers polo a lot in terms of the sport growing and becoming a better spectator sport. The penalties worked really well at bench minor and added such a fun aspect to the game.
April 1, 2010 - 8:59am
#61
a couple of people mentioned this to me, however noone has really explained what exactly the penalty sytem was, or how it worked...I unfortuneatly wasn't able to make it to bench, so if someone wanted to get into details a bit regarding how it worked, I'm interested to hear it.
April 1, 2010 - 12:27am
#63
I editted this topic to just be about nets, and started a new one for rules here http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/04/01/north-american-hardco...
March 31, 2010 - 11:05pm
#64
I'm in agreement with allowing own goals but it seems odd to allow own goal shuffles when shuffle goals are not allowed.
March 31, 2010 - 11:23pm
#65
That's never set right with me either but if you don't count them what's to stop some team from shuffling it into their own net to stop you from scoring? Count it!
April 1, 2010 - 12:18am
#66
I know it is a slight detail but the rules state "10.2 - Each time a player "dabs" That player is out of play, and may not play the ball until they "tap in""
We have always played that you leave the play entirely until you tap back in. This leads me to believe that you can continue to play a zone or a player as long as you don't play the ball. Could the rule not say: that player may not rejoin the play until they "tap in"?
April 1, 2010 - 2:53pm
#67
i made some nets for COMOPOLO...
6x3 ft
1/2 inch thin steel top sides, 3/4 inch thick steel base
base filled with concrete to be heavier
welded nice and strong
the base has a small piece that goes straight back before curving around, so as not to interfere with any corner shots
i'd go with slightly bigger tubing if i was doing it again ( 3/4 top and 1 inch base )
i've added nets since i took these pics:
April 2, 2010 - 12:27am
#68
Nice dude. They're pretty shallow, but then again they don't really /need/ to be deep.
April 2, 2010 - 11:24am
#69
Have we reached somewhat of a majority with 182cm (~6ft) wide by 91cm (~3ft) tall?
Thoughts?
April 3, 2010 - 9:09pm
#70
Shorter so you aren't knocking it around with you handlebars would be better.
April 5, 2010 - 10:23am
#71
The problem is that there are lots of different handlebar heights, everyone will catch their bars on some net height.
April 5, 2010 - 10:26am
#72
I plan on running around with a tape measure at MWBPC8 and getting an average handlebar height form the hundreds of parked bikes. Just for curiosities sake.
April 16, 2010 - 5:48pm
#73
I still like 200cm. makes sense.
April 2, 2010 - 12:04pm
#74
Where did you get the netting? Any suggestions on where to find it in the US and Canada?
April 2, 2010 - 1:55pm
#75
In the great white north, you can go to Canadian tire ,and get replacement netting for street hky nets. I paid 8 bucks for mine.
April 5, 2010 - 11:15am
#76
in Canada you can buy it at Canadian Tire. There is this place online http://www.totalhockey.net/Product.aspx?itm_id=1454&div_id=2 and hopefully someone in the US knows where you can get it there.
April 13, 2010 - 9:45pm
#77
April 2, 2010 - 4:06pm
#78
We sourced all the parts here in Minnesota today. We sourced ABS instead of PVC. We figure PVC is about 30% cheaper. Here's what we found.
$37.11 in ABS piping per goal
Glue and zip ties for many goals included in the $37.11
$16 per goal for replacement hockey netting
We are going to make six of these for the Midwest tournament.
April 3, 2010 - 8:45pm
#79
It looks big now but when you put a bike in front of it
It doesn't look so bad.
Here is my description of the top photo:
Dustin followed Qpang's instructions for building a goal with a few changes.
The lower crossbar in the back will be replaced by one running from the cross bar to the back bracing pipe.
And obviously it will have a net.
The goal is 6 feet wide by 3 feet tall. Or ~182cm x 91cm.
You can see our old goal markings for cones on the ground. Those were probably about ~160cm wide. Give or take a bit.
April 5, 2010 - 11:01am
#80
Pretty. Any problems with tip-over?
April 5, 2010 - 11:03am
#81
Naw. And with a net draped over it and some heavy shit poured into the back crossbar it won't tip over.
These goals were not glued together yet so that was a problem. But we were toying with the idea of a bolt and cotter pin so the goals could be more easily be transported and stored.
April 5, 2010 - 11:18am
#82
instead of glue, I ran a self tapping screw into each joint....keeps it together but can still be easily dissassembled if you want.
April 5, 2010 - 6:23pm
#83
instead of glue, I ran a self tapping screw into each joint....keeps it together but can still be easily dissassembled if you want.
i glued some of mine together, but made sure it was easily collapsible by using bolts and wingnuts for the rest
April 10, 2010 - 10:19am
#84
x2 on the screws as well.
April 5, 2010 - 11:17am
#85
nice work guys....looks sweet.
April 5, 2010 - 11:21am
#86
I think the rigid crossbar might be good....might change ours, I think I do prefer 80cm height though, Looks like so much room above the wheels to me, and more likely for the crossbar to interfere with handlebars.
April 5, 2010 - 7:52pm
#87
I plan on running around with a tape measure at MWBPC8 and getting an average handlebar height form the hundreds of parked bikes. Just for curiosities sake.
No problem Sveden is on it!
April 5, 2010 - 7:26pm
#88
In looking at the nets that you constructed i don't understand the rationale behind giving whoever is playing goal keeper so much coverage with his or her bike. Bike polo is already unique in that our goals are so small compared to the defenders and their bike. I think that it is in the interests of the sport to increase the size of nets and make the job of goal tending a little more difficult and the increase defensive plays on the ball instead of just blocking the net. I like the MLPS ones because they are a bit higher and they add a height dimension to the goals but i really think a 200cm goal makes more interesting games.
April 14, 2010 - 2:15pm
#89
i find the games pretty interesting as is. is there such a big problem with beating goalies? i have yet to see this magical goalie that can keep five goals out of the net every time.
wider nets will just mean even more permanent goalies, afraid to leave the crease because the net is such a big target.
if scoring or permagoalies is the problem, i'm not sure that making the nets bigger is the answer.
April 14, 2010 - 2:51pm
#90
x 2
April 14, 2010 - 4:13pm
#91
wider nets at bench minor meant fewer permant goalies and better game play.
April 14, 2010 - 5:28pm
#92
i don't follow your logic here jonny. in east van pick-up we have fewer permanent goalies and have great game play on standard nets. on another court we use even narrower lacrosse nets and have even fewer goalies but still keep the great goals. in portland they'll score on you cross-court even if you are sitting in the net so it doesn't matter. i find it very difficult to keep people from scoring on each other all the time with standard nets.
the format of the bench minor or any other tournament can affect goalie play much more than net size will. strings of players disrupts 'normal' goalie behaviour via line-matching for instance. longer games allow for more special teams. court dimension. tradition. situation. etc.
if the nets were larger, my team would play a full-time goalie to cover for shots from over half, not be freed to leave the net. not because we'll want to, because we'll have to. teams will become more defensive-- there's more to defend. is that what we want? full-time goalies all the time? at least with the status quo we have a choice.
games with the current net size last about fifteen minutes, perfect for tournaments, and feature great defenders playing a mixture of styles all trying to stop phenomenal shooters from scoring through their bottom brackets. do we want shorter games? easier goals?
April 14, 2010 - 7:36pm
#93
Pieter i have a couple of questions about your assumptions.
First, i don't think that pick up and tournament play can be compared. Teams play differently, strategies are changed and intensity is much different. I rarely have been to a city where someone plays goal full time during pick up. Normally it is three players on the court with someone dropping back into the goal.
How would an 8cm increase in goal size increase the effect on a teams odds of playing a goalie? This is obviously made based on your observations but it doesn't really have much empirical testing. An 8cm goal increase might increase shots but there could be other factors involved. What it would do is take some of the advantage of a goal tender away.
Goalies are able to cover 90% of the nets with their bikes. Plus they are able to cut off the angle to the bottom bracket with their mallet. I believe that this gives teams with a goal tender an advantage and yes both teams can have goal tenders but i don't think it is good for the sport in the long run.
I think your assumption about game time and goalies is also flawed. First, i don't think you have the data to actually back that up. There is a second assumption here that is flawed. A lot of teams don't use goalies full time. As more teams use goalies the length games could increase.
If you watch the match between Seattle and NYC at worlds last summer the advantage that Seattle gained from a goalie was huge. They didn't spend nearly as much energy attacking as NYC, they made far fewer passes, they scored some pretty goals that were far out and took advantage when NYC got tired. A good strategy but i'm not sure that we should push this system as the way forward. Increasing goal size gives the offensive team more options, makes the job of the goalie more difficult and increases the amount of pressure that defenses have to put on the ball.
Lots of sports have rules to encourage a better flow of the game, i think that the sport benefits by encouraging a style (that ballz deep employs) of play where teams are rewarded for playing well. A year ago you were all how goalies would become irrelevant once teams realized that the strategy was flawed. Now you have changed your tune after almost every major tournament last year was won by a team having a full time goalie.
April 15, 2010 - 3:50am
#94
if you don't want full-time goalies why do you want to make the nets bigger? how does making the net bigger make me want to play goalie less?
being the one that wants to change the net size, where is your empirical data?
aren't you looking for a 20 cm increase to 200 cm? where does this 8 cm come from?
goalies do not cover 90% of the goal with their bikes. they don't even cover half the area. even four wheels wouldn't cover 90% of the net.
at the world's i saw seattle handle new york with a goalie right before we handled new york without a goalie. does that say more about the goalie strategy or more about new york?
having won many of the major tournaments you speak of without a goalie strategy, and losing the rest in the final game, i won't be changing my tune any time soon.
April 15, 2010 - 2:11am
#95
These days I'm with Pieter on goals and goalies. The way it is seems to work pretty well.
Goals get scored. No goalie is unstoppable. Games go to 5, sometimes it's longer or shorter but 5 points happen.
A team can fix a person in goal or try to play forward. Fixing a goalie has a lot to offer as far as strategy. Playing 3 forward can be an advantage, or a fatal mistake. LA has a huge court and still several top teams played with a relatively fixed goalie. The games were great.
A larger goal will lead to more/quicker goals. It's fairly simple logic: bigger goal, easier score. Is it necessary? The 5-hole is pretty big actually. The mallet is fairly small. Goalies dab. If I could be an unstoppable goalie that's what I would do. I'm maybe better than average yet plenty go past me.
If I showed at a tourney with a big net not sure if it would matter.
April 16, 2010 - 5:47pm
#96
"wider nets at bench minor meant fewer permanent goalies and better game play."
x2
April 6, 2010 - 12:38pm
#97
i like that the 72" measurement is approximate, but it is 182.88cm
looks a bit tall though? maybe could come down an inch or two
April 5, 2010 - 10:23am
#98
the more i look at these, the more they seem like decent ideas.
April 9, 2010 - 6:03pm
#99
I like the height of these goals.
April 13, 2010 - 2:11pm
#100
We're starting to build nets for MWBPC8. We would like to know if we've reached a near consensus on height as we intend to follow NAH rules committee's recommendations for rules.
Most of these observations can be seen as either pro or con depending on your personal opinions. Personally I see the possible handlebar interference as a non issue. My personal preference would be for 36" tall goals.
32"/81.28cm high goals won't interfere with the most people's handle bars as most people's bars are taller than 32".
32" does not allow for shots over most people's top tubes. (standover height for a 567cm Surly Steamroller is ~35")
32" allows for a small amount of room to shoot over wheels.
32" allows for people to snuggle up really close to the goals, like cones.
/edit bold emphasis
April 13, 2010 - 4:15pm
#101
these sound great. i think ours are 33 or something close.
April 13, 2010 - 4:17pm
#102
Those are looking hot.
April 14, 2010 - 8:29pm
#103
DIMS please.
April 18, 2010 - 7:17pm
#106
Vive, Easy and I put these together on Saturday. Net is fruit tree bird netting, attachment is our next area of improvement, the colour scheme is what we are most proud of.
Current dimensions are 140cm wide and 80cm high, but these are up to you to change. Also the spreadsheet seemed to produce a support that was a bit too long so may need some correction.
April 13, 2010 - 4:19pm
#107
the UK has joined the net club. we'll be using these for the UK Bike Polo Championships this weekend. one design modification is we drilled the first joint off each side of the posts with a hole for a wooden peg that will keep the posts upright, but can be removed to collapse the goals, or will snap in the event someone crashes the net
April 13, 2010 - 4:35pm
#108
seems like the corner pieces to the side of the post will make some unnecessary rebounds to the front of the net.
i dont like these nets with no crossbar havent played with one but just seems like do you call it a goal if it just tips the net and goes over? also seems more dangerous with getting impaled (even if it doesnt puncture) seems like it would hurt to fall on more so then a cross bar.
but like that people are testing these things out. i love the small nets hate the hockey size nets.
April 14, 2010 - 8:26am
#109
seems like the corner pieces to the side of the post will make some unnecessary rebounds to the front of the net. = x 2
dont like these nets with no crossbar = x 2
more dangerous with getting impaled = x 2
April 14, 2010 - 6:03pm
#111
I think solid crossbar seems to be the consensus. I'm going to add them to ours. And I think 32" height makes sense, haven't really heard a compelling argument for higher, other than it's easier to score.....I think that's a reason NOT to make them higher.
April 14, 2010 - 6:15pm
#112
One thing that is a major con in my book with the shorter height(32") is that defenders can snuggle up to the goal line like ziploc lid. Whereas if their bars are under the crossbar they will have to go around the posts of the goal to get in goal.
What about that side of the coin? What are the pros and cons of both possible lines of action?
April 17, 2010 - 9:16pm
#113
1.5" abs, Mylec hockey netting. approx 72w X 32h
April 17, 2010 - 9:31pm
#114
these nets are really nicely built. I do worry that being so taught it might make it hard to tell sometimes if a goal was scored.
April 17, 2010 - 10:17pm
#115
"Taut".
Adding a top shelf would make it less likely for scored balls to bounce back out, too. Especially shots near the top of the net.
April 18, 2010 - 6:50pm
#116
x2 it looks like the ball will just bounce off the netting, whereas if it's loose, the net 'catches' the ball when a goal is scored
May 17, 2010 - 5:02pm
#117
What is the reason for the added red material around the posts?
Does it help or hinder goal judging?
May 23, 2010 - 10:13pm
#118
These were awesome, stood up to tournament play at the mwbpc8 really well
May 17, 2010 - 3:48pm
#119
I played with Portland's new nets this weekend. It was an interesting experience and I came away with a few key observations. I'd like to preface this all by saying I'm not a "goalie." But, I am from Seattle, where we have strong goalies and I do like to cover my team's net when its open.
1st their nets were at hip height, and it actually prevented me from closing my back tire in against the goal post without my hip hitting the net's crossbar (which could be counted as leaning on the goal). I didn't care to be "forced" to leave an open gap for someone to shoot through. With cones I can "close" it. I think removing the crossbar, or lowering the net height would solve this issue. Also, at one point I was (gently) shouldered into the cross bar. I didn't dab because the net held me up. I would have been out, and the goal would have been open if there was no bar. Is this a "dab" because I touched the bar? It wasn't my choice to lean on it, and I was put in a "squeeze" against it and given no other option. I believe the new rules say you cannot squeeze a player into a situation where they have no escape. Again this can be solved by removing the top bar. Then it would be up to my skill if I could have stayed up or not.
Second, it removes the ability for a defender to cover the goal from behind the net. You are removing an entire section of court from defensive play by putting an obstruction in there. I think this will actually lead to more "goalies" because you can not defend from anywhere BUT in front of the goal.
Third, the nets did not solve all the goal problems. Many times over the weekend a ball would hit the inside of a bar and bounce out. The goal was still questioned and argued over. I'm not sure having more visual distraction in front of a goal judge will really be beneficial when trying to establish where a ball hit. I'm assuming its a valid goal if it crosses the plane at the front of the net.
Lastly, keep goals smaller. 180 is workable, but is the the inside dimension or the outside? I firmly believe that the people who want bigger goals are the ones that aren't good enough to aim their shots past a decent goalie. We need to evolve and progress the sport not make is easier and sloppier. Pieter already said it, there isn't a goalie out there that you can't get 5 shots past.
May 17, 2010 - 4:27pm
#120
Second, it removes the ability for a defender to cover the goal from behind the net. You are removing an entire section of court from defensive play by putting an obstruction in there. I think this will actually lead to more "goalies" because you can not defend from anywhere BUT in front of the goal.
I've been thinking about making some "Nets" up for our group, but this point above has been on my mind too. I've yet to play with nets (I think only Melbourne in the Australasia region is currently doing so), but this is the one thing that is stalling my decision to try it out. Perhaps it's minor compared to the avantages?
May 19, 2010 - 1:25am
#121
As a defensive player, this is my biggest concern with nets as well. I do however enjoy playing with them. At our recent 'hockey' tournament, I found myself behind the net while the other team took a shot. I tried blocking it by sticking my mallet into the back of the net. Unfortunately the net was taut enough to prevent me from stopping the ball(!!).
As for leaning on the net, they aren't sturdy enough to really lean on, though I would argue that using the crossbar to keep balance is no different than a foot or hand on a tennis net or fence to prevent a footdown. Our nets are tall enough to do so in a pinch.
May 17, 2010 - 8:27pm
#122
Thanks Kiersten I could not have said it any better myself.
May 18, 2010 - 4:19pm
#123
how tall were those portland nets kiersten? any pictures? we made ours 33 inches so that they wouldn't catch on your hip or handlebars, yet not get in the way of your wheels either. they are too low to put a hand on, and any use of net support is a dab here.
the nets could be redesigned easily to keep balls that are goals in the net by angling the reflective surfaces into the netting.
May 18, 2010 - 7:37pm
#124
Piet, I don't have pictures or an exact measure but I'm guessing around 36in at the top of their crossbar. They used a much larger pipe diameter then some of the other photos I'm seeing too. Maybe that plays a major factor. Hopefully they will chime in with exact specs.
May 18, 2010 - 11:52pm
#125
I larger diameter pipe would be heavier too. If you tried to lean on our nets with your hip it would just slide out of the way and you'd tumble over like an idiot.
May 21, 2010 - 10:51am
#127
Ya ours are 32 inches high, and you can get your back wheel right up against the post if you want, just like with cones.
May 19, 2010 - 12:59am
#128
There are a few people in Toronto who like to lean on our iron, 120cm/4' high crossbars while playing goal
While it used to bug me (i was planning to run 12.6V through them from a car battery as a deterrent), it really doesn't anymore, cause i realize it's no more useful than taking a hand off the handlebar to hold onto the fence/board while digging out a ball from the boards. Why?
1) It really hinders your ability to move your bike around to block in front of your front wheel or behind your back wheel (180cm/6')
2) You're slower to accelerate to leave the net
3) You can no longer turn your front wheel to cut the angle, which is like playing hockey in goalie without a glove
You basically become an immobile goalie with just a mallet you can wave around, and easy to score on. I think the only advantage of resting your arm is to rest a bit, and maybe have a smoke. No competitive advantage.
In other words, the only good reason to have a short net is to avoid something that interferes with the hip.
May 19, 2010 - 1:45pm
#129
we made it a dab to put your hand on the cross bar or lean on the net in any way because we wanted goalies to have to stay up on their own, not have their mallet taken out and just be able to steady themselves on the bar.
shorter nets also make collisions with them less dangerous and allow handlebars to turn completely independent of the posts.
May 19, 2010 - 3:53pm
#130
Good points. Overall tough, i don't think goal height is that big a deal for pickup.
May 19, 2010 - 1:58pm
#131
I believe the goal inside height is 34" and outer is 37" in height, but you'd have to ask Drew and Eric about that for sure. I don't know the length off hand. I will say I like the new goals and they are fun to play with. I also like the top bar cause it's easy to readjust the goals if they get knocked around while still on your bike.
May 19, 2010 - 7:32pm
#132
200 or bust! It's not that much easier to score and you have to work more to defend. It makes sense. Once again we can take something from bench minor. Even in the longer 30 minute periods I think some of the higher scoring games only got to 20 goals. I'm not a math whiz but I think the comparison I am trying to make has something to do with the fact that in a 10 minute game only a third of the goals would be scored on average.
So to sum up... Man up and stop playing goalie.
May 23, 2010 - 10:48am
#133
Seems to me that those in favor of changing or adapting our rules with intentions of neutralizing a single player or position need to man up and start scoring more goals. Shoot it off your wheel or something!
May 20, 2010 - 9:48am
#138
who shot Biggie Smalls???????????????????????????
the millionaire, the mansion, the yacht!!!
May 23, 2010 - 5:25pm
#139
enjoyin the look of the top shelf of these nets from mwbpc8
May 23, 2010 - 10:09pm
#143
The inside of the base of the nets need a little ramp made out of some thick vinyl or something to redirect balls shot into the net upwards so they don't bounce right back out. A lot of ice hockey nets have this, I'll try to find a picture
May 23, 2010 - 11:16pm
#144
the ones i see on tv look to have a sort of padding. or am i wrong?
May 23, 2010 - 11:31pm
#145
this isn't ether the best example or a very illustratve photo bit you can see some material hanging in front of the base pipes here http://www.flickr.com/photos/kev_walsh/3562054196/
May 23, 2010 - 11:33pm
#146
Oh ya and yer right, they are more like pads than ramps. I think either could work
[edited for phone keyboard misspelling]
May 24, 2010 - 10:23am
#147
Great idea, I like that.
And yes, the Franklin goals are really meant for children. Even with self-tapping 'reinforcement' screws, they're super janky & 2 goals are now broken after just one tournament. Also, it's not possible to fill the pipes with sand or water.
The goals I built, however, suffered only from a few lasers through the netting. And they can be filled with sand or water to weight them down, although I didn't do it because I wanted all 3 courts to be as similar as possible.
July 31, 2010 - 10:56am
#148
Edmonton's new nets based on East Van v3.0 "The Pieter"
July 31, 2010 - 4:18pm
#149
Rad. Now add a top shelf and we've got ourselves a goal. Top shelf on this goal would help with ball retention.
Undecided: anyone feel it should be taller?
July 31, 2010 - 5:40pm
#150
After using them today I think a top shelf would be a good idea. I have some pipe left over so I might make the modification. It will hopefully add a bit more rigidity. The top crossbar is in three pieces with the T's in there. A solid full length across the top would help. A weird bounce off the top of the support bars in the back would make for a tough call.
They are already tall. 34" inside height so 35-1/2" to the top of the cross bar. They are on the wide side too...74" inside. Which I like. They are actually an inch or two wider than the hockey net pictured.
I like the angled corners on the back. Makes it easier to ride around the back.
August 2, 2010 - 3:56pm
#154
the height is under the handlebars and over the net the wheel maximum non-interference-ness. the net is like a cone, it doesn't get in the way.
July 31, 2010 - 9:30pm
#156
The angled bottom allows for easier play and riding around the net.
We didn't find any shots on the bottom sides to be questionable but it is possible.
If a top shelf were added it makes sense to mirror it on the bottom. Make six inches or so of the whole front of the net straight and angle the back.
If people are interested I can make a measurement and material list. Pieter has a drawing of some sort too that could possibly be shared.
August 2, 2010 - 12:04pm
#158
it's actually a cole and pieter design, bottles is prototyping in exo-cascadia for northern.
there are a couple of design features that address the problems you are talking about daniel, you just can't see them in bottles' pics.
i'll post these with some photographs over at www.bikepolo.ca when i can get myself out of bed.
bottles, we have worked out another far more rigid design. a top shelf will not add to rigidity, only take away.
December 18, 2010 - 5:54pm
#159
Piet, can you pdf your sketch and shoot it to me at bikepolo@shaw.ca? I'll draft up a shop drawing and send it out to a few fabricator contacts of mine to get a quote for an aluminum version....
April 28, 2011 - 12:13am
#160
i'm closing this thread, check out http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/courts/2011/04/28/bike-polo-nets-whats...
Who's new
- KCJ - Jacksonville FL
- orange26kitty - Pomona
- Adrian Ruano - Ciudad de México
- waka - Netherlands
- terry - south australia
- tehkorg - Mesa, Az
- RunnenLate - Orlando, FL
- LizzySolomon - Denver, CO
- irishman909121 - Orlando
- Jareb - North Richland Hills
Recently added polo bikes
2 comments
|
The nets rule!.. too bad I still suck at polo ... but I sure love to "score"