If we go this way, then there should be a yellow/red card system because otherwise a player could I hack 6 mallets apart and take the 3 minutes in penalties and do it next game. Kinda lame.
Death of "Like-Contact" Rules
What about the like-contact rule.
It seems that every day this "simple" and clear mother of rules become more useless.
Every like contact begin to have is long list of exception who make them pretty useless.
Mallet to Mallet:
Mallet hacking is illegal. So you can play mallet to mallet, but it can be called if the ref' find it too strong.
Body to Body:
Huge issue about what is clean body to body play. It deserve an own topic to make things a lil' bit clear.
Bike on Bike:
Every body seems to agree not that a lot of bike contacts are way too dangerous, and rules now talk about "incidental" contact who are permitted.
The unlike contact rule is maybe also break 20 times per games, how many times do we hit wheel of opponents tryin' to get the ball.
So this topic is simple:
Should we completely forget the "like-contact" rules? when it can be useful to use them?
If you spend 3 mins in the box your team is most likely not to make it to the next round. Plus NA rules allowed for ejection on the refs discretion. 6 penalties for the same thing seems to be one of those.
i have missed you daniel, just where has all of the insanity come from all of the sudden? are you coming to the crown? we'll talk soon. [awesome rap sesh(es) over in that other thing.]
Do you want us to count the dents or does it have to be broken in half? Hitting mallets is an important part of the game but a hit hard enough to break someone's mallet isn't skill and it's just stupid. If that happens in pick-up I'll let them know I'm not okay with it and if it happens again I'm walking off the court. I'm not going to get hurt or get my mallet broken just so you can get some aggression out. If you see people slashing mallets pull them aside and let them know it's not okay.
Thing is a dent might not seem like alot of damage, but i find a decent dent is generally the start of a weak point where the mallet will ultimately fail.
If they hit it hard enough to dent it, even if it doesnt snap in half at the time, I'll still call a dick move, because it will probably snap in half at a later point, because of that slash.
Why mess with rules that have served us well to this point? My big ol' foot went between a guys spokes last week and actuallly bent his valve stem, flattening his tire. My foot was still on the pedal - we just tangled.
It was body -to- bike but completely accidental. Should I have been penalized? I don't think so. But had I hauled off and kicked my foot in there It would have been bad news. That is what the rule is for. Clicking mallets together, bumping wheels and rubbing shoulders makes it a game, but doesn't need to bring out the rule book. We need the "like contact" rule to help the newbys understand and to govern the crazies.
No you shouldnt be penalized for this, but neither should he. If you stopped play and let him sort his bike out cool. But if you got up and tapped in and play continued whilst he was out of play because of his snapped valved, he may as well have been put in the penalty box.
I don't agree with this.
I mean, in pickup, sure, dick move to not stop play.
In a tournament, that's a mechanical, caused by legal contact, AND he didn't foot from the sound of it, so there's not even a reason to tap in, just continue play and let the other guy sort out his tire after the next goal.
At NAs this year it seemed like one of the best defensive moves was to crash out the guy trying to take a shot. This is utter BS but it follows the like contact rule nicely. It's pretty hard to make a shot while the guy you beat is crashing into you from the non-ball side. It may not effect the top teams much but this bit of dirtyness is all though the middle ranks. Also the same dude in my club has broken my last two mallets and I'm pretty pissed about it. That BS needs to stop too. If you are hitting hard enough to break a mallet you are likely out of control and could potentially seriously hurt someone.
ísn't this the twentieth time this thread has been posted?
what happened all of the other nineteen times?
The history of bike polo rests on your shoulders! Each time it comes up maybe it encourages one more player to play clean.
if you are expecting this thread to encourage people to play clean then I'm pretty sure you're missing the point of explaining the rules to your newbies.
It's not exactly newbies that are doing it but you're right, this thread is useless. Why would people stop crashing out players when they're trying to take a shot, they might score! Also hitting someone's mallet way too hard can be effective, can't it? If 90% of the people want BP to be a rough dirty game that ship has sailed. This isn't basketball, so making a shop while being struck down from behind is just part of the fun of bike polo. I feel silly that I've gotten upset about this kind of play.
i agree, i think the standing rules are good. Slashing is difficult to call in polo, like at NA's jackal checked my mallet and i had an injured hand, and dropped my mallet. There was a good ref calling it so nothing was called' as it should of been. If you want my two cents, any dangerous play should be rewarded with harsh penalties.
well I got a chance to referee at NAs and while I was a little apprehensive of dropping harsh penalties on the first few games of the day despite the fact it's part of being an assertive referee. it seems as though the regular pool play determines who knows how to play the game from who doesn't (much like stephen says in one of the above posts) and the referees are there just to make sure people are aware of each others safety (and in jokers words, they are enforcing the "dickery" of this general pool play). this is the point of the NA rules (and accompanying thread).
it is also part of the reps ( who were at NA's ) responsibilities to help their clubs understand these rules for the same ideas of safety and dickery.
in effect, this thread is definitely a long line of the same ideas that have popped up but if you want to consider the north american ruleset and what it is intended to do, the bottom line is that like contact rules expose the bullshitters and dicks and (supposedly) makes our polo world a little bit better to play in.
Bike polo is prima facie dangerous. If you ask me, there are only two real questions: intent and damages. Did the player intentionally engage in conduct outside of the rules consented upon? If yes, penalty. Was the conduct unintentional, but negligent? If so, the penalties assessed should coincide with the damages accrued by the victim of the incident. In other words, if I negligently t-boned a goalie during a breakaway, I shouldn't, on the outset, be assessed a penalty. However, if the goalie flies of his bike, I should be assessed a harsher penalty (like a red card, perhaps, or time in the penalty box) than if the goalie simply footed down (maybe a tap out, maybe a yellow card if a similar but slightly different situation could have resulted in injury). Damages should be assessed on a case by case basis by the ref during the game. During pick up, just don't be a dick.
Q.E.D. Next topic.
Are you in law school or something?
This sounds like you need a Jury not a referee
You don't need a jury. That's the referee's JOB: to make decisions based upon situational facts. If my negligence takes a persons bike, and therefore that person, out of the game, that person is entitled to compensatory damages within said game.
As a referee, I do not have access to intent. It can't be perceived or evaluated on the fly. Hell, most of the time I don't even have access to consequence. I am watching the play, centered (but trying not to be myopically focused on) the ball. If there is a questionable forecheck ahead of a breakaway, I am watching the breakaway. I don't see the defending player knocked down, holding up their hands, screaming for a penalty. Even if I see them on the ground a second later when the play turns around, I can't be sure how they got there.
i am of the opinion that incidental bike on bike should be allowed, with a line drawn at t bones and general out of control crashes into another bike. the ban on bike to bike contact was over-enforced at NAs.
x2
And bike contact from behind. If I can't see you and you run me from behind I call that a dick move.
What about a general rule about priority, lil' bit like in surf.
Can we imagine that every time the player from behind is guilty when he crash in someone in front?
X2
Should have been in Berlin! I got 30seconds because someone had insufficient bike control which caused accidental bike to bike on me, then in result caused him to crash on the ground and into me and braking his carbon fork. Mean while, i'm still on my bike. Not saying everyone doesn't ever get a crappy call, but I think certain reffing styles are to whistle happy, which is a difficult habit to brake.
"keep the whistle in your pocket" - too many people to list.
sounds epic, any pictures of that fork breakin?
why would someone play polo with a carbon fork.... especially at the worlds.
Blowing a whistle can decide a game. Refs need to remember this when they're reffing. If you can avoid blowing it, have everyone tap in and keep playing, that is ALWAYS the best option. Intentional, deliberate, calculated, voluntary fouls are the only ones that should be called. Anything else, and you're making game changing decisions over trivial bullshit - and since when is hard court bike polo about hashing out trivial bullshit? It's not. It's about getting the fucking ball in the fucking goal. I don't want fouls to play a part in deciding who gets the fucking ball in the fucking goal.
I can't believe how inept the reffing was at NAs, thought I can't speak for worlds. It's like when you give a cop a badge and a gun. They almost unanimously fuck up their responsibility. And all the bitching and moaning players were doing when they think they should have gotten a call in their favor but didn't. It's pussy bullshit and exactly the kind of thing we should try to avoid. A game focused around fouls? GTFO. This isn't soccer.
Also, refs: don't cheer for one of the teams whose game you're reffing. Not that I'm saying that you're reffing in accordance to who you want to win, but if you have to make a controversial call against a team, and the whole game they've been hearing you cheer for their opponents, it just muddles it up. Keep it professionalllllllllllll.
you already know!
I can't believe how inept the reffing was at NAs, thought I can't speak for worlds. It's like when you give a cop a badge and a gun. They almost unanimously fuck up their responsibility.
times fucking 2010. worst. reffing. ever.
There were great games at NAs, but the refs couldn't stop fucking shit up.
We even had refs try to tell us that we weren't allowed to disagree with their decision. We were fine with their decision being final, but we were told that we would be throne out if we "talked back."
I am tired of hearing how great the NAs were. We had a great time playing, but the refs wanted to have some sort of control and were mos def routing for specific teams.
I can't believe that a ref could be fired and humiliated on the court in front of everyone for supposedly making 1 bad call after i had watched and played in games where the ref wasn't even watching the game.
Seabass had a carbon fork last year. I played with one for 3 years too. Just saying.
thanks for saying that there are fools out there playing on plastic bikes.
The midwest wasn't the midwest yet.
@ rookie nick, You just summed it up for me. I have reffed a lot of games in Cascadia tourneys, couple a things you left out, if it looks dirty it is dirty, the ref is gonna get it either way for good calls and bad ones depending on who says so or what side of the fence your on so you might as well only call the really big shit and repeat shit that you already warned them about. but yeah keep your whistle for the real stuff and don't let people tell you what is and is not your job.
@ thread, poloispoloisfunasyouwannamakeitornot.
...and the crowd is the most unreliable. Sometimes the audience is smarter than the ref because they could actually see what happened. Other times the crowd is just shouting to shout. Poor refs, they have no idea whether to listen or not.
If you have a colorful reputation, expect the crowd to scream for you to be penalized every time you bump shoulders with someone.
I like the bike on bike in corners, in front of the goal...etc. It's fun getting into wheel fights and what basically amounts to a footdown contest. I think calling that a "foul" is pretty silly.
Bones it Tim, getting rid of bike on bike would kill for the sport for me. I don't like playing patty cake, not to say body checking should be legal.
yeah, i think bike on bike in corners is fine. when it becomes a stall game, and just starts to delay things, i think it's reasonable for a ref to just asking people to roll out and keep the play moving. Shouldn't be a penalty though.
right, i think like-contact rules work fine, as long as u are not trespassing on the 'dont be a dick' rule… with pick-up its tuff to enforce because the reffing generally comes from the person that just got 'dicked'… forming a bias argument. but really people just need to 'harden the fuck up'
Firstly, I thought the reffing at the worlds was pretty damn good considering the breadth of players and referees and the intensity of the games.
I have a couple of points about like/like contact
* like/like is a slogan which is enshrined in the ruleset in such a qualified manner it is already just semantics.
* I dont think there will ever be a universally accepted interpretation of the contact rules. the basic ideas seem universal but there is a huge disparity in how people (including many excellent players) want them enforced and in my opinion near all these interpretations are quite worthy but at the same time they are clearly incompatible.
* in lieu of completely firm rules I think it is important at tournaments to be clear from the beginning how that particular tournament will be reffed and then the refs try hard to stick with that interpretation even if it is not their personal preference. While it may be impossible in general to get the whole global community to play the same way it should be possible to get everyone on the same page for 2 or 3 days at a time. Most likely the next tournament will be different.
*However I think in Berlin the most common beef was that a ref made an inaccurate call not that there was a differing opinion of the ruleset. That means people (including myself) need more practice reffing not a new set of rules.
* In my experience reffing, a lot of contact is just really hard for a ref to make out clearly, from the middle of the court it might look kind of even, both players going at it but from a better vantage point it might be clear that one player is in the wrong.
* I think this will improve as people get more practice reffing.
* but I think there are many situations when the offending player should tap themselves out, this I thought was extremely rare in Berlin perhaps non-existent.
* so I'm not really of the opinion that the rules need to be updated, when we met before the Berlin tournament I recall thinking that the rules as written were pretty comprehensive. I think what will improve is the quality of reffing. Reffing is pretty hard when the players are deliberately trying to get away with stuff but when the players tap themselves out reffing becomes a more reasonable task. I realise that in pickup most people tap themselves out, Im just talking about more serious tournament games.
* It may turn out that people never really warm up to the idea of tapping themselves out in big tournaments, in that case I think there should be a finer gradation of penalties available to the referee. A ball turnover can sometimes be almost nothing but 30seconds in the box is almost a free goal, I dunno, maybe more double tapouts.
Hey Nick! i agree with your position here. Reffing is a really hard job, especially when ideas vary from tournament to tournament. So yes, reffing needs to be refined. I think that differing opinions are still a big problem though, and no amount of ref training can bridge that gap. Players tapping themselves out was rare in berlin because the majority of the time said player probably didn't think he/she did anything wrong. I don't think we'll get to the point where a player will say "hey that was a pretty lame move, i'll tap out" until everyone is closer to being on the same page. Easiest way to do this is to cut out all the garbage, right? But how do you "judge" what's garbage and what's not? Unfortunately this is where different opinions come into play.
To me, it seems much more logical to play a game in a manner where no one can call bullshit or object to something i do as questionable or unfair. Think it's kind of sketchy? Find another way to deal with the play. I see more and more aggro grimaces (followed by sloppy crashes) on the court every tournament. It would be ideal if people always played like this, but at the very least it ties into what Nick said above about getting everyone on the same page for 2 or 3 days. If tournament organizers are clear on how games are going to be called, just try and adhere to these guidelines for the sake of our sport. If someone steps outside these parameters, try not to retaliate. It's much easier for a ref to call out one particular play, as opposed to the ensuing shit show that can (and has) resulted from dick-moves gone wild.
Overall I think everyone learned a lot in Berlin. It was definitely the first big international meeting and could have turned out much worse... I'm looking forward to seeing what next year brings.
Hey Dustin, yeah I think there are wildly different opinions of what is garbage and what is fair play. It should be up to each tourney organisers to make super clear how the rules should be interpreted. Maybe Im just an anal physics geek but I think there is a lot of discussion of the "vibe" of the rules rather than specific examples. I think analyzing many specific situations is the best way to get everyone on the same page.
Certainly you play much cleaner than most but I conjecture that pretty much everybody thinks they themselves
"play a game in a manner where no one can call bullshit or object to something i do as questionable or unfair"
I think it requires an authoritarian third party (the organisers) to straight up dictate how the contact rules will be called.
I think there is a lot of discussion of the "vibe" of the rules
Come on now Nick,youve seen The Castle haven't you?
You should know better... Its Mabo, its the constitution, is just the vibe of it...
Ya I know it's not very realistic, but maybe eventually we'll all get on the same page. Organizers dictating how calls are going to be made and sticking to their guns is definitely a good start to cleaning up the game.
I also agree that reffing is a hard thing bcuz of the speed of the game. Dick moves are not always easy to see for the refs. My point of view is that the ruleset of every tournament (wich will stay a bit different for a little longer i think) should be discussed seriously before games start and the refs might be really aware of the set. Then the ref calls should become more and more the same for every game and every player. The like/like contact rules could still work quite well if the refs pay attention to the intentional/non intentional contacts.
I think it would be easier to start on how to enforce the rules we already have than working on a new ruleset.
I don't talk about a new ruleset, but any kind of modification of the overall play need to be clearly written to avoid some misanderstood. For me the thing who need to be clearly think is the body to body rule, who deserve better definition.
Talking before the game is the best way to begin a good ref game. Paul was great doing this during the WHBPC, talk about some conflictual point and stuff like that BEFORE playing.
I dunno, I think the body/body is pretty clear in the rules, its really hard to actually call in a game tho. Again, I think this will get better as ref's get more practice but I think the rules are pretty clear. In an ideal world I guess these things would be made super clear at the beginning of each tourney rather than each game. I dunno, are you sure that you are worried the rules are unclear or are you the victim of fouls on you just not being called? Coz these are really different things...
And also enforce it. Like not giving three or even more warnings to a player, if you warn him one next time he should be punished.
I'm on the side of thinking "like contact" is just insufficient. It was never actually a rule anyway, how many times a game does someone whack your wheels with their mallet, or elbow your bars?
But what I've been thinking about most lately with rules is that any penalty should result in loss of possession, or some way where you can't benefit from an illegal move. It's all well and good if you tap out with the guy after you pull out his wheel with your mallet, but that's not consolation when it results in your teammate walking the ball into the goal because of it.
At worlds we had a system in place where - to follow your example - if i mallet you and your team gets the ball, let play run on and i just tap. If however my team gets the ball and is getting a breakaway or strong offensive opportunity because i forced you out of the play: then stop the game and turn possession over and give half court to the non-offending team.
I kinda feel like giving half court might be TOO much, or sometimes just the wrong thing in a certain situation. Like, if are right in front of net trying to score and i mallet you and it results in a turnover and break away; how is it right that you get pushed back to half court for your penalty?
The system has its flaws, but it works okay.
Seeing as how this has become a thread about reffing contact, I will share my experience as a full-time ref at the NAs in Madison here. Please keep in mind that this is a distillation of only my experience, and does not necessarily reflect the experience of the players, rules, and organizers of the event.
1. Too much discretion to warn or penalize. I expressed my concerns about this for two weeks on the forums and felt like I was being pat on the head for thinking it would be such a big deal. And then, hey, look at that - it turned out to be the the very source of every complaint about uneven officiating I heard all weekend.
•If what you meant by 'ref's discretion' is that obvious rules violations that both players ride out of will be treated differently than rules violations that one or both players dab/fall from say so. You'll get diving like soccer.
•If what you meant was 'Something I would do or could take won't be a penalty, but something that I wouldn't do will be'. Then you need to pick refs who are all around the same ability and style of play, not volunteers looking for free housing.
•Give me a chart that no one can argue with. This move draws that penalty - every time.
2. I felt like I was hung out to dry after tough calls. Hearing "bullshit" from the crowd I can brush off. People chanting "fuck you ref" I can not. I tried to call every penalty I could see. I tried to explain why I was there to people before every game. I had two controversial calls. After the first one, the player yelled because he was amped up for competition, but was reasonable and had an argument to present. I listened. I don't enjoy being yelled at, but I understood what was happening.
After another big call, the player insulted me, loudly and angrily. I upped his penalty from 30 seconds to 2 minutes for being disrespectful. I warned them about that before the game. I had asked about doing that at he ref's meeting that morning and was given the go-ahead. Jonny, as court captain, countermanded me and let the player out of the box early.
That game ended with a weird, controversial call. The 'delay of game' thing. I don't know if you watched that one or heard about it later. Both teams were obviously stalling, Joe had the ball and said out loud "I could just sit here and run down the clock." The crowd was getting really, really, rowdy calling for a penalty. Jonny said to me "delay of game, call it". So I did. A minute later the game ended and Ben roared up to me and "fired" me as a ref in front of a hundred people (which he apologized for later).
I admit that it was a BS call. The only delay of game mentioned in the official rules was for throwing the ball out of the court. I fell to peer pressure. It was not my finest moment, but for the next 2-3 hours I felt like I was out of the bike polo community. People weren't making eye contact with me. That shit ruined my weekend. I felt like I lost friends, standing, and maybe even customers because I blew a fucking whistle.
Get on the PA and support your refs. Heckling is one thing, insults are another. Players and the crowd got no right to personal insults. I did not feel like the organizers had my back as a ref. At the awards, Jonny (who was probably exhausted and I don't blame him for neglecting it) sort of rammed in thanking the refs at the very end. I was pretty upset already, but that was bitter. I thought there would be a best ref vote or some other acknowledgment of the position we all put ourselves in.
3. The nature of the reffing changed as the day went on. That shit was planned, obvious, and infuriating. I know that it kills sports fans when officiating starts to influence the outcome of the game. Trust me, it's not any more comfortable from behind the whistle. But it became clear that on Sunday, the rules were only for the middle of the pack, when the people who had never done that well before, or were fighting elimination, were playing beyond their limits and not keeping their heads up. After the predictable top 8 were more or less figured out, hands off, these-guys-all-know-what-they're-doing-so-enforcing-the-rules-isn't-as-important, became the style. If yer gonna have rules, they gotta apply to everyone. They ain't rules otherwise, they're training wheels.
When people were screaming to give Capriotti the box in the final game, and Ben yelled back that "this was a player's tournament" and just turned the ball over to Seattle, I forgot my own name I was so pissed. I felt like I had just wasted three days of my life for nothing.
4. No one playing this sport is a pro athlete. Not that there is a lot to be done about it, but no one out there is trained to stop when they hear a whistle the way someone who lives a sanctioned sport is. That, and relying on me yelling with only my unaided and raw throat, made things tough.
5. Reffing teams. In what turned out to be my last game reffing, I had Jason from FL as one goal judge, Ben hunter as the other, and Jonny as the court captain sitting next to me. I told Ben and Jason to put one arm up if they saw something that I couldn't behind the net, assuming that I would see that and whistle a halt, go talk to him about what he saw, and assess a penalty if necessary. Ben raised his arm for someone tripping another player (mallet in front of the wheel), but the game had moved on and my eyes were on the ball/play. In the future, either the court captain needs to watch for that or the goal judges need whistles, or the whole reffing team needs to do something to practice communication before big games like that.
There you go. Three bitter complaints and maybe two helpful suggestions. I consider myself a fair minded person, and a capable official. But I will never ref at another bike polo tournament. Ever.
no need for you to stop reffing because of one ridiculous incident you should receive an apology for...you cam ref any game I'm in...unless you just don't want to ref...
Sorry to hear that, Lucky. I was oblivious to your situation, and it's a hard one to be in. I swear you could write a book on introducing reffing into a tournament like that. It changed the actions of players, spectators, organizers AND refs. I guess when I said I was unhappy with the reffing at NAs, I meant that I was unhappy with how it was a dynamic that changed everybody's actions from how they would have been if the refs weren't there.
I don't imagine anyone would ever ostracize you from bike polo. I think it goes without saying that running up and yelling at you, firing you in front of a crowd of people is wildly unprofessional and out of line, let alone unfriendly as fuck. KEEP YA HEAD UP SPORT!
Thanks, Nick. But I'm not fishing for sympathy.
1. Ben apologized for "firing" me. I'm over that. Either Ben or I have had to apologize to the other for something we've said at every tournament we've both been to. We're just loudmouthed gentlemen like that.
2. I should clarify that this was an account of just my feelings about having reffed at the NAs. Other folks will certainly feel differently. There is no question that it was all a huge experiment and a big step for the sport. Big ups to the Madison crew and all their volunteers for making the administrative support of games so solid and for even trying to enforce a unified rule set. We're all learning together. I learned that this is an aspect of the game that I don't want to participate in further. It's not gonna stop me from playing polo, coming to tournaments, making mallet heads, or mouthing off on the internet about how I think the sport should be.
You are spot on, we need more ref appreciation at tournaments.
PS i don't blame you for never wanting to ref again, but I will say I'd be honored to play on your court any day of the week.
Thank you for saying so. But 200 people screaming for something is not among the pressures I can bear gracefully, and it's only going to become a bigger part of the job.
Serious about refs working in teams through a whole tournament.
Serious about whistle training the lot of you.
Serious about having support from the organizers both in terms of having all players and refs use a clearly understood appeal/review process, and letting participants know how they ought and ought not act towards one of their fellow players/human beings volunteering their time for the weekend.
The rest of it is just me grousing.
Maybe we don't need any more refs is what I would say! I think having goal judges would fix all of this since they can see more and see the goals being made so it does not get missed. We got fucked on the two games that we lost and should not have because of calls that were bullshit! It would also help if the people that are pretty good at polo would just play their game. There were a lot of you good guys playing bad(as in cheating). How are we ever going to get this sport out there and made as a real sport if we keep cheating just to win? If you're good, then play your game and have fun. There is no reason to play shitty and have other players not like you because of it. We should all like each other as a polo family and see how well others recognize your skills and learn to get better.I've definitely noticed lots of players getting very good and are really serious about this sport. It's those guys who will be recognized by their greatness and a love for this sport. Remember guys, we are doing all of this traveling and playing all the time that we do at our own cost, so why cheat to just try and win. We need to be role models for others and especially for the future kiddos that are playing in this sport and want to make it something big.Just wanted to throw in my 2cents, though I have lots more to say about it.
Assuming your speaking of NA's. For my own curiosity why not disclose this cheating you witnessed. I'm sure the refs reading this(including myself) would like to know what your talking about.
naming names after the fact is just going to divide our fledgeling polo community further...
having said the above...people need to have the strength of character to accept a loss rather than resort to cheating, congratulate a better team/player on a clean win and lastly call even their peers/friends out when they do something douchey.
no name required bro, but mentioning something of that magnitude should not be swept under the rug. My curiosity has ended anyway.
People using unsafe arm movements to your steering arm while riding, mallet under the wheel(on purpose), jumping in front of someone who is going fast and just unsafe body to body and bike to bike. And I'm not calling out any names, but in our game against Madison someone hit me off of my bike with a elbow to my chest coming strait at me and the ref didn't see shit! He knows who is is too because I had some words for him. In our game against you guys= somehow the goal got pushed back a few inches(strait back) and you shot and hit the side of the goal and the ref called it a shot and you guys won because we were tied. Our first game with east van= we were tied 3-3 and then made a goal, but because charlie couldn't move either way due to someone right behind him and ran into the goalie, our goal did not get counted and they ended up scoring. The ball had already gone in and it should have been game. It just seemed like every court was a different game just because of the refs. I did ref some games as well and I just made sure everyone played polo and were not being shitty to each other. I don't want to hate anyone and I don't want anyone to not like us, but it seemed that the people that use to talk about us(in a good way) were not the same and we are all just here trying to get better so we can be on top you know. I believe we have gotten better and have been doing very well with keeping up with the top teams and not just giving games away. And this is in no way to talk shit about anyone, just letting some words out about the situation and why I believe there should not be any refs.
polo family, polo community, polo friends, etc...X2!
the problem is players are scared to call other players out because nobody wants to risk losing so-called friends...and our sport is still small/young enough that it has that clique-ish popularity aspect we so need to eradicate. community, family, friends...you don't cheat your friends do you?
some calls were difficult for the ref to make because they were near the goal where everyone bunches up...but all that aside...a ref should be impartial first and foremost, no?
"No refs" works for an unorganized player's sport when only the team honor and reputation are at stake.
If you want a bigger, higher stakes sport with spectators and sponsors and money then refs are mandatory. Strong, well-trained, consistent, supported refs.
Mike Polo, I say the appeal to players to just be good players without refs is naive. What works for pickup and local tourneys does not work when you have a diverse (inter)national audience on the sidelines screaming. Both players and spectators expect a good referee to run the game without controversy.
The matter is, why in professional sports there's also a lot of issues with profesionnals and trained refs.
I think that the appeal is naive too, but that''s the only thing to do.
During the final of the Grenoble King of the Rink tourney, we where playing against DTGP, Edouard Hugo And Pierre. The reffing was minimalist as wistle for the end of the game. 1-1 tight game, Hugo make my teamate dab with a mallet under the wheel, i was comming back from the tap out, and pierre get the ball, ready to shoot. I just said to him, "don't score like this, that's a shame", and he goes back to his camp with the ball and the games continues. It was a fucking great moment of this game. If we are all looking for perfect reffing, it's never gonna come. And put too much responsability on shoulders of 3 mens is too much and useless. 'Cause players can begin to think "if the ref don't see it, that's ok..."
All I'm trying to get at is, it's very hard for one guy to see everything that's going on in the game and do his job by himself. Maybe there should be two refs and goal judges just in case one does not see what the other doesn't. It would help out a lot more with the situation and the judges and refs can talk over questionable plays or calls of that matter. And also they would not look to the spectators for answers either. Does that make any sense? The refs should also be all equal with their calls and not favor one team.
It's almost impossible for a ref to see everything that's going on. We're watching the play, centered on the ball, and we only have one vantage point, standing on the sidelines at half court.
The reason one soccer ref can watch 22 people on the pitch at once is because they physically follow the play, trying to maintain an angle that allows them to see all of the people involved in it. The linesmen are there to judge what the ref has no angle on, possession and off-sides.
The reason 3 refs in hockey can watch 10 people going crazy-fast on the ice is cos they've all got whistles and can stop the play to confer with each other and asses a penalty if need be.
The reason those games can be officiated at all is because every player knows to stop when they hear a whistle.
The one ref with a court captain and two goal judges is a pretty good system. There are times when it can break down, but that can be overcome with practice and a little communication on both the players and refs side.
I agree completely! We need to start acting like this is a real sport and play as though it's a real one. Listening to the refs and their whistles and such. If we make a mistake, let's admit it and move on with the game instead of making it a huge scene for all of the spectators. But most of all, let's have fun doing so!
Repeated.
'Cause players can begin to think "if the ref don't see it, that's ok..."
But it happens, check golie's foot at 1:02.
http://vimeo.com/14472538
X2
That's an interesting point.
For example, at World's Paul was reffing the Chicago v. MKE match. We wanted him to ref. We knew he'd take a more hands-off approach and he did, letting some things go that might have been called in earlier games. When things seemed to him to be getting out of control, he stepped in, gave us a pause and then we continued. Both teams really appreciated this style. So, there's definitely something to letting teams play each other as they see fit.
However, if we are truly working to get over a learning curve and actually improve the state of reffing, advocating that people "stop listening" is counterproductive. If the teams can agree to have a ref that will let them play as they wish, that's a reasonable option. In fact, if a ref is excused, they might be bummed but if they're smart they'll watch what the next ref is doing and take note.
Anyway, to simply institute an "opt out" option is to undermine the long-term goal of the most consistent reffing possible. Refs need practice, too. If, as a ref, you know players can just ignore what you say, that doesn't provide much incentive for any ref to stay in there and get better or even volunteer in the first place.
I agree this is NAH territory and it's being addressed, I can tell you. But doing this is going to require, cooperation, trust, etc. on everyone's part to help achieve the goal. Your point makes complete sense. I'm simply saying, tweak that option to allow players their choice of a ref they trust and I then I think we're not only addressing your concern but also continuing to develop more confident and competent refs.
Opting out and self-reffing isn't undermining NAH. It's an interesting option while some of the issues of training and experience are being addressed. I'm not sure how many people would choose it and what the results would be. If you opted out and there was a problem that the teams couldn't resolve what then? Maybe the result of having the choice of opting out would be more respect for the refs. Knowing that the players choose you to ref them may create a more positive relationship where players and refs work together to officiate a better game.
In important games, good teams picking a ref that they are comfortable with will set an example for what the best players want out of a ref. I would argue that if the people who currently play the game better than anyone else think a ref is good, then it shows that ref has an intrinsic understanding of the flow of a game of hardcourt bike polo and is comfortable in their position as moderator of that flow.
Players picking refs for important games doesn't undermine the system and NAH. It teaches the community about good reffing, and about players who are willing to listen to the refs and not bitch. If you set examples of good reffing and playing at the highest levels (the games most people watch), people will remember and try to imitate it. This is why "cherry picking" refs is actively contributing to the progression of the sport and the refereeing of games. It's saying: "LOOK AT THIS GUY! THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD TRY TO DO IT!"
Opting out is saying that you're not going to give the ref of your lower level game a chance to prove that he's competent. I'm not saying I'm against the idea of opting out of a ref in smaller games that don't matter quite as much in the grand scheme of the tournament, but it definitely isn't actively progressing how the sport may be change for the better in the future. Games are flawed without refs. Games are flawed with refs (some of the time). If you're resigning to the fact that that will never change and that quality can not be achieved with everybody's participation and effort, then you got the wrong 'tude, dude.
Right? See where I'm coming from?
P.S. Proud to have you as operator of all that is important, Ben. You got it all figured out, intent-wise.
x2
At first, I think the reffing of quarterfinal/semifinal/final games is more important than the reffing of someone's game in the middle of the tournament that no one is watching. I think if we put an extra large emphasis on quality reffing during the games that everyone is watching, all refs and players will come to learn and be better acquainted with how it should be done.
By that, I don't mean that this is the way it should always be, and those are the only games that are important. I just think that during this phase in trying to figure out how reffing should be executed, that letting those top teams pick their refs in end-of-tournament games will serve as an important tool in shaping quality refs in the future by setting a prime example of how the game should run at all levels.
Plus I didn't say I was completely against opting out of a ref, and I do understand what you're getting at. I just said that it isn't the best or most productive way to play a role in progressing refereeing in the bike polo community. I think there's solutions, and maybe your "fuck you, fuck all, figure it out for yourself, call me when it's finished and perfect" opinion isn't among them. Perhaps a system where the offending team can defer to the opponent after a call has been made, and the opponent can control whether the penalty is enforced or not. In one instance at NAs, (I think it was Seattle vs. MKE?) a check was laid and a penalty ensued because the ref thought it wasn't a clean hit. The offending player was upset because he thought it was a clean check, the opponent verbally agreed that the hit was clean, but the penalty stood. Wouldn't just allowing these situations to play on fix many of the frustrations?
I didn't say the refs are "good, and great and grand". A few are. The best players know it, so use their games as examples. I think that's a much better way for referees to learn than a training packet or whatever fucking thing you think would actually work. What's so hard in seeing the value in that?
Nice kaepectate jab, though.
who are the top five commenters alive? daniel, daniel, daniel, daniel, and daniel. 'cause he spit hot fire.
dangerous
That's why you're you and I'm on retainer with half a dozen companies in Asia for management consulting and organizational development. Ouch... it burns.
Fuck, you know what? During this back and forth I completely forgot how fucking rad you are. God, I feel stupid looking back for even trying to convey my opinion. Sorry. If someone could delete all my posts, that'd be great thanks. Sorry Daniel.
Opting out is saying that you're not going to give the ref of your lower level game a chance to prove that he's competent. I'm not saying I'm against the idea of opting out of a ref in smaller games that don't matter quite as much in the grand scheme of the tournament, but it definitely isn't actively progressing how the sport may be change for the better in the future. Games are flawed without refs. Games are flawed with refs (some of the time). If you're resigning to the fact that that will never change and that quality can not be achieved with everybody's participation and effort, then you got the wrong 'tude, dude.
i'm pretty certain your last sentence does not at all say what daniel just said, though i agree with most of what you've written.
(if having a "'tude" means opening your mouth and expressing an opinion from outside of the box, then keep up the "'tude" daniel!)
i agree that the top-level players in the game know who the best refs are, they have put in the time to become highly skilled at the game and they know what the in's and out's of the game are, including the dark parts.
allowing two teams to agree on a ref is something that's been going on in cascadia ever since reffing came into vogue. It is also common in world cup football and stanley cup and olympic hockey for teams to veto refs, if not actually choose them. It is a very effective method of reducing bullshit arguing on the court because the teams tend to disagree with both a call *and* the ref. Players respect refs that they have chosen and players respect refs that are also players they respect-- being a dick or a newer player on the court doesn't give you much ammo in the ref's chair. paul and chris did a great job reffing at the world's because they are well-respected, knew the players and their tricks inside out, and worked their hardest to keep the games fair.
ultimately i think it is the players that should play the game by the rules, not the refs that should force them to do so-- but that hasn't exactly been borne out by experience in pro sport where the only thing we can count on is that star athletes will cheat and then look up at the cameras like they've just been shot in the back when the ref calls them on it. players need to acknowledge that cheating robs their competition of the game they travelled a long way to play, and that cheating also completely eliminates their competition's motivation to play fairly in return.
why should i show up to play if i know you are just going to cheat to win?
"opting out", as daniel writes, can be a form of "not moving fairness in the reffing game even further backward" if the players believe that a certain ref may actually misinterpret the ruleset and cause more controversy than they intend to solve. i can think of many examples in many places where no ref would have been better than a crap ref. it was really galling to be warned at the world's about completely legit legal mallet-play on the ball while off-ball mallet-to-forearm whacks went un-called by some yokel from a place where shuffles may still count.
the number of bad calls at the top-flight tourneys i attended this year was staggering, though i agree it is a tough to get right-- it's just that it's not as impossible as everyone makes it out to be. every sport has managed to get there, it just takes time and effort. we are actually a very simple sport, with simple rules.
if by reffing we are looking for the fairest adjudication possible in a match, then for sure many refs over-influence the game more than they should, just like at the NAs this year. While "opting out" is a temporary solution (until we can get some more agreement from players on rulesets, reffing training and guidleines), activist refs remain detrimental to the game to the extent that it should be addressed, perhaps in the manner that danielNOLA suggests. referees if necessary, but not necessarily refereeing.
watching players actively ignore the ref during the game (drumplestiltskin!) like they have some kind of license to be a dick the rest of us don't have is the worst. this isn't the same as "opting out", which i believe should be done (if at all) before a game begins.
"opting out" does not mean being against reffing, it just means being against crap reffing, which i'm pretty sure everyone is against. unless i missed that thread.
[the finals in east van this weekend had no ref, did not require a ref, and would not have required one as the players would have worked it out. this can't happen everywhere all the time but players should know that it is possible in certain parts of the poloverse. in cascadia players know that cheating isn't going to help them win and that any examples caught on film will probably be slo-mo'ed on youtube for universal heckling on their birthday. At other tournaments in other places the players aren't going to know each other as well or play under the same traditions or even speak the same language-- so reffing and rules and standardisation is of course going to become one of the most important pillars in the game that needs to addressed as soon as possible.]
I don't recall ever saying I'm against an opt-out as an option for 2 consenting teams. I just think that you'd be doing the community at large a better service by allowing the ref to call the game, and pausing and having a short discussion with both teams and the ref when there is any call that there is disagreement about. I think if the refs were okay with reversing calls based on calm discussion with everybody involved, that the referees and therefore bike polo tournaments as a whole stand to gain much more value.
Shitty calls can be easy to make, but if you take 15 seconds to talk about it afterwards and both teams are not fucking assholes, then it should get worked out just fine and the ref would still get the chance to learn the skills necessary to provide a better game in the future.
after reading this whole thread again and coming up with nothing, i am convinced that:
96% of our problem is the ruleset(s) that lack proper definition,
1% is the refs not knowing what the rules are,
1% is refs not knowing how to make an accurate/unbiased call,
1% that players don't understand the rules and,
1% of our issue is ambiguously-worded rants that have been rendered meaningless by intra-paragraph/comment conflict.
is it more important for a ref to call a game and make rookie mistakes or for the players to just play the game?
it doesn't sound like there's a lot of difference.
i'm changing my sig to "referees if necessary, but not necessarily refereering."
Communication is key. Ask my therapist.
Pickup is my therapist. I think that lobp posts is Daniel's. ( he probably can't be this direct and keep his job ... heh )
Alright - I've read most of this thread but I've only had a few hours with it so forgive me if I repeat some of what I think are good ideas.
Opting out of having a ref by mutual consent by both teams ( teams nominate a captain?) seems like a good option. It's both teams saying that they trust each other to call their own bullshit through the competition.
Individual players ignoring a ref is self serving bullshit duchebagery. However, there's the possibilty of ignorance not malice too. All the whistles in Madison sounded the same so I'm sure many ignored whistles happened because players are in GET BALL mode and there were irrelevant whistles happening all over the place. Lucky's shitty weekend proves that something is broken in the ref support structure, though.
First, I think the style that Ben Chicago described is ideal. Minimalist and knowledgeable ref is there ... to close the sewer line if the player shit rate gets too high. (As an aside - maybe refs could report to the bracket keeper whether a game included a lot of shit play or not) Ties go to no shit.
But here's another way to opt out - with a referee being there but not necesarily refereeing. Let the team that benefits from a call decline the penalty. It's simple. It saves Lucky from having to deal with two Hunter opinions about something the players should have figured the fuck out. Generally saves refs from having to stand by an accidental bad call.
And an anecdote for an example. We (desparetely seeking susan) had Sam for a ref on our first Sunday game against the Beaver Boys. He was very clear at the beginning that he was looking for clean play. But, he actually called a goal I scored out because Kremin had bumped my shoulder on the way there. It was easy to shrug off because we knew the caliber of the team we were playing. But it would have been fun to have two points instead of one against them. From what I heard on the court there, all players on both teams would have asked for the call to be over ruled. And Sam would have been saved from that feeling thing that surely made the day less fun for him.
On that note, I want to thank Sam. He called my bullshit out verbally and loudly when I scooped Max's (Denver) dropped mallet across the court when he had dropped it. It was a dick move on my part in a tournament context. (Fun for pickup though!) Sam was right. And I apologize again.
I'm glad this stuff is getting hashed out, and props to Lucky, Miguel, and everyone for speaking candidly here about real shit.
marco!
Devin
x2
mallet hacking aka slashing should ONLY be called if there is damage. If your mallet get hit hard but no damage, play on.
Doug D
Brooklyn, New York
hardcourtbikepolo+gmail+com
hardcourtbikepolo.com