Machine Politics vs Beaver Boys, May 2011. Photo by Bruce Carver
We've been working real hard to get a set of rules for this year's Euros, and here they are.
For those planning on acting as refs, please review them.
Hopefully this will be the starting point of the Euro organizing body.
You can download a PDF version here
9.4.1.3 - Contact with another players mallet if he is not
playing the ball or in front of the goal is considered poor
etiquette.
Legal or not?
9.4.3.1 - A player may use their mallet to hook, shift,
move, etc. the mallet of the player in goal in an effort to
get them out of position or prevent them from stopping a
shot.
Legal then.
Am I wrong?
yeah maybe there's too much point in mallet/mallet contacts.
9.4.1.3 : "Poor etiquette" mean legal but dick'. so kind of useless rule point here.
9.4.3.1 Is kind of useless too...
All this:
9.4 - Mallet contact
9.4.1 - Mallet-to-mallet contact is allowed.
9.4.1.1 - Mallet-to-mallet contact should be hooks rather
than strikes.
9.4.1.2 - Deliberately trying to whack/damage another
player's mallet is not allowed.
9.4.1.3 - Contact with another players mallet if he is not
playing the ball or in front of the goal is considered poor
etiquette.
9.4.2 - Intentional mallet-to-bike contact is not permitted.
9.4.3 - Goalie contact
9.4.3.1 - A player may use their mallet to hook, shift,
move, etc. the mallet of the player in goal in an effort to
get them out of position or prevent them from stopping a
shot.
can be like this without so much issues:
9.4.1 - Mallet-to-mallet contact is allowed.
9.4.1.1 - Mallet-to-mallet contact should be hooks rather
than strikes.
9.4.1.2 - Deliberately trying to whack/damage another
player's mallet is not allowed.
9.4.2 - Intentional mallet-to-bike contact is not permitted.
P.s. "Should" word should be more precise. Does it mean that: "- strike is allowed but dick' " or "strike isn't allowed" or "strike is allowed if it's incindental (a shot on the ball who strike the opponent mallet etc...).
Nice one!...but:
9.2.9.1 - Body-to-body contact with the goalie is
permitted only if the contact is between the player with the
ball and the goalie.
I cant see why it should be illegal for a player whitout the ball to try to "Body-to-body/Shoulder-to-shoulder" away the goali, if you stand in front of your goal you are more than anyone part of the game, so why should I not try to move him away? Some goalies are just to good to be left standing there, the hole game...
agreed
I cant see why it should be illegal for a player whitout the ball to try to "Body-to-body/Shoulder-to-shoulder" away the goali, if you stand in front of your goal you are more than anyone part of the game, so why should I not try to move him away? Some goalies are just to good to be left standing there, the hole game...
Because you cant ride up to any other player and shoulder them around if neither of you has the ball?
If you think its about standing in front of goal, how far can the "goalie" be away from the goal line before he's safe from off the ball body checking from anyone? Does that distance change if he's not parallel to the goal line, but still has a wheel on/behind the line/against the post?
The whole problem with making rules about "goalie" is that we dont have a defined "goalie". Until you define "goalie" in the rules, whats to stop you riding up to any opposing player near the goal and body checking them away?
John, during the game you can get close to any player and body check him/her. It is not against the rules.
the problem is that during the game is difficult to do that as players are in movement.
why this can not be apply with a guy who is in stationary position at the end of the court?
call it golie call it whatever, body check a player is allow; from this rules:
9.2 - Body contact
9.2.1 - Shoulder-to-shoulder contact and the use of forearms is
permitted.
9.2.6 - Body checks are permitted if the pressing is done after
the contact.
I think defining a "goalie" is a step backwards. I always thought the spirit of the game is that there are 6 equal players and the same rules for everybody. I just read the NA ruleset and they also have a special goalie rule, but there is no reason that we have to follow those douchebags.
I thought the best way to distinguish two types of allowable contact was whether the players involved are within "striking distance" of the ball or not. It you are within "striking distance" then there is a fair bit of legal contact allowed, if you are not within striking distance there is very little contact allowed. By contact I mean "intentional" contact.
Actually the NA ruleset is pretty vague on this issue, my bet is that anyone playing under this ruleset would just be at the mercy of the local flavor of polo regarding contact.
you should probably consider how this rule conflicts with the north american rule which states "Ball-jointing / side-jointing will be allowed ONLY in the player's defensive zone. Ball jointing / side-jointing in the offensive zone will result in the ball turnover and concession of half-court." since the world championships this year will be in NA, and using that rule
In a situation where the ball is trapped against the boards you are allowed to BJ it away from the board, but anything more than that will be considered a BJ and result in a turnover.
*updated version up*
I don't like this one:
8.2.2.1 – If the player stops a shot from going into the net, at the
referee's discretion, it may be ruled a goal.
I think you can not count a goal without the ball beeing in the net.
Doesn't matter what happend before.
Other opinions?
Really? So next time you dab a goalie and your teammate shoots and it just so happens to hit the now out-of-play goalie and deflects (no goal), you want that ruled no goal even if it would have clearly been in the net if the goalie had not deflected as he exited? Seems like it would be to the goalies advantage to not hustle to leave the goal.
Bill and I had a chat about this in London. It's far better to penalise the other team to force a goal (2 minute penalty) than give a goal when the ball hasn't gone in the net. I can't think of any other sports that give out a goal when the ball hasn't gone in the net? It's weird for spectators and players and results in more grey areas for the referee if they have the power to give a goal. I missed this before Ale, up to you, etc...
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Big penalty and plenty of time to allow for a "legitimate" goal to be scored.
3.... 2... 1.... no objections?
2 minutes penalty or 1 goal would be fair
It's definitely the rule for soccer/football. If the ball doesn't cross the line, it is not a goal. This is good practice. Penalize the fucker. Possibly a sin bin is equivalent to a free kick in soccer/football.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Big penalty and plenty of time to allow for a "legitimate" goal to be scored.
3.... 2... 1.... no objections?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Big penalty and plenty of time to allow for a "legitimate" goal to be scored.
3.... 2... 1.... no objections?
+1
totally agree.
Bill and I had a chat about this in London. It's far better to penalise the other team to force a goal (2 minute penalty) than give a goal when the ball hasn't gone in the net. I can't think of any other sports that give out a goal when the ball hasn't gone in the net? It's weird for spectators and players and results in more grey areas for the referee if they have the power to give a goal. I missed this before Ale, up to you, etc...
... in Basketball there is a rule called "Goaltending".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goaltending
"... If goaltending is called for interference with a field goal, the shooting team is awarded the points for the field goal as if it had been made."
That's the only Sport I know where a rule like this exists. But I think this is stupid anyways...
I like Jono's idea of a strong penalty.
... in Rugby too, it's called Penalty try:
if the referee believes that a try has been prevented by the defending team's misconduct, he may award the attacking team a penalty try. Penalty tries are always awarded under the posts regardless of where the offence took place. In rugby union, the standard applied by the referee is that a try "probably" would have been scored. The referee does not have to be certain a try would have been scored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Try#Penalty_try
.... and I like and it's not stupid: i call it fair-play!
Bill and I had a chat about this in London. It's far better to penalise the other team to force a goal (2 minute penalty) than give a goal when the ball hasn't gone in the net. I can't think of any other sports that give out a goal when the ball hasn't gone in the net? It's weird for spectators and players and results in more grey areas for the referee if they have the power to give a goal. I missed this before Ale, up to you, etc...
The NHL has a whole chapter on awarded goals. Pretty much anything that would result in a penalty shot is awarded as a goal if the goalie has been pulled.
67.5 Awarded Goal – If a player, when the goalkeeper has been replaced for an extra attacker, falls on the puck, holds the puck, picks up the puck, or gathers the puck into his body or hands from the ice in the goal crease area, the play shall be stopped immediately and goal awarded to the non-offending team.
Same for tripping on a breakaway or throwing your stick. Seems pretty analogous, no? A dabbed goalie is an open net.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Big penalty and plenty of time to allow for a "legitimate" goal to be scored.
If you are giving a long powerplay, do you extend the time of the game? If this happens with 15 seconds left and the victim team is down by 1, a 2 minute power play is not very helpful.
If you are giving a long powerplay, do you extend the time of the game? If this happens with 15 seconds left and the victim team is down by 1, a 2 minute power play is not very helpful.
x 2
Rule amended.
8.2.2.1 – If the player stops a shot from going into the net, play will be
stopped and a two‐minute penalty will be awarded to the
offending player.
8.2.2.2.1 – If there is less than 2 minutes left in a match, it will be
extended to cover such penalty.
What happen when the team in power play scores? The player was out is re-entering into the court and the game goes on??
I think not all possible scenario were investigated...
did I read the timeout rule correctly? It seems to say I can call a mechanical at any time I have the ball. I guess this is OK if there is only one a game but I think this is different from how people normally play. I think normally time out are only after a goal and there is not really a limit to how many one can take, well 5 I guess...but I never saw that ever happen
You can call a time-out on possession of the ball, but you will be punished for it with a ball turnover to the other team. This is to stop the "last minute time out play" where you call a time-out, get the other team to retreat to half-court and then play the remaining time on the clock once you've crossed halfway to you liking (game finishing set play).
If your mechanical was the result of a foul by the other team then the referee is likely to award you the ball (from the foul), and there is no need for you to call a time-out (as the game is already stopped after the foul), so the ball stays with you, etc.
Limiting time-outs is mainly to keep tournies running on time and to stop "tactical" time-outs. The referee may still award a time-out if needed (at their discretion: If your team keeps getting mechanicals from the other team playing like crazy mo-fos for example).
Conceding a goal because of a mechanical (especially if it wasn't your fault/caused by the other team) is rubbish, hence the time out on possession addition. The old days of "sub bike, throw me a bike" were fun, but not particularly "professional" or safe.
You can call a time-out on possession of the ball, but you will be punished for it with a ball turnover to the other team. This is to stop the "last minute time out play" where you call a time-out, get the other team to retreat to half-court and then play the remaining time on the clock once you've crossed halfway to you liking (game finishing set play).
OK but for many reasons there should be a time limit of say 5 or 10sec to cross half court.
If your mechanical was the result of a foul by the other team then the referee is likely to award you the ball (from the foul), and there is no need for you to call a time-out (as the game is already stopped after the foul), so the ball stays with you, etc.
but time outs are special, you get a few minutes to really fix yr bike. After a foul you dont/shouldn't get an arbitrary amount of time. But I think I see your point, if the mechanical failure is due to a foul, the referee has the discretion to let you fix it , otherwise you must use your timeout. This sounds better than the "timeouts after a goal" rule it is just quite different than what I'm used to.
On timeout I think:
if the mechanical failure is due to a foul (in referee decision obviously, not that player opinion!), you have the right to fix your bike and saving your timeout.
About dab a goalie:
I think the referee should have the right to rule a goal. Is the same situation of throwing a mallet to stop a ball.
Goalie in foot down intentional staying on goals line or any player throwing a mallet have the same scope : prevent a goal with really pooooooor and low low low etiquette!!! Those players should be out for 30" and the referee may score a goal.
It has come to my attention that a mallet of 18cm might be too long. (Rule 2.3.1.1)
Anybody sees the need to change the size? I do. 15-16 cm is plenty long.
18cm originally came about from the idea that people could use a 50cm mallet head to block their BB when goaltending (the entire 5-hole).
An 18cm mallet head (although potentially unwieldy and flawed) is not an unfair advantage in my opinion.
Going lower than 18cm will force some people to change their setups (Australian sweeper mallets for example), hence why we didn't go lower (as the Australians aren't using their mallets to "cheat").
At the time, the standard mallet width seemed to be 125mm, although I'd argue that this has now decreased to between 110 and 125mm. Whether you want to encourage the standardisation/uniformity of bike polo equipment (the end result being that everyone uses the exact same mallet) is up to you as tournament organiser. I don't think it would cause an issue for the teams attending this year's Euros, but you are setting a precedent.
In London we've tried to go with a "don't change the rules unless you're solving a problem" kind of approach and we haven't had any issues with "crazy/cheating" mallet heads (even ECMs are rare here now and no rule was needed as it was just an experimental phase for most people).
At the end of the day it's your call, I don't think making a change to 160cm would be a big deal, but why change a rule if it's not broken, etc?
There is a clear advantage for a goalie mallet to be that large. If the average mallet head is 12cm, that's 50% larger!
Besides, 18 cm a bit out of touch with reality (nobody really uses this type of mallet in Europe), so why not make it something more sensible before it becomes an issue.
You know mallet regulations will eventually go more and more specific. A ruling hasn't been made, but you know ECMs will eventually be regulated (I foresee a lot of sidejoint reffing headaches at the Euros).
Maybe, in Lacrosse each player has a different setup depending on the position they play, this "ideal" for each player was found through experimentation. The 50% extra goalie mallet will be rubbish for stick handling and nippy passing/shooting, most things are a trade-off.
I think it's fine to create rules in reaction to something negative (like a nightmare ruling ECMs at the Euros or the appearance of "cheater" goalies). In reality it's been my experience that the "preemptive" rules are the ones that truly cause issues/upset people, especially if people disagree with your prediction of where the games going...
At the end of the day an ECM user is still going to struggle to receive a pass and a perma-keeper will be hooked out of goal in no time.
I agree that there will be loads of standardisation in the future, but I don't agree that it's needed just yet. I also think that mallets are becoming more standardised over time anyway, trial and error and player opinion/usage is driving more homogeneous setups.
Up to you, I don't think it'll matter too much either way.
I think this is a good idea!
At the german qualifiers there was one 18cm head sitting in goal.
I didn't expect it's such a big advantage, but it is.
Especially when you're doing shots out of a tight angle the 18cm seem to get really long.
Obviously this is only Euro rules, but here's my 2 cents anyways.
I agree with the sentiment of not letting goalie's mallets get out of hand but at the same time I'd hate to see stuff get restricted preemptively just for the sake of restricting. In ice hockey a goalie has a bigger (wider) stick and in lacrosse goalies have bigger heads. Now you'll probably argue that in both these sports the goalies are a set position, but in reality, by having a 18cm head makes you a set goalie because its going to be so useless out on the court.
I really think this will self regulate.
In all honesty, the team with the 18cm mallet DIDNT win in the German qualies and also, they probably would have done as well as they did even with a normal mallet for the goalie. So maybe its more of an issue with pride than it is with rules.
We had a few players here in Aus who used to use 18cm "sweeper mallets" as Jono mentioned, and lots of people wanted to make rules about how long a head could be. We never did. Now ALL of these players have come down to 16cm or shorter, by choice, because the longer heads were way too heavy and cumbersome to play with.
Obviously this is only Euro rules, but here's my 2 cents anyways.
I agree with the sentiment of not letting goalie's mallets get out of hand but at the same time I'd hate to see stuff get restricted preemptively just for the sake of restricting. In ice hockey a goalie has a bigger (wider) stick and in lacrosse goalies have bigger heads. Now you'll probably argue that in both these sports the goalies are a set position, but in reality, by having a 18cm head makes you a set goalie because its going to be so useless out on the court.
I really think this will self regulate.
In all honesty, the team with the 18cm mallet DIDNT win in the German qualies and also, they probably would have done as well as they did even with a normal mallet for the goalie. So maybe its more of an issue with pride than it is with rules.
We had a few players here in Aus who used to use 18cm "sweeper mallets" as Jono mentioned, and lots of people wanted to make rules about how long a head could be. We never did. Now ALL of these players have come down to 16cm or shorter, by choice, because the longer heads were way too heavy and cumbersome to play with.
They DID win the qualies.
But to be honest, they also would have won with Anna having a "regular" mallet.
:)
Did they use ECMs too? Polosynthese: tsk tsk.
...half ECM (one side cut open - other side regular)
Hehe...
More than 15 cm mallets head, especially for a goal keeper is laziness and boring. A rule can be a good thing... Only matter is the way to enforce it, if a ref or an opponent don t notice the head before the game but only after the "cheater team" sin, what happen? Etc... But clearly make rules about enormous mallet head is a good thing and most of the players gonna approve it.
Oh, I had it in my head they were second. Anyway....
Now ALL of these players have come down to 16cm or shorter, by choice, because the longer heads were way too heavy and cumbersome to play with.
Which brings me to my point exactly.
If 18cm is obsolete, then why not make a rule that sticks to what WORKS BEST.
Let's not start trying to work everything else out around a non-issue (bigger goals for an impractical mallet nobody uses).
I dunno, I just think its "goal tending" and its a legitimate tactic. If some team has a perma goalie, then fine, but that also hurts their offensive game. Its a teams choice how they want to play, and can adapt their equipment to reflect that.
You dont need to make a bigger goal or anything around a bigger mallet. Shooters just need to get more creative with their scoring. Chip it over the mallet, make a pass across the net and you team mate can bang it in front of the goalie's wheel - with a heavy mallet they cant so quickly move it around to deflect shots.
I really think this will sort itself out, and doesnt need a ruling.
I will say, dont regulate the 18cm, any team can use it, so it is not an advantage to anyone in particular
if you want, make goals bigger and dont make rules to protect the golie, or make rules to allow some hassle of the golie
You can already hassle the goalie as much as you want, just no hacking.
Everyone can use this tactic if they wanted to, so I agree with RIk, it's not "cheating" (although I agreed in the past that longer than 18cm was cheating/embarrassing/dangerous).
The reason most people don't do it is because it's a dead end. Perma keepers? Large mallets? ECMs? No thanks.
Ban/rule the action, not the idea/setup. I have yet to see any problematic "keeper mallets" and I'm fairly certain Anna will be hassled out of goal for most of the Euro games.
More than 15 cm mallet head are made by and for people who want tripod all game long in nets and put the most part of the gk job to a piece of plastic. This is shit, even if all team can make it. It make the game less interesting for everybody, public and players, and for the owner of the mallet first. Dont change the goal size because of weird mallets.
so periodically I've checked this thread but it seems to me that having a meeting the night before the tourney with a small dedicated group of people to work out many issues might help. Or have people already arranged this? Just got back from the french tourney (which was amazing! polo, heckling, beer, polo, beer, polo, pastis, awesome) and I have to say that the rules were pretty chaotic. I kind of like that in it's own beautiful way but I suspect that it would take fairly detailed discussions to get everybody in europe on the same page with the rules. In my opinion several important games which I watched had their outcomes altered because of uncalled clear fouls and I think it was due to the fact that even after all these discussions, the rules are still not uniformly understood. Since I'm sure many teams will be preparing pretty seriously for the euro's (me too, I think my team even has a training session planned, so watch out), It would be a shame if the euro's also had such misunderstandings.
Ref meeting Thursday evening maybe? I'm not sure what Barca have planned. I think a meeting will be crucial for consistent/clear calls.
My prediction for Euros 2011: Professional fouls in abundance.
Am I wrong or would the barca people be stoked if Jono organized this? I get the feeling they got plenty to do already and since the reffing/rules is not really a local issue, maybe Jono you can just set a time/place the night before for a ref/rules meeting. I wouldn't wanna tread on anyones toes but jono just has such childish sincerity, I think he would be a great organizer for such a thing. I recall there was such a meeting at Berlin and I think it helped. but jeez, I guess this would have to be the night before the wildcard tourney to be fair...dunno how many people plan to be there wednesday night
I'll be there... let me know! Waht was done in Berlin was really good !
I'm happy to chair a ref's meeting, alas I'm not arriving until 10am on Thursday (cheaper flights). Maybe it could be done Thursday evening with some input/experience from the day's wild card play? Maybe Thursday daytime whilst the wild card's going on?
Essentially it's just answering questions and getting everyone on the same page. We've done a fair amount of work on reffing standards in London lately, Buffalo Bill is a fountain of knowledge, etc.
The key thing is consistency and no "unknowns" for refs during games.
Hey matey, just realised 10.5 and 11.5.2.2 seem to conflict, one needs editing, etc?