Machine Politics vs Beaver Boys, May 2011. Photo by Bruce Carver
why is ball-jointing banned (offensive half of court) at most tournaments now but side-jointing is still legal?
jason did you hear me yelling at some of the newer players in austin, BJS ARE FOR HOOKERS?
on a side note, i'm gonna take a dave chappelle joke and apply it to this thread
"why did the hooker get a vagina put into her hip....so she could make money on the side"
Side-BJS ARE (still) FOR HOOKERS!
Side jointing is effin' ridiculous, and should be shunned because like you said it's boooooring. To each their own. Let those who try and be 'creative' and 'innovative' with their horrible methods get left in the dust. Don't get me wrong, executing new methods is what this sport feeds off, but we don't need go-go-gadget mallets.
I played normal, then, open side cut mallets then normal one, and the difference is not so big.
Playing with or without this isn't an issue at all...
But the fact of using the side-opening for what i understand as a ball joint ( push with an open side of the mallet on the ball), should be, and is banned, of tournaments. For me that's not only the fact of the ball touching an open side of the mallet during the handling.
But the fact of using the side-opening for what i understand as a ball joint ( push with an open side of the mallet on the ball), should be, and is banned, of tournaments.
Why are they made? Maybe the folks that make them can answer.
I was making them before cause:
- Efficient way to make the mallet lighter
- Possibility to make scoop pass by the side
- better control during some moves.
But in fact i now use normal mallet cause:
-I use lighter plastic, so no need to drille any hole to have a lighter mallet.
-The plastic I use now is thinner, so scoop by the original hole are easier.
-The control that you gain in some move (turning left as you said before), you loose it for other like making good controling to receipt pass and shots.
So for me that's just a question of kind of mallet, and this kind isn't a secret weapon we should ban. During WHBPC some of the best european teams use them ( EL Club, Toros, Polosythese) and it wasn't an issue at all. The best of them don't use it and get to final. And in the world top 3 no one use them.
This has already been declared the EJ (euro joint) in my eyes its weak. in worlds every one was called for the ball joint rule but i saw countless teams coast to coast EJ and then shoot with out a pass and it was never called. treat EJ and BJ the same
The grey area with the side joint is between cradling the ball and dragging it. It was discussed pretty thoroughly at the refs meeting prior to Worlds
The rule written to cover ball jointing is defined as follows:
4.4 – Ball-joint: Not to be confused with a scoop pass, toss or other ball handling. The ball-joint is defined as pinning the ball between an open end of the mallet head and the playing surface and then dragging
The line between dragging and cradling is much more unclear with side jointing. Unless you could clearly see the "pinning" and "dragging" it was not considered a ball joint.
A limit to the size of cut outs would probably make it easier to call, but it seems refs have a hard time with ensuring folks have plugged bars and mallets, so I don't know how effective a rule like this would be in reality.
Just to clear it up I agree "EJ's" are boring. I play with a "regular" mallet.
X2 ITs the same shit just a different pile.
Easy. No holes bigger than 2 inches in diameter. This makes the Euro joint as difficult as a BJ. These huge holes on the side make it too easy to engage and difficult to defend because a mallet tap does not disengage it. If this was a rule it would be super easy to enforce.
the side joint mallet is a bad idea because it was born out of seeking a shortcut to better ball handling and prevents a newer player from learning basic dribbling. Ball jointing and scooping is different because it was an innovative way to move the ball using equipment we had already been using for years. if mallet heads are ever standardized (and I think they should be... rory, your foot long that you brought to worlds last year comes to mind) euro teams that use these mallets will have some difficulty moving the ball. I like tinkering with my mallets too, to an extent and moslty with materials and hardware, but I find it really remarkable the ridiculous mallet designs people come up with when mallet design is probably one of the least important parts of the game.
There is already much discussion on "side jointing" on this site...
We had issues with it at the Australian nationals in 2009.
Then saw it all over Berlin courts.
I agree with Kremin.
"sj" (can't call it EJ, too continentalist) and bj treated the same.
The mallets used at the 2009 Nationals were a completely different issue. The cut outs on those were larger than the ball and the ball could become lodged within the mallet head.
The "euro" mallet heads are not the same. We have no problems with people using the 3p (or similar) mallet heads in Sydney.
Virginia said: >The mallets used at the 2009 Nationals were a completely different issue
There was pinning the ball to the ground, which is functionally the same as the BJ.
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/gear/2009/12/02/mallet-heads-that-trap...
Even though it should be noted that both designs started out as weight reduction measures, it wasnt till later that they realised you could joint with them.
Polojoes said:>As far as I'm concerned a ball drag is a ball drag. If you drag then you have to pass, no drag-shoot goals. Simple enough to me. Ball joint = side joint.
I agree entirely.
As for calling it the Euro Joint... too late!
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/gear/2009/12/02/mallet-heads-that-trap...
I say we should allow innovation in mallet design and construction. "Boring" and "lame" make poor rationale for proposing a restriction. Can someone name a player or team who is using this advantage to dominate? No, it's not happening as many point out.
Rory's 2" restriction sounds fair and easy, except for the fact that not all side cuts are round. And who carries a ruler to a polo tourney? The bit about "if the opposition objects" is not fair at all. Not fair to let a team enter, play and win only to reach a point where they have to go build new mallets to play the next game. Arbitrary rule enforcement.
As far as I'm concerned a ball drag is a ball drag. If you drag then you have to pass, no drag-shoot goals. Simple enough to me. Ball joint = side joint. Smoke a joint and get over it.
x2.
Good players are good with or whitout this kind of mallets. weak players are weak, give them this kind of mallets, they stay weak.
The Side-joint is a Ball joint, and its pretty easy to enforce when you ref' a game. You can clearly see when the player drive de ball normally and when he drive it BJ mood, press on it to trap the ball.
One more time, this kind of mallet have advantages and disadvantags who make them pretty equal to other kind of mallets.
No holes bigger than 2 inches in diameter in any direction includes oval or square holes. As for if the opposition objects. If a player knows in advance it is their fault if they play with "cheater" mallets.
The real question is, during game against players who use this kind of mallet, did you think they were cheating?
No need to put some rules about things that doesn't matter in any way and who could pissed of like 30% of the best european players. The technical ruleset about material is enough hard to enforce to put more rules in it.. (plugged handlebars, no exposed chainrings etc...).
The WHBPC was a good test about this, and I think most of the polo cultural gap issue were about body-body contact, not about using this kind of mallets. The complains about them are more theorical, philosophical than real in game issues.
The bit about "if the opposition objects" is not fair at all. Not fair to let a team enter, play and win only to reach a point where they have to go build new mallets to play the next game. Arbitrary rule enforcement.
It should be in the rules and forget about it being arbitrary.
exactly. arbitrary? the rules decide, not the opposition that asks to enforce them. they have exactly the same rules in the NHL about blade curves and lengths, the opposing coach has to ask for a stick measurement. works perfectly.
if there isn't a perceived advantage to the side-cut then why the hell are people using them? for looks?
who carries a ruler to a polo tournament? jesus joel-y. i love you man but you come up with some horse shit arguments sometimes.
Cause they like them... who cares, if it don't give super power to people. I was using them against your team during whbpc and you beat me twice. I never use SJ and even a side-scoop during the whole game.
People make them for many reason, like light, control of the ball during some phases etc...
I played with them few month ago and then leave them to classical mallet, the gap is absolutely not consequent, not enough to complain about it. Again, which american player get pissed off during WHBPC 2010 because opponent using them? Did some folk here realy think that they loose because the opponent was making some magical trick with the open side cut of his mallet?
Agree. "No holes larger than 2" across on the side of the mallet" is a workable rule. Unnecessary in my opinion, but workable.
While i don't want to see the side joint become a crutch like the Ball join was for some players i do think that it could have a place in the sport. I love the way that rotten apples utilize it. It could exist like scoop or the trick.
I moved away from a side cut mallet because people perceived it to be "cheating"... whatever, all mallets have disadvantages and advantages over each other.
It was the hot topic in Berlin and in my opinion hasn't changed the game in any significant way, people still seem to struggle to give any concrete examples of games/teams/individuals that would "EJ the length of the court", "trap the ball", etc. Whenever the ball was pinned in Berlin (with the business end or side) a ref should have called it, on the last day this was made impeccably clear... the enthusiastic taunting of people who cradled the ball and refs who apparently "missed it" had no grounding and were born out of court side banter.
Other reasons for banning side-cuts are apparently because it makes the game too easy and teaches new players bad habits. Again, whatever, go back to road gears and fixed drivetrain if you're that concerned.
What we need are better refs (and more people who actually read and engage with the rules/sport), mallets that are safe to use and less restrictions on innovation within such a new sport.
Rory: I hope you're using caps if you plan on banning mallet holes bigger than 2"?
I agree with you on the rules and the reffing.
Rory chose 2" because it is the exact diameter of the vast majority of mallet piping.
Ok, well two inches means all PVC and HDPE (63mm outer diameter) uncapped heads would be banned, this is some kind of evil master plan isn't it?
You missed the word 'bigger'.
Inner diameter is that matters.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, 2" = 50.8 mm and unless you guys have some super thick-walled mallet piping going on, you'll struggle to find 63mm utility pipe with an inner diameter of less than 53mm (HDPE walls are 3.6mm thick with an inner diameter, or "hole", of 55.8mm).
Also, banning drilled holes won't stop people heat-forming their mallets into whatever shape they like (crappy eight inch style dents for example), I'd also love to see the courtside math whizzes debating which mallet styles were banned or not pre-game.
be as pedantic as you feel the need to be, you've undoubtedly found the right place.
i was not aware that there was piping being used out there larger than 2" inner diameter. we may have had a rule in NA about max mallet diameters from a couple years ago but i might be making that up. something in the chicago 2008 NACCCs ruleset?
make the max sidecut hole be 55.8 mm then, who cares, so long as it is the same as the max allowable piping inside diameter, which was the whole point of the original 2" measurement rory suggested.
they could heat their mallets into whatever shape they want, that's not the issue. so long as it didn't have a hole or trapping method bigger than the max allowable piping diameter on it.
i was not aware that there was piping being used out there larger than 2" inner diameter.
Didn't the Hunters and Dillman have some 2.25" stuff in MPLS? The white pipe. I remember one of the Hunters swung with the open end and got the ball stuck in the head. That's probably too big.
>I remember one of the Hunters swung with the open end and got the ball stuck in the head.
And how much of an unfair advantage is that?
Im waiting the day when ref gonna take 15 minutes in the beggining of every game for controling between 1 and 6 holes on maybe 2 or 3 mallets per players...
they could heat their mallets into whatever shape they want, that's not the issue. so long as it didn't have a hole or trapping method bigger than the max allowable piping diameter on it.
I think it is the issue, rules and standards should be succinct and have a sound argument for their existence.
Rule 7.6.5.8b part two: As long as your mallet doesn't have a hole or trapping method bigger than the max allowable piping diameter in the side then you're good to go.
Not convinced. Either standardise all mallets and kill innovation or leave everyone to their own devices and let the podium lead the way.
another fine example of false dichotomy aunt sally, i feel like i'm back in my logic 101 class with that cute francophone prof-- good times.
is there no middle ground for you on this jono-man? or is everything black and white, all or nothing?
c'est dommage.
i agree with the second part of your first sentence-- are you able to write a set of allowable mallet head criteria that fits into succinct and sound?
or do you think we should have no restrictions on mallet heads whatsoever?...
...because in that case i'm ordering my hand mallet tomorrow, i hear eighth inch is coming out with a whole new line in next fall's colours.
i'm glad that we are placing innovation in mallet design over innovation with the ball on your mallet. it seems so... logical.
how do all of these other sports out there figure this equipment rules shit out? so hard, they must be einsteins or something. or just really really lucky.
too bad we can't look to them for guidance, that might offend our DIY ethic and make us look conformist and not smart enough to re-invent the wheel.
Rules are part of the game.
The NAH should form a committee to study NASCAR rule development and implementation. Let's quit calling each other lame boring cheaters. I'd rather be called a crafty bad poster cheater. Next thing you know, sober polo !
Next thing you know, sober polo !
At least people wouldn't need side cut-outs to handle a ball if they were sober.
i guarantee you that nascar knows orders of magnitude more about rule development and implementation than we do, and that 99% of it is directly applicable to bike polo. in our wildest dreams we would have a system as well-developed as theirs, or any other pro sport's.
as polo develops i become less attached to the rules per se and more concerned with our process of making them. it seems that the ad hoc nature, absence of vision, and lack of clarity inherent in them contributes way more confusion to the game than poor reffing or cheating does.
in my opinion, the grey areas in the polo ruleset invite people to cheat, and serve to mis-educate the refs.
good, clear rules don't chain polo down, they set it free.
ps, i am still all for calling people lame and boring cheaters.
pps, you are anything but a boring poster joel-y!
hahaha...is there a sport that doesn't regulate equipment? baseball bats, hockey sticks, wide receivers' "sticky" gloves, etc...anything taking away from developing the ballhandling/ballstriking aspect of the game...ej is like travelling/carrying in basketball...should be immediate turnover and give up offensive half...
NAH should establish mallet standards for sanctioned tourneys...play with your innovative mallet for pickup and small potatoes but not on the tour!
Whatever Jason. You say this is a problem in Florida. Deal with it in Florida. Everyone playing this game seriously builds their own mallet and does a something a little special. All mallets are innovative.
...
I've yet to actually see this anywhere, and I've played with/against most everyone in florida/the Southeast. I think this is more of a European/Australian/Internet issue.
i never said this was a problem in florida...this is a problem at tournaments where its inspiring newer players to imitate the jointing/cheating instead of learning ball control.
i view these so called "innovations" about the same way i would view "training wheels" as a polo innovation...avoids turnovers is equal to avoids dabs, no?
your right, why do i practice at all? i'm going to build one of these hand mallets, do you use your own hand? oh i can put a electric motor on my bike too, i get tired of pedalling, and if i don't have to stick handle then why should i have to pedal? in fact i bet i could build a swing arm to use the mallet and remote servos to operate the bike (with the help of a few gyroscopes) and i could operate the Robo-Polo bike from my home. i could mount a machine gun on the Robo-BIke that way if i'm losing i can just unload a case of rounds into the team beating me, then i'd win every time.
i was working on my business plan tonight, here is what i've got.
step one. build Robo-Polo bike
step two. not sure
step three. profit.
sounds bombproof right? i think the maximum amount of armament is also key, maybe move up to something like a computer controlled 30mm chain cannon, a grenade launcher, a sword arm, as many lasers as we can fit on it, and possibly a soft serve ice cream dispenser. who wouldn't buy this polo playing beast?
OCP will solve all our problems :P
tokyo dosen't accept SJ mallets.
that's awesome...it will make your eventual ballhandling that much better...shortcuts are tempting but they are counterproductive to the evolution of the sport as a whole.
looks like tokyo has most entertaining polo. sidejoint=boring.
personally, i'm waiting for someone to make a mallet with a hole in it bigger than the ball so we can all just waltz around the court with the ball inside the pocket-- it would save us from getting our new jerseys so sweaty chasing it around all the time. that would be way easier than playing all that boring pick-up learning how to stick handle. after all, we want this game to be as easy as possible for people to learn: the easier a game is the better it looks on TV.
and when will someone just make a hand on the end of the mallet so i can grab the ball and throw it in the goal? fuck all this practicing bullshit-- scoring is just too hard when the other team is really good. we have to help the players out. let's get that ball into the back of the net as quickly as possible so we can all drink more.
give the people what they want-- an easier game that is not so scary to learn, takes less time to master, and is easier to score in. fixie riders everywhere will eat that shit up, i've been reading in their magasines!
hopefully these new mallets come in colours that match my wheel covers and handlebar tape. i'd love a hand mallet that i could put big rings on and shit, that'd be dope.
[snap]
Imagine the best team possible using side-cut mallets, then imagine the team that beats them with better plays, better passes and a more consistent team game.
Stop putting some "cheater" something or another on a pedestal that represents everything you currently hate about the game and actively push the sport in a different direction.
Haters gonna hate, winners gonna win, etc.
i'm guessing yours was supposed to be a general post and not a response to my [snap].
... that is unless you're fluent in [snap]:
i don't think it takes any imagination at all.
i was trying to push the sport forward in another direction.. but ended up finding it was easier just to trap or ball joint it.
i couldn't agree more with your last statement.
thx piet, that was funneee!
Hey now Pieter. You know the NHL has been going a bit loopy in the last few years, trying to make the game more offensive and increase the scoring to make it more exciting to spectators.
Are you trying to imply that you believe that humble little bike polo is above the nhl? Surely we should learn from their lead and try to make the most spectator friendly sport possible.
gary bettman can kiss my ass.
in that way humble little bike polo got them big leagues beat...
...we got commish shultzy running our anti-doping campaign.
(but seriously, hockey in the NHL is waaay better in the post-lockout era. except for ovechkin. and luongor. they did it by eliminating all of the hooking and grabbing that was slowing down the scoring superstars, through limiting the growth in goalie equipment, and by introducing a salary cap that promoted parity among the teams.)
This evening I was enjoying some crisp and creative passes from the various side cuts of SF. Scoops and flips, some use the end and some use the side. The polo here is far from lame or boring.
My side cut is oval maybe more than 2" but very difficult to drag. I never drag the ball, never bothered to learn it. I typically scoop from the heel of my janky mallet.
joel: seriously it's as if all you do is come on here to work folly. i hate to agree with piet, but it is the case that no matter how great you may be in real life, your internet posts suck undeniably and absolutely.
eurojointing has nothing to do with pressing the ball against the court, aka dragging, and everything to do with CHEATING!!!!!
didn't you see the way El Club beat Das Odds with all their leftward-turning, imperialistic-jointing????
che cazzo fai?!?!?!?!?!?
Perhaps you should start a thread to ban me from bike polo.
didn't you see the way El Club beat Das Odds with all their leftward-turning, imperialistic-jointing????
I agree with BJ...they don't do it anyway, just scoop passes.
But?? Whats going to be the next rule:
3.2- Players can only turn to their right.
NO AMBITURNERS!
hey guys, i heard of a french player who wasn´t allowed to play with our 3p mallet head with those cuts on the side on the london bff.
maybe we can talk about those cuts another time. i really do think these cuts are only good for getting the head much more light. and not for trapping the ball. if these heads are forbidden in future, i would like to make heads with a different design, but for the same low price. i´m a polo-player as well and i know about the problems of getting good stuff for low price. that´s why i decided to make these heads, which are really low price i think. but why don´t we develop a head, which is accepted international? just post some ideas...would love to hear your meanings. thank you, daniel
just use a 2" hole saw and nobody will complain. done and done.
seriously this is fucking a simple rule. all you need is a fucking ruler, fuck the refs. all you need to do is say "no holes bigger than 2" and call people out who have cheater mallets ('innovative' mallets if your joel).
some people who play are nurses aids or bakers or graphic designers or stat masters, or engineers maybe. i think a ruler is within our capabilities...
Get some mad skilz Practice hard No holes in mallet heads. cheat no more.
Well lets get it decided and get it to Justin to add that to the rules right away. So that the NA's Tour in 2011 everyone can have people who are understanding of the rules as refs so all the tourneys are consistent.
And yes Daniel I know "easier said then done", It does take time but it will happen.
I'm just going to chime in one more time on this, then I'm out.
The initial "diagnosed" problem with side-cut mallets was that they enabled players to "side joint" the ball, this has now been ruled out of competitive/serious play by stating that a side-joint is the same as a conventional ball joint, thereby discouraging this kind of play by stating that the player can only do it in their half, or they have to pass the ball to another player, etc. This is because ball joints are not in the spirit of the sport and don't encourage passing, etc, correct?
The new problem with side joints now seems to be that they make the game "too easy", this is what I'm having a problem with. Basically you're stating that an inventive way to make your mallet lighter and more responsive is not allowed because the majority/non-believers have decided it's lame, or "cheating". I just don't understand this one bit, why (using the same line of thought) are capped mallets not banned because they make shooting easier, are why (conversely) are capped mallets not enforced because otherwise players can do 180s and crazy lobs to each other? This is the joy of the variety within polo.
It seems to me that some subjective discussion between the various polo scenes, some following of "hip" new viewpoints, and some irrational fears of side-cut mallet users has landed us here. This is despite the fact that people have failed to verbalise their subjective problems with said mallet heads and absolutely refuse to try such a mallet head out for themselves?!
Another way of looking at the situation is that each scene (and tournament organiser) needs to be aware of how their actions/decisions affect others... For example, I could (as a tournament organiser) decide that the lowest (or highest) gear ratio should be X and Y, this would then ensure that I could pre-define whether I wanted to see fast breaks or long passes within my tournament, or perhaps I'd just like to see a more "old school" game because me and my mates like it that way, I'm sure this would be fun for everyone, right? I mean you only have to change your setup and get used to what I have now defined as the "norm"?!
Also, say that one day a guy comes along and has mastered using an internally geared hub and grip-shift lever on the left hand side to both accelerate quickly and out-pace all other players on the court, this makes for an impressive spectacle, but should we (as the existing majority body) ban his setup and state that it simply doesn't agree with our pre-defined "tradition" or existing "sense" of what is wrong and right within polo. We do this not because there is a safety concern, or because there is good reason to set a standard within such a new sport, we do this because it's different and we simply don't agree with it.
If someone was to state a real belief in the "it's hard for refs to call a side-joint" argument (often touted by non-refs, I reffed in Berlin and didn't find it a problem). Or if someone was to come forward with a genuine safety concern for the increasing number of cuts that are appearing on mallet heads and how they are causing injury to others, then I'd be cool with that, I'd back that kind of decision.
What we actually have is a group of people who have decided that now is the moment to draw a line in the sand, to pull the ladder up behind them and state "nope, this is our standard, use that" without a real argument why. Polo is a completely different game to a year ago and the year before that, are you saying the sport has now reached it's climax, we're currently able to make these important subjective decision? The side-jointing thing I bought, we changed the ruling, now what's the problem?
Before everyone chimes in with more robot and "netted" mallet discussion, please bear in mind that you're being farciful and I'm actually asking for an objective reason to ban this kind of mallet head. This request comes from a non-side-cut mallet user, someone who reffed in Berlin and someone who is frustrated at work and longs to play polo, hence the length of this post. Cheers.
It is not just the side joint. It is the ability to dibble the ball around corners without actually controlling the ball. The mallet head does the work not the player. That is the issue. If a player has an advantage not based on skill but rather equipment there is problem.
Thus these mallets being called cheater mallets.
So why start with mallets? Why not standardise brakes as disc brakes are an advantage over rim brakes, why the random choice?
Also, "cheater" mallets have many disadvantages as well as potential advantages, I'd argue that any team playing a fast-paced game would struggle to use them at all..?
Why have one approach for "cheater" mallets and another approach for an "equipment-based-skill" such as a "shooting" capped mallet, or drilled out "light" mallet or a carved end "scooping" mallet. Why are these not "cheater" mallets?
Genuinely interested.
It is because a hole in the side grants not just an advantage, but an unfair one. If you are right handed, making a left turn and the ball is in the hole in the side of your mallet, you don't have to pay any god damn attention to it. It will just stay there and you don't have to have SKILL to perform the procedure. If the hole is not there, you must focus on keeping the ball in your control while you try to maneuver around the turn.
A capped mallet makes skill perform better. It makes a good shot be where it's supposed to be, but it doesn't create the ability to shoot without effort or skill.
You give a completely new player a capped mallet and he still won't be able to score very well, because he has no skill. You give the same player a side drilled mallet, and he will be able to carry the ball in the manner described above, because it really is an unfair advantage.
Progression in skill is most important. A side-jointing mallet, even without side-jointing, grants it possible to perform boring, skill-less maneuvers.
For me the idea of be able to lift up the head when turning isn't so bad...
But yes, this mallets make it easier...
I think you, among others, overestimate the advantages of such a mallet. And that's the only issue that really matters. It's not about whether or not there is an advantage because there probably is a small one. The issue is if this advantage is bigger than advantages given from other equipment that we think is kosher, such as doublers, caps, polo specific bikes, &c.
If you give a new player a sidejoint mallet, he probably still won't be able to dribble the ball while turning. And even if he can, does being able to turn with the ball make you into a stellar player? Of course not. It's not as if people make one of these mallets then start weaving seamlessly through other teams. I'd say that the only people getting an advantage from such a hole in a mallet head already have sufficiently advanced skills at the game.
If a player has an advantage not based on skill but rather equipment there is problem.
This sport involves equipment. Equipment creates advantages. Thus, this sport has problems and always will have problems. We have some safety rules about equipment (chain rings, bar ends) but this is the first time anyone has whined about equipment as unfair advantage.
A rule about the size, form, location of the hole is pointless. This weekend we had a simple ball drag rule: drag in offensive zone means pass. Drag = pass. In the offensive zone you can not drag and then shoot. Drag, pass. Two words, no ruler or inspection committee req'd. It worked well.
Never play polo in frisco, but in any tournament i did in europe, it was people with this kind of stuff, and i never eard any complain before the thread on lobp about "mallet that trap the ball".
Again it is not just the side joint I'm concerned about. It is dribbling using the side cuts to have an advantage in carrying the ball. If you don't need to keep your eye on the ball while turning a tight corner while dribbling the ball this is a huge advantage. Not to mention flip passes and joints.
As for caps Jonno it doesn't appear people have a problem with caps or we would be having that debate.
Yeah, you're right, I guess the mob rules which I can deal with... I just don't see the logic? If everyone thought there were only advantages to this new style of mallet, why not use it? Or (the flipside), why ban it if it has both advantages and disadvantages - like all mallets (my opinion).
Right, officially out, thanks for the mini resurrect...
It is dribbling using the side cuts to have an advantage in carrying the ball. If you don't need to keep your eye on the ball while turning a tight corner while dribbling the ball this is a huge advantage.
But having that ability alone will not make you a better player overnight! And new players will really still have trouble turning and carrying the ball even if they have such a mallet. Bike control is the hardest part to learn, not mallet control.
As for caps Jonno it doesn't appear people have a problem with caps or we would be having that debate.
He raised it because if the advantage granted from caps is similar to the advantage from sidejoint mallets, then it would be inconsistent to want to ban one but not the other. And since people obviously don't want to ban caps, they shouldn't want to ban sidejoint cuts either.
The mallet head does the work not the player.
Really? The mallet does the work? No input is necessary from the player? Come on!
I'm sorry you had to practice to deal with a situation that could be easily solved with more specialized equipment and now newbies do on their second day what took you weeks to refine.
The side cut mallets do not hinder the game in any way. If anything, it makes it more accessible to newbies and more creative to the skillful player. i.e. a step forward. If you see an advantage using them, then why don't you?
Almost every organized sport has limitations on equipment. But that doesn't mean that it has to be as primitive as possible.... specially for a sport that is not even 12 years old yet and still uses plumbing supplies as standard equipment...
If a player has an advantage not based on skill but rather equipment there is problem.
Would you say people riding Fleet Velo Jousts get an advantage over people riding non-polo specific bikes? If you think the answer is yes, then you think we should ban Jousts. You'd have a hard time saying that they don't get at least a small advantage. The issue isn't whether or not equipment advantages are okay, it's how much of an advantage you need to get in order for a piece of equipment to be deemed illegal. I think you'd have a hard time again convincing me that people get a bigger advantage from a hole in the side of their mallet than they do from riding a top notch polo specific bike. But if that's the case, then you can't want to ban sidejoint mallets and not want to ban Jousts.
What about capped mallets? Do you think the player gets an advantage when it comes to shooting that they wouldn't have without the cap? Probably. But is it enough to warrant banning caps? Probably not. This is a similar situation as far as I'm concerned. The advantage isn't big enough to warrant banning sidejoint mallets.
Just keep the same as rule 4.4. You can keep the the mallet heads and do it in your half thats fine with me, but after half release it because like Rory said it takes no skill to drag the ball right up to the net. That is also the reason why people started slashing the shit out of peoples mallets..... and now rules have been made to prevent that. So that people are not getting their mallets trashed of course. If it is going to be in the rules and it is such a big ordeal maybe we should have a vote on it to see if BJ and SJing (something)should be kept as rule 4.4 or SJing should be allowed? Or keep this thread running into a long repetitive waste of time!!!
Less talk more doing!
It looks to be one person against many ?
To be fair, most of us haven't used the side-cut mallets or played against people using them so we don't have much of an opinion on them—the arguments for banning make me want to try one out.
Ha!
It's a good question i think. Does people who complains about open mallet had play against them one time? and if they had, did they feel the game unfair.
I've be beaten by people using this, and i beat people using this, i don't think it was the point about loosing or winning.
(for example, if they turn with the head up for look, without thinking of the drive, they can easily make worst control after a pass...)
By the way, i don't think that a vote here could resolve the matter. The time gonna make it. If tourney become more and more exclusive with this kind of stuff, it gonna become a standar to ban these. If people don't care, no need to rule against, and it gonna fallow the actual trend (minimal rules about mallets). Personnally, i don't care either.
i have a question. And to begin i hate these cheater mallets.
But i played lacrosse once. And now I can scoop the ball with a cheater mallet, and cradle it more or less like a lacrosse ball, at eye level or higher.
At no point does this involve dragging the ball (see BJ)
So. I can carry this to the net and shoot? There's no rules against it.
And if this is too ridiculous (it should be), where is the line between controlling the ball in the cup on a left turn, a fake scoop pass (acting like your scooping but then turning the head back on the ball and dribbling on the ground again), and just fucking lacrosse bullshit.
Now tell me whether this abstract rule is easier to enforce than banning all holes bigger than 2".
If not, just go play lacrosse on bikes, and leave hardcourt for the rest of us.
Egg and spoon has been as contentious as side jointing, longer in fact (I've been egg and spooning since last winter), it has been ruled out of all Euro tourneys by stating you need to keep your mallet below your bars, or by an outright ban, or by stating it has to lead to a pass.
Again, I'd like to remind everyone that they have larger than 2" holes in any mallet that is uncapped... I'd like Morgan or Nick to chime in, they were the voice of reason/experience in Berlin.
i'm pretty sure in north america barely anyone is using larger than 2" piping.
correct me if i'm wrong anyone, and if so, how big?
(you said you were officially out! cheater post!)
Sup Beaver Boys with the fucking giant heads.
i use the classic "madison red"; no caps, no offset, no angles ('cept 90)... very little has changed over the years and that is the i used to win worlds. But like i said before, the mallet is probably the least important piece of equipment that will contribute to the success of an individual/ team.
Beaver Boys would slay if we were using toilet paper tubes for heads because we play cohesively as a team. that is why this whole thread is largely stupid, because WHO GIVES A SHIT? Having a big hole in the side of your mallet isn't going to propel you and your team to the 98th percentile of the poloverse. I agree with the argument that they are "weak' but mostly because i disagree with the spirit of the them... I don't care if people use them, it is the same as the bj and Beaver Boys or any other top team can defend an sj or anything else the same way: through superior positioning
games should be fun! ...a game where everyone is just using the bj/sj/ej is as boring to watch as it is to play, no? I agree that team play destroys gimmicky play...but who enjoys a half of the game becoming chase the ball...it's like the swarm in little league soccer...isn't that why the bj is frowned upon? otherwise why is the bj treated differently?
My coach called that "bunch ball" and that is what people do if they have no experience or little understanding of how a team sport works and you're right, it's no fun to play on a team with people who don't know the basics.
I think games are the most fun when the teams are evenly matched. When this happens it doesn't really matter how a player decides to move the ball.
Also, all the moves mentioned in this thread (except sj) are being done in nearly every "slayer game" of pickup in MKE weekly. This is top level polo played weekly and is the perfect time to try different things and figure out what works or when to use a certain move. That is what pick-up is for. I think some moves might be regulated, but i don;t think you can completely ban moves that someone came up with using a regular old mallet and ball. You gotta keep up with the Joneses.
x2
World champs have talked, thread closed!
x2
X3
Team play wins every time.
Newsflash: people can do all the stuff you're talking about with normal mallets. That means that banning 'cheater' mallets wouldn't stop people from doing that so you've lost your justification for banning that kind of mallet. So what's the other option? Ban those specific plays. Making cradling illegal, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you.
But it is easier with a bigger hole.
to think this is the same with a 2" hole or a huge cradle cut into the side of the mallet is ridiculous- It's the same physics that makes it easier to handle the ball on court with cheater mallets, which i think everyone agrees on now.
and it's not necessarily the fucking lacrosse type shit that's contentious - everyone knows it's bullshit. But even using the cradle to play the ball on the ground uses the same physics as the lacrosse bullshit; it's the way the cradle interacts with the ball that is cheater/boring/whatever. We could ban lacrosse type shit, or we could ban stupid mallets that both have an unfair advantage AND make the game significantly more boring to both play and watch, regardless of how the player exploits the advantage.
It's like instead of banning scoop shots outright you want to allow them within their vertical trajectory, but ban them once they start dropping again (another lame and boring rule).
Don't think it make the game more boring to watch at all. And playing against or with this "stupid" thing don't make the game more boring. Also nobody here have prove that teams or players who use them make the game enough unfair to ban this. The only example who people gave one time is the game against El club during the whbpc... Because all the other teams who use them get eliminated by team using classical mallets.
And both, 1st and second of the wolrd use piece of shit, destroyed mallets, and win.
So if you find this mallets cheat, just beat people who use them, you can considere yourserlf as twice stronger...
1. It's not an unfair advantage if EVERYONE CAN DO IT.
2. The mallets don't make the game boring to play/watch at all, your bias is showing.
1 You're right, everyone could cheat. and we could end up playing bike lacrosse.
2.To think that anyone has no bias is absurd. Is the problem that i have one or that I don't cover it up? But maybe we shouldn't talk about the illegitimacy of objective thought here.
3. The main fucking point is that there is a huge gray area between ball dragging with cheater mallets, cradling/ handling with cheater mallets, and lacrosse bullshit with cheater mallets. This is the point you failed to acknowledge. Where is the line between a drag and a cradle? A pinning of the ball? So we're talking about an angle between the mallet and the ground? What's a good angle? 45 degrees sound good? Get your protractors out refs!
likewise- where is the difference between the 270 scoop passes and just lacrosse cradling? A fraction of time perhaps: "quick tricks" versus "traveling"? How many fractions of a second? .75 seconds sound good? so should the refs have a millisecond 'trick watch' handy?
Or we could just save ourselves the sanity (and the sport really) and say no hole dimensions larger than 2" or whatever the tube sharks say is "normal diameter".
We already know worlds had a huge problem calling sidejoints as BJs- and this is what I'm talking about.
No no no, the main fucking point is that, like I said before, you can do all of the stuff you're talking about with a normal plain old mallet. If you don't believe me, I'll make a video and put it on the intertubes for you. So any point that you want to make about side cuts can also apply to uncapped mallets. So that means you want to ban uncapped mallets, right? That's great, we can not only get rid of balljointing all together, but we can also get rid of all of those people who don't want to take the time/effort to cap their mallets! GENIUS!
speaking of points made before...
"to think this is the same with a 2" hole or a huge cradle cut into the side of the mallet is ridiculous- It's the same physics that makes it easier to handle the ball on court with cheater mallets, which i think everyone agrees on now."
If you think this lacrosse shit is just as easy with regular mallets, then you must also suppose that cradling/ball handling is just as easy regardless of mallet shape... point being the same physics apply whether the cheater mallet is in the air or cradling on the ground.
I'm fairly certain you're smart enough to not assert this point, but I'll let you speak for yourself.
I'd like to point out to you that while cheater mallet users will cradle (not exactly ball joint) the ball around, this technique has never been implemented to this extent with a normal BJ end.
I never said it was "just as easy", I said it can be done with a regular mallet. So if your problem is with cradling, then you should ban cradling because banning sidecut mallets isn't going to stop people from doing it (if they wanted to). Furthermore, claiming that you can cradle with a normal mallet in no way implies that ball handling is just as easy regardless of mallet shape. They're totally distinct topics.
"I'd like to point out to you that while cheater mallet users will cradle (not exactly ball joint) the ball around, this technique has never been implemented to this extent with a normal BJ end."
Is there a guy in your club who routinely cradles with a cheater mallet? Have you seen someone here claim that there is someone in their club who routinely cradles with a cheater mallet? Because I'm yet to see any sort of complain. And you say such a technique has 'never been implemented to this extent with a normal BJ end'. Being someone who has cradled several times with a normal mallet, I'm a direct counterexample to your claim.
I still think if you have a problem with a certain style of play, you need to work out how to ban that style of play rather than banning equipment that enables it because there are virtues of having such a mallet that aren't related to cradling. And any impracticality when it comes to expecting refs to be able to make calls concerning these plays isn't really a counter argument because it's really hard for refs to notice lots of things. I wonder how many goals in big games have actually been shuffles that hit off the bottom of the mallet head without anybody noticing...
Again, i have no problem with cradling. I have a problem with the ease of cradling these cheater mallets enable. To be clear: this is enough to enable a back and forth motion which cradles the ball (without it being a BJ), moving fast down court (turning if you wanted to), while not paying the slightest attention to the ball. If you can do this with a mallet with a 2" cut that'd be great. i don't think you can, and if you could you should post a video to the trick video thread, because it's pure magic.
I've seen nobody cradle to this extent with a normal mallet, unless the are dragging (BJ), which everyone calls boring anyway, and already has rules.
Furthermore, regulating the maneuver, as you suggest, would be difficult at best. I don't care if you think this is a moot argument. The fact that a simple rule like "shoot off the business end" is hard to really enforce only furthers my own point. Only a somewhat complicated rule could ban cradles like this, or other maneuvers which cheater mallets easily enable, and if we can't keep track of simple rules, what the fuck are we going to do when the rule says "you can only cradle for .75 seconds at a time before it's considered a joint, in which case you must pass".
No one in our club uses cheater mallets. we play polo.
To say you haven't heard any complaints makes me wonder if you read this thread, it being a series of complaints.
You should have said that you had no problem with cradling earlier! I think it's dangerous and silly because the only way to get the ball from a player doing that is to check them or to swing at their mallet which is already moving somewhat quickly, so you may dent the shaft. I'll post a video of me doing it sometime tonight or tomorrow morning.
I agree that regulating it is difficult at best, but so are many other rules. I don't think you'd need a complicated rule to ban cradling. You could say only one change of direction allowed per scoop before it's labeled a BJ. I would say make it illegal to change direction more than once while carrying the ball on your mallet, but that's my stance. This would make the u-turn pass legal, but cradling illegal. Not too complex, yeah?
I haven't heard complaints about specific people using them and being too good to stop, so the advantage clearly isn't as big as some people thing.
"a back and forth motion which cradles the ball (without it being a BJ), moving fast down court (turning if you wanted to), while not paying the slightest attention to the ball." i wanna see, haha.
cradling is stupid, we agree. it encourages checking and hacks, we agree. The reason i don't have a 'problem' with it is that normal mallets aren't super cradle friendly, and cradling is used only for short periods of time and is pretty difficult to reliably execute. My 'problem' arises when a mallet develops (has developed) that encourages this type of play.
If you can show me how anyone can do this magic shit with a 2" hole, I'll concede. but even the top players miss end joint 180 passes and sky hooks- if they had cheater mallets they wouldn't. The thing that makes sky hooks and turnaround scoop passes cool is it's still hard and a not a 100% move (people fuck it up).
Your rule sounds do-able honestly. And if we have to have cheater mallets I'd be fine with that rule. But I'd still heckle the fuck out of the users and call em out for cradling (because the refs probably won't).
Okay, so make a rule banning it, then the fact that the mallets encourage such a type of play won't matter. It's really just that easy.
hot off the presses, this is what I thought you meant by cradling.
@ x2
easy question: no.
Nobody with open mallet play like that, and if one day it happen, it gonna take 3 seconds to claim this illegal, even if it's not (really) in the ruleset.
Like jono says, carry the ball is same shit as Bj (logic), you can do it for a short move or you need to pass, etc etc etc...
No need to talk about non-real situations.
How the hell do you not see this in the rules!!
This is straight from the NA's rules which most tourneys are using.
4.4 - Ball-joint: Not to be confused with a scoop pass, toss or other ball handling. The ball-joint is defined as pinning the ball between an open end of the mallet head and the playing surface and then dragging it. Ball-jointing will be allowed ONLY in the player's defensive zone. Ball jointing in the offensive zone will result in the ball turnover and concession of half-court.
Defined as pinning the ball with an open end of the mallet. Any hole on the mallet would be considered an opening, when you then secure the ball between that opening and the ground thats ball jointing. I don't know who named it "SJing" when in all actuality it is "BJING" See the similarity, they are both joining with the ball?
So the same rule would, should or does apply. You can ball joint out of your end and thats it. I guess Justin needs to go much deeper with rule 4.4 and draw pictures or something.
Why are we still talking about stupid situations?
It is clear you've never played against or with these mallets. They do not need to pin the ball.
Now I'm confused as to whether you are for or against this type of mallet heads. You seem to acknowledge an advantage on ball handling without the need to ball joint,
What are we really discussing here?
One of my mallets that just broke had a one hole big enough on each side that I could do the cup and pull. The majority of people I have seen do it still pin it a little to keep it in better. Or are you talking about scoop and carrying?
Rory are you talking about the eaghthinch curved blue mallets that the ball kind cradles it a bit or are you just talking about regular 2" piping heads with larger holes on the side so that it cups the ball better or even cut squares out?
We agree all that sj is bj and that's is lame, so that's not the point about this kind of mallet (indeed, a player who don't bj don't gonna make it more with this mallets).
The matter with this mallets is ball handling.
the questions are:
-Is this advantage for ball handling big enough to make a rule? (for me not).
-Why this advantage is different for other kind of advantage that people not complains about? (caps', freewheel or fix, cover wheel, opacity with cover wheel etc...)
For the second question im thinking about hockey sticks: why hockey league don't blame this curved ending, it make the control easier than with a straight one...
(one more thing, for me the better player i ever seen, manu from l'equipe, tried all kind of mallets and went back to the classical one, so you can be the best without this shit...And the classical opponents of "l'equipe", toros, use this kind of stuff since long time, and they had beat l'équipe maybe 2 times on 10 matchs...)
I first played against these mallets last weekend in SF. Definitely do not like 'em. They make handling too easy, even without side jointing the ball against the ground. I hope the rules committee comes to an agreement soon about this, at least for North American tourneys. Nothing against those that use these mallets, I just feel they take away from the challenge of polo.
How many games did Valleros lose last week?
Nothing against those that use these mallets, I just feel they take away from the challenge of polo.
ABS mallet heads are a great deal lighter than HDPE, do those reduce any challenge to polo?
Short rake forks give a much tighter turning radius than standard (curved 40mm-45mm) forks, do those reduce the challenge to polo?
And freewheels, and 48's, and fixies, and steep HA's, and straps, and clips, and narrow bars, and longer shafts, and ...
The point I'd like to make is that 'cheats' have little to no impact when met by superior skill and experience. Ben and Miah both use cheater mallets but still lost to you guys. Jeff and I both have cheater mallets but you still beat us 5-3. I don't think the side cut makes that big a difference.
I hear what yer sayin about short rake forks, 48's, freewheels etc, but those are things we all generally agree on as fair equipment. Im just laying down my opinion on side joint mallets, which appears to be a very divisive topic. And my opinion is not because I have ever felt threatened by side joint mallets. I guess it's kinda hard to describe over the 'net, but I just think they are weak.
As much as I hate to bring up other sports, in Hockey the curve of the blade is regulated. Might seem like a subtle nuance, but it's the kind of regulation I would like to see in the instance of side joint mallets. Otherwise, we will all have to adapt to these new mallets.
I totally respect your opinion and everyone else's on this thread. It's when we start talking about rule changes for everyone based on opinions that are rooted in "[because] ... I think they are weak" that I get nervous. That argument is just plain arbitrary, and a terrible basis for a rule change.
Another example. Ben's mallets tend to be around 41 or 42 inches. Mine are around 37 or 38. We're both roughly the same height and have the same reach. If he and I are riding the exact same bike side by side and going for the ball in front of us, the length of his mallet will give him an advantage over me. Is he "cheating"? Should we make a rule which limits shaft length?
There are many other examples listed in this thread which mention equipment advantages. I think if we start making rule changes based on "They're weak polo" then it will get to the point that we will all be riding the exact same Surly 1x1's and wielding identical mallets at major tourneys. Someone mentioned boring earlier in this thread? yeash!
So again, I totally respect your opinion on the side cut. You don't like them for whatever reason, that's fine. So don't use them. Show the rest of the poloverse that it's a lame gimmick by continuing to beat the pants off of anyone who does use them.
For an equipment rule change to be implemented, it's got to be based on a significant advantage (or a safety issue). I don't think the advantage they offer is any greater than a longer shaft or ABS or short rake forks etc. Valleros proved it last week. Others have been proving it for some time now.
Again, you're trying to compare things that are different in function. A longer mallet is just a longer mallet. You still have to apply SKILL to use it correctly.
The argument here, which is completely different, is that the hole in the side of the mallet makes it so you don't have to apply any skill to use it. The ball just sits there. This game isn't about taking people with the least skill and allowing them to win. No game is. That is why equipment is regulated in every other sport in the entire world, and it's regulated in ways that eliminate the unfair advantage gained by shit like "holes in the side that hold the ball so you dont have to pay attention to it or control it".
"holes in the side that hold the ball so you dont have to pay attention to it or control it".
I don't know what kind of side cuts you have played with but the hole in my mallet does not create that reality. No where near it.
If it's jointing/pinning/dragging you're talking about then make a rule about jointing/pinning/dragging.
Again, you're trying to compare things that are different in function. A longer mallet is just a longer mallet. You still have to apply SKILL to use it correctly.
The argument here, which is completely different, is that the hole in the side of the mallet makes it so you don't have to apply any skill to use it. The ball just sits there. This game isn't about taking people with the least skill and allowing them to win. No game is. That is why equipment is regulated in every other sport in the entire world, and it's regulated in ways that eliminate the unfair advantage gained by shit like "holes in the side that hold the ball so you dont have to pay attention to it or control it".
You're no-true-scotsmanning with the term "skill". Maybe skill is more than raw physical ability and extends to things like equipment choice and strategy. Not to mention that you've never used a sidejoint mallet so you don't know how easy it is. I don't think many of the people here talking about how easy it is have ever tried using one.
Daniel, your extreme hypothetical scenarios are irrelevant. You are pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it here. We are talking about bicycle polo and actual games played between people who know each other. The NHL and MLB are professional sports with TV audience preference considerations driving rules as much as competition. Bike polo tournaments are small friendly affairs. No one is earning a paycheck from winning bike polo tournaments, and probably never will. A rule about the size of the hole is a solution in search of a problem.
I wonder if some of the people that are complaining about these mallets could actually take a picture of one and post it here. I have a hard time imagining a "skill-free" mallet design. How can it have such huge holes without being too fragile?
there ought to be a rule about the size of any and all holes on a mallet head. some of these mallet heads now are so gaping that the ball gets lodged in them. it's a joke. at some point the diameter of these holes fundamentally changes how the mallet is used to handle the ball. i've always felt that BJing (and now SJing) was akin to traveling in basketball.
...
-capped mallets don't stop your missing the ball
-48 spokes don't stop your missing a block
-tighter turning radius doesn't stop your dabbing
-longer shafts don't stop your turnovers
-smaller gear ratios don't stop your having to pedal
-etc...
BUT a mallet that cradles the ball DOES stop you from having to actively control the ball...it's like if you had a mallet with a large enough diameter to envelop the ball 1/2 way (like those Midwest mallets but beveled/reamed out even more) and you just forward scooped/cradled everytime you turned left and the ball couldn't roll free unless it was jostled loose from a bump or a hack or from a purposeful disengagement...WEAK but legal and apparently even innovative. fucking cheater mallets...
no other equipment upgrade/innovation so completely and obviously negates a skill/aspect of our sport...maybe training wheels to eliminate dabbing?
"we didn't get all dressed up fer nuthin' "
x2
BUT a mallet that cradles the ball DOES stop you from having to actively control the ball..
Only if you are SJing.... you still have to learn how to use the cutouts.
Don't think that you get a mallet like this and *poof!* you're the master of the ball.
Agreed. Everyone thinks that these mallets are magic wands. They're not.
Then why defend them so much. If you're so good with a regular mallet use one. Oops need that crutch I guess.
I think im good with or without them, i play with regular mallets now for a lot of reason :
Better control to receip pass
I find a lighter plastic, no need to drill any hole
It look stronger, and probably is
Get ready if one day open mallets become illegal
So there is also advantage to use classical mallets. I played like 1 month with them, and goes back to classic, without any rules who force me, just because i find the classical better...
Im not defending them, im just against the fact of ban them. I don't want to make the begining of every game in a tourney look like a boxing game with the weight balance etc...
Don't think the advantages are significants enough to make a rule about that. I also don't want to ear people use that as a significant reason in their loose against another "cheater" team.
Plus, but that's another question, the rules about materials are often not enforced, i saw a lot of shitty dangerous mallets in tourney who mention safety stuff in the ruleset. Screw and shit outside.
I already use a mallet that would be acceptable by any of the standards here. I'm defending them because the arguments against them are horrible arguments.
angles? but that isn't being discussed here...
My mallet doesn't have angles on the edges. It's attached to the pole at a 15 degree-ish angle, but nobody has a problem with that. Maybe if you came and played more you'd know what my mallet looks like!
but it does have angles. maybe if you read more clearly you would respond correctly
I said "I already use a mallet that would be acceptable by any of the standards here"
And the standards here (in this thread or on lobp as a whole) have never been prohibitive of attaching the head to the shaft at an angle. Nobody has a problem with that. And if they do, there's no good reason for having such a stance.
What I said was completely correct, pal.
HAHAHA...but daniel...I just lost at a tournament to traditional mallets so obviously my mallet didn't have ANY advantages over anyone else's...haven't you been paying attention?
all joking aside though...no cheater mallet here...no holes, double-capped, no angled cuts and i'm within the dimensions laid out in the NAH thread that dealt with acceptable mallets...44 inch shaft but I could shave off 2 inches easy but since it rests on my arm and isn't in the way I keep it in the holster for those "just in case" situations...most people base the overall length of their shaft on their shooting grip but i just start/end my tape where I grip to shoot and the rest is for stealing and receiving bad passes...the longer mallet does slow down reaction time though...my head is an all-white 6 1/2 inch double-capper so it looks crazy but it's only a 1/2 inch to an inch at most longer than the average...if I heard from the community that their was going to be a height to mallet length ratio enforced I would accept that since physical height/wingspan are the positives to being a lanky and probably somewhat slower and less nimble player compared to a more compact player.
having said all that...those dogbone style mallets are different...physics scientifically ensures that as long as you can keep your mallet making contact with the ground while turning left then that ball has little chance of defying centripetal/centrifugal force and flying out of the indentation...
I've personally seen and handled (messed around with people's in between games of pickup) three different style cheater mallets...the 1/8 inch, the oval cutout and a dogbone drilled from a rod...it was ridiculous! in order to lose the ball I had to either hit a bump/crack, get bumped by another player, get hacked by another player, jackknife from turning too sharp left with the ball or purposefully let it go...every pass becomes a drag/scoop/cradle pass unless it's with the head.
if someone is using a cheater mallet and it's not a magic wand...then the rest of their game is probably suspect as well and when they lose to traditional mallets it will probably encourage them to develop a newer, better cheater mallet instead of just practicing and getting better...
luckily no matter how much cradling/jointing/dragging someone does they still have to at least shoot traditionally and that alone will stop substandard players with cheater mallets from winning...but the game will be a bunch of chasing, hacking and circling up to the point of shooting and that's soooo booooring...just my opinion.
...
Actually, I just got back from SF and played with a side joint mallet for the first time while I was there. It was WAY too easy to get the ball where I wanted it and likewise, way too easy to scoop it around up into the air, even from a full sprint. With a regular mallet, you can't really get up to top speed and then scoop out of nowhere across your front wheel or behind you (I can't anyway, neither has anyone else I've seen), like you can with these mallets. The game wound up being a lot more about ditching the ball into the air when you're in a tight spot than about positioning and good passing and planning skills. Sure, everyone could take the time to make one of these, and adjust their play style accordingly to be on the same footing, but that's just not the kind of polo I want to be playing. From the looks of it on this thread, the vast majority of players aren't down either.
another question:
Why in europe, where i think 1/4 of players are using them, there's no complains about?
(but maybe 2 or 3 guys in london)
And why complains come mostely for people who are playing in aera who it seems less players use them?
p.s.
Answer "europa is pussy" are useless.
There's loads more than 2 or 3 people in London, many are reverting back to "classic mallets" to avoid the "but you used a cheater mallet" kind of response from the haters when they lose (and heckling in general). No-one's really pro-cheater mallets, but there are lots of people that think the creation of standards is a bad idea (at this point in time anyway)... most are indifferent.
The idea that the mallets, sorry... wands, make the game easy and should be feared is laughable, they encourage individual play which isn't going to get you near the podium.
you obviously have no problem with cutouts so are you ok with large diameter heads that envelop almost the entire ball? you've seen these, right? where the ball gets stuck inside of the end when they try to shoot? these heads allow players to scoop/cradle the ball forward and turn left all with the ball safely inside it's little nook...it's like scoop passing to yourself around your own front wheel turning left but the ball never leaves your control...shouldn't turnovers be part of the game? what's the use as a defender of pressuring the ballhandler when that pressure has only the slimmest chance of leading to a turnover...better to just karlsruhe stack so when they eventually do have to shoot one of 6 wheels blocks the shot and you can collect the rebound then cradle/scoop down to their end and try your luck against the 6 wheels, right?
I don't think anyone "fears" cheater mallets...it just sucks to see turnovers/steals become less a part of a ballhandling sport...watching people on bikes on pavement chase other people on bikes on pavement already exists...it's called road racing.
wouldn't those mallets be terrible for scoring? As the ball would get trapped in the tip....
Stupid designs just die out...
you obviously have no problem with cutouts so are you ok with large diameter heads that envelop almost the entire ball?
This is a completely different issue because the ball doesn't and can't get stuck in a side cut. Any mallet head that allows the ball to get lodged in it should be illegal. I'm fine with huge diameter mallet heads as long as they're capped. If someone wanted to wield a mallet with a 5" head, what they'd be gaining in striking surface they'd be losing in weight.
If the ball is getting stuck in their mallet head then the ball would need to be turned over to the other team and play would resume with each team in their respective half... lame yes, an advantage? No.
Someone's scooping and cradling too much? Why not take the front wheel advantage and put them into the wall? Why not hook their mallet? Why not swipe the ball out with a mallet 1" horizontal to the floor?
Maybe I've yet to see this amazing "cradling" play that has all your American guys spooked, or maybe you guys need to hit the court more often and try some new moves?
I jest, it's all I've got left, you all know my opinion.
Fuck the Cheater Mallets.. We dont use them out here in L.A.. They are Weak
Alright, I'm going to take this nasty bag of snakes and lay it out straight for everyone who doesn't want to read all the silly bickering and name calling. I'm going to take each of the reasons that people have proposed for banning sidecut mallets and tell you why each reason isn't good enough or would be inconsistent given attitudes towards other pieces of equipment.
1. "sidejointing, just like ball jointing, is boring and makes a player not have to learn to handle the ball"
Why this is a bad reason: Because we're not going to be banning ball jointing anytime soon, so there is no reason to ban sidejointing. Just treat them the same. Either you have to pass after jointing or you can't do it in the offensive half. Easy solution. Plus, having a sidejoint mallet doesn't mean you're going to be sidejointing all the time in the same way that having an uncapped mallet doesn't mean you're going to be balljointing all the time. If you're all for banning balljointing and/or uncapped mallets all together, that's a whole other issue that's not worth discussing here.
Bottom line: if you have problems with a style of play, make rules about that style of play rather than the equipment that enables it. Just because you CAN do something with a mallet doesn't mean you HAVE to.
2. "sidejoint mallets make it too easy to turn without looking at the ball, it's an unfair advantage"
Why this is a bad reason: The crux of this argument is that sidejoint mallets make something easier than it should be. First of all, I don't understand exactly why we would want to keep an incredibly hard game with a high learning curve from being accessible to less skilled people. If you're afraid that anyone who takes up a sidejoint mallet is going to immediately start slaying, you're just plain wrong. If you think that it would make an already top player unstoppable, you're just plain wrong. If you think that it'll give a player who already knows what he's doing a slight advantage, you're right! But this advantage isn't as huge as you think. Unless your city has a rule against BJ in the offensive end, there really is little reason to complain about people being able to turn without looking at the ball because you can already do that with a conventional BJ. If in your city you're not allowed to BJ in the offensive end (which you shouldn't be, clubs should adopt the NA ruleset to prepare for tournaments), then you should also want to ban the extra big diameter uncapped mallet heads because they make it similarly as easy. But I still think that the main point here is that making something easier isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are polo specific bikes that make it easy for players to turn sharper. What some will say at this point is that such a bike is already building upon a skill someone already has. A sidecut mallet won't make someone be able to turn while carrying the ball without looking at it unless they could already turn WHILE looking at it because, again, they're not magic wands. It does build upon skills people already have, being able to turn while carrying the ball. The only difference is that you can keep your head up. This is advantageous for two reasons: less crashes from players with their heads down and better court vision.
Bottom line: the advantage gained isn't that huge, it builds upon skills you already have, and it enables you to keep your head up (which is a good/safe thing).
3. "sidejoint mallets make you able to cradle the ball"
So do normal uncapped mallets, I'll post a video once it gets sunny here. And again, if you have a problem with a style of play, ban that style of play. A rule against cradling is quite simple: only allow one change of direction while the ball is in the air being cupped by the mallet head.
4. "it's too hard to ref the difference between a sidejoint and just normal dribbling."
Why this is a bad reason: Exhibit A, Charlie Hill. He routinely skirts the line between BJing and dribbling. It's just as hard to tell the difference between a regular BJ and a mere cupped turn. But again, we're not banning BJing or uncapped mallets, so this is a nonstarter.
Bottom line: it's just as hard to ref as the current BJ rule.
4. "they're weak/I hate change"
That's not an argument, luddites.
Bottom line: try thinking about it rather than going with a gut feel.
----------------------------------
Any questions?
You're the smartest man alive. Thanks for clearing everything up.
reasons two three and four are kind of the same.
cradling, as i have been talking about, is still on the ground, is used when turning sharply left (for righties), and yeah is incredibly hard to call, because nobody knows whether it's legal to cradle like this, or it's a joint move.
If cradling like this is legal and unregulated, then it's weak. why should we regulate BJing and not this if they have the exact same effects? effects being ability to handle the ball without paying attention, and an instant change into a scoop pass. in fact side joint cradling is even weaker than BJ because it's easier to use, and can be used in a larger radius around the ball handler.
The only rule that would stop this weak play would consider all side joint cradling an actual joint, and make the pass an obligation. So after a left turn of lame cradling, you can't shoot anymore. This is a stupid rule, for sure. A rule like this would probably end up banning regular joint scoop turns, which is kind of lame also. normal joint scoop turns require a higher level of skill and are much less reliable. This possibility of fucking up and causing a turnover is higher, and keeps the game interesting.
This made some sense to me.
However, are you saying that on the one hand a regular scoop joint turn is a good thing (when hard to do) and on the other hand a side joint to scoop pass is a bad thing (as it's too easy and accurate)? Please disregard the "unfair advantage" thing and let's assume that anyone can choose to use (or not) a "cheater" mallet, as this seems to be largely the case. The idea that a move should be encouraged (or not) based on it's difficulty level reaks of fashion/exclusion to me, I may be wrong.
So once again, cradling is the big problem as it's "too easy" and encourages individuals to dribble the length of the court (like with BJing) and the reason people feel we can't do anything about cradling is because it's too hard to call/change without affecting other elements of the game? This is nice and succinct and I kind of get where you're coming from, I still think it's a bad route to go down as (for example), if we had banned open ended caps when BJing first started happening we wouldn't have as many interesting additions to the game today (such as scooping, 180s, 270s, reverse BB, lobs, etc).
In my opinion, if you want to ban side joints, then why not enforce caps too and remove all the sillyness/air play that's developed over the last 12 months?
However, are you saying that on the one hand a regular scoop joint turn is a good thing (when hard to do) and on the other hand a side joint to scoop pass is a bad thing (as it's too easy and accurate)?
And my point from the beginning is that the difficulty of each is negligible. They're both easy enough to treat similarly.
the reason people feel we can't do anything about cradling is because it's too hard to call/change without affecting other elements of the game?
Cradling (while turning, how x2 has described) doesn't give you a huge advantage and that any advantage is certainly less than a balljoint. So it should be allowed. And I wouldn't say it's harder to ref than balljointing. A cradle occurs when you use centrifugal force to hold the ball to the mallet while turning and lift it off the ground. Or at least I think that's what x2 means, correct me if I'm wrong. Now I assume that nobody has a problem with such a play until the ball is lifted off the ground. Doing this with a normal mallet isn't terribly difficult and shouldn't be illega. So the question is how can we tell when the ball is off the ground. We can't easily tell regardless of the mallet type!
Jeez, when you spoke of lacrosse and cradling, I thought you meant with the ball off the ground, going back and forth. You know, like they do in lacrosse. You needed to be more specific about what you meant. If you're talking merely about picking the ball up while you turn, that can be done very easily with a normal mallet. I'm not going to make a video of that (the others are uploading) because I think it's easy. Charlie from here does that all the time. But doing just that doesn't give you nearly as big an advantage as BJing because getting hit slightly off balance would make you not only lose the ball, but throw it in the opposite direction from where you're turning. It's like how a satellite slingshots off of the moon's gravity. Keeping a BJ engaged while someone is bumping into you isn't difficult if you're applying enough downward force on the ball.
If you're talking about some other sort of play, let me know, because this is an even bigger nonissue as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah i'm pretty sure you have no idea what I'm talking about. This shit is hard to describe.
i thought i seperated "lacrosse shit" VS cradling enough, but i didn't. I've seen people cradle on the ground, which uses the same physics of the lacrosse cradle, but the ball doesn't leave the ground, so it counts neither as a bj nor sno-cown. I don't think this is really feasible with a normal mallet, which is what i thought you were going to show me. The air lacrosse type shit is old hat, and i don't think anyone even uses it as it's dumb as fuck (among other things).
but whatever. I'll just call the cheaters cheaters and wait till people get more pissed off that polo is getting lamer, which i think is a valid argument. fuck logic anyway.
oh my god i was mentioned!!!~!!!!!!!! i'm so full of girlish pride!!!
this was the first time a looked at this thread. everybody chill out. i'm still better than a lot of you. some of you are still better than me. holes in mallets aren't going to change that, but practice will.
Until we have detailed equipment rules the only thing we can do is hate. BTW, The rule set for the Midwests in Lexington does NOT specify mallet requirements other than poles have to be capped and no sharp objects.
Cheaters welcome.
This thread needs more instructional diagrams...
x2 what joker said... holy long thread... i saw this/played against side joint mallets for first time at Emerald City tournie in Seattle... confusing, hard to determine if ball even being played or simply dragged along... anyway... i say side joint sucks and create a rule like BJ rule and then we know what to work with...
I guess just imagining how it works isn't good enough for me. So what's the best way to cut this big oval out? Also how do you attach them to the sky pole?
I thought the rap battle thread died? And if some of my arguments are stupid, why don't you show me why? Since you didn't give me any reason, I'm going to say that your arguments are stupid and not give any reason. Okay, here I go:
DanielNOLA, your arguments are stupid. All of them. They're all stupid. Don't ask me why.
oh and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation - I'm not sure what you think innovation means, but according to the big dict book, these mallets are innovations.
will you marry me?
I needed that laugh, thanks bud!!
i found animal chin!!!
YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.
.
.
.
I was hard on ...
Daniel, were you abused by internet forum as a younger child? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_disorder
Now that I've let myself be trolled into this thread, I'd like to express an on topic view too: X2 what Hewitt just said.
and
There's no percentage in judging others especially when there's no rule to judge by. I vote for allowing cuts up to a certain size. Overridable by tournament organizers when they have local consensus and get the word out to players more an a week in advance of the tourney.
Devin
ps salutations to Jeremy - I enjoyed meeting, talking and playing on a pickup team with him.
pps We haven't met yet. But I offered you a beer at Jose Coronado a month or two back. After you left I was surprised to learn that you were you. I'd have expected you to be outspoken in real life too ... but often times and gladly I guess reality is different than the internet.
E-Thugin' 4 Life
OH NO ITS NOT CLOSED YET!!
kinda wanted to say...tried this openfacemallet sjing thing for last month after seeing one some wheres. to start with i'm a cheater LEFTY and can only drag the ball without looking to the right... i have to push it with the openfacemallet when i turn left. the worst thing about these mallets is the control feels sooo good i don't want to release to shoot or pass.
OH... but if you like the passing game there is fun to be had!
I'm more for regulating high sticking then types of mallet head.
Fantastic work on the art show Daniel!!
yes
Nice art, (perticularly the little "bee boy") but anyone who thinks they are superior makes themselves inferior immediately.
Some call it Oz.
But getting back to the photo dialog, what do y'all think about a rule for how much less fat any part of the mallet head can be than it's general diameter? Would be easy to measure. Might need a caliper to enforce with rigor. Say ( narrowest measurement ) / ( fattest aka the og diameter before the mallet got wore down ) has to 0.90. 90% or something.
These two mallet heads make different games. Similar skills. But different.This number on the right would be about .5 I think.
Sure, you can stay at my house, but since I live in cave at the top of a mountain with pilgrims visiting me 24-7 to hang on my every word you may want to reconsider.
I wish I knew about this thread earlier so I could join in on hatin, how ever i do like that I only need to read Daniels post to find out all the stupid shit you ignorant ma's are spoutin about.
This is my new mallet design....You'll see it at a tournament near you very soon. You'll see....side cutouts are old school, this is the next generation baby!!
(the people against the cutouts will probably understand I'm joking....the people for cutouts will probably want to know where to buy one of these)
This is another one I'm working on, but its still just in the prototype stage...
and one more prototype mallet head design....this one even comes with a telescoping handle so you can adjust mallet length on the fly.
and this baby....well not the best for ball handling, but I can score from pretty much anywhere on the court with it....wheel covers? whatever!!
that thing would be much lighter with some side cutouts...
Alas, side cuts wouldn't work here ... but take a look at these familiar materials ... way lighter and less expensive than a bazooka!
http://www.instructables.com/id/The-Original-Potato-Cannon/
step 1The Materials
Building Materials
-5 feet of 1.5" ABS (DWV) pipe
-2 feet of 3" ABS pipe
-A 3" to 1.5" reducer
-A 3" threaded adapter
-A 3" end cap
-A BBQ ignitor (+1 Screw)
-ABS cement
Consumables
-Cheap aerosol hairspray
-Potatoes or similar legumes
Tools
-Hacksaw
-Drill
Hey everyone - About 6 months ago, I began making big cuts in the side of my mallethead to reduce weight. I've recently begun using them to carry the ball around the court. I assume this thread is the appropriate place to bring this up. Any thoughts?
I've been trying to make my mallets heavier...but maybe you're onto something.
Ben,
what is the position of the NA Assoc about this heads?
As a user of one, I will like to know if they will be allow at the Worlds or not.
In the current rules, I couldn't find anything referent to them.
Pistolero I'm thinking of commuting to LA to play bike polo coz cheater mallets are cheater mallets are cheater mallets and all those of you who are defending them have no idea how fucking boring it is to play against cheater mallets or to watch the ball be cradled , b j ed , s j ed , scooped and basically stuck to your frickin mallets even for a second. You are skilless wanna be champions with no passion for the skillz it needs to control a round object with a cylindrical one. You all know who you are Lets stop pretending you're right coz yer not.
I forgot too.
Daniel
I read it for the first time just now I'm still laughing. Happy holidays!
"can I take a picture of you so I can show santa what I want for christmas?"
Machine come down for a week or a weekened Play some Polo with us. None of our players here in L.A have those Cheater Mallets. Not allowed as for now. once commitee makes a decision of wethere there gonna be banned or allowed, as of right now its a NO NO. Come down u can stay at my house and Party and Bull shit and Bull shit and Party. Also NOLA u are fucken Funny bro. I be reading ur post and Oh boy i be roll'n. U put word together and telling Foos how it its. RAW and Uncut.. Keep up the Great Post.
i have a side cut mallet (which i rarely use) to make it lighter. It's twice as light as any other mallet i have (except the Mo). It works more like a barbell or dog bone mallet than something for EJ. i can't side joint if i wanted to anyway. It doesn't have to be a "cheater" mallet. for us it just serves as a lighter option.
i fucked my shoulder up in august, and every so often it acts up so a light mallet really can keep me in play. but eh, who cares. i's theyre banned or whatever, i could come up with another weight reduction method. i've a few i want to try anyway.
Hey Pistolero, I shall take ya up on that offer in the new year.Gonna be in phoenix end of Jan then polo plans are open to bump some westside connection
I used one of these "cheater mallets" in SF after i broke my crossbolt it was ridiculous how easy it is to handle with these. But my main thing I wanted to say is you could essentially do the same thing with a double capped abs mallet if the heads short enough, granted its not a hole but there are "guides" on the mallet head. I would think cutting out a huge space in your mallet would make the PE or whatever you are using less rigid in turn making your shot slower. But I never know what I am talking about anyway.
also Daniel. Why aren't you a columnist for dab yet?
I made a side cut head to see what the rage was all about. Alexis told me to fuck off and go back to europe. I graciously took his lashing and played with the new head. My game was the same. There wasn't any side jointing, and I didn't become an untouchable player. I suppose being a player that already has a style, the type of head won't change that.
I might add that the cut is not as extreme as some of the photo's i've seen where there is little material left in the head. The holes were smaller than two inches.
In conclusion the cheater mallet is overrated, a lot of hating on something negligible, but a noticeable difference in weight.
Angelo is a cheater. You just need bigger holes. Try a square cut. Really easy to pull the ball around without jointing. Love you Ange. Original creator of the BJ in the house. Giving BJs all over the continent since 2007.
i now feel like ive had a productive evening. thanks all.
mallets are being made that drag/joint from any direction and players are literally dragging/bjingj/sjing the ball everytime they turn (especially left) everywhere on the court...shouldn't learning how to handle the ball still be a huge part of polo? bjing/sjing just turns into a game of sprint dragging and hacking and bumping...booooring.