Jump to Navigation
LOBP is now in archive mode... read more at leagueofbikepolo.com/goodbye.

2014 Ruleset Proposal

http://www.nahardcourt.com/proposed-2014-ruleset-version-4-0-beta/

Download and view the ruleset here. Ask questions and/or spout your disgust below.

Wow, there is going to be so much to absorb and learn. Is this the final version? and will we be seeing these changes in effect up to and at WHBPC 2014?

sonofagun wrote:

and will we be seeing these changes in effect up to and at WHBPC 2014?

I'm guessing this is up to Montpellier? Keen to hear their view

3.3.3 & 3.3.4 are very interesing! 5 minutes "silver goal", then golden goal. Why not?

Thanks for the job. This stuff is serious.

9.2
Why there is difference between highstick forehand (normal) shooting and backhand shooting?
What's the definition of "swing" against the "normal shoot" one?

10.3
Interference.
Need to know if a get the whole spirit here, to summary: you can't make physical contact when you screen a player, but the player that you screen can check you to break the screen?

Right now around the world we all play by contact to make screen, not full checks, but we go shoulders on shoulders to push people away from the play. Will this disapear with this rule?

9.1. is for balls in the air

The way it is written I would say that 9.2.1.1. is about shooting a ball on the ground. Wild forward swings or blind backhand swings are considered high sticking.

I would say everything dangerous is included in this rule.

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

9.2 What's the definition of "swing" against the "normal shoot" one?

During a normal forehand shot the shooter has awareness of other players during backswing and follow through, but the swing can also be anticipated much better. A majority of the mallet-to-face's occurred in close quarters, on a huge behind the back swing just to clear the ball (Sometimes hitting their own teammate, ha)

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

10.3 Interference.

Need to know if a get the whole spirit here, to summary: you can't make physical contact when you screen a player, but the player that you screen can check you to break the screen?

Right now around the world we all play by contact to make screen, not full checks, but we go shoulders on shoulders to push people away from the play. Will this disapear with this rule?

Yes, riding someone (with your shoulder) into the corner, nowhere near the play, is now illegal. This rule also offers goalie protection. The spirit of this rule is to encourage tactful and skillful defensive and offensive play.

Thanks to everyone involved working on the new ruleset.

Few questions I have:
§2.5.1.1: Why limit shaft material to metal or carbon?

§4.4.2 – A goal will also be awarded when the entire ball crosses the entire goal line resulting from active deflection of the ball by a defending player. These are known as own–goals.
§4.4.2.1 – If an offensive player shuffles the ball according to rule §5.3 and the ball then contacts a defender’s stationary equipment and crosses the goal line, no goal is awarded. Own–goals must meet the requirement of ‘active’ deflection by the defender.
§5.3.2 – A shuffle by the offensive team which enters the opposing team’s net is not a goal.

Does it count as a goal if the offensive player shuffles the ball and the defending player "actively" deflects the ball into the goal.

§5.4.1 – Ball–jointing is permitted for a time period of two seconds anywhere on the court. Ball–jointing that extends beyond this time limit will result in a ball turnover.
DODI TIME!
But seriously: Why not stick with the own half court rule only? Who´s is going to be responsible to time the 2 seconds? No way that person is going to have a stop watch for those 2 seconds but rather it will be estimated 2 seconds?

§8.4 – T–Boning
§8.4.1 – A T–Bone penalty will be assessed when a player initiates contact with an opponent by using their front or rear wheel to carry momentum into the opponent in the direction of travel.
Who´s at fault if player A moves forward or backswards in a way that does not leave player B the time to brake / the space to avoid player As bike. That happens from time to time in our pickups and we are unsure, whether it is the fault of A or B (who according to §8.4.1 would be the person causing the T-Bone).

metriod wrote:

§5.4.1 – Ball–jointing is permitted for a time period of two seconds anywhere on the court. Ball–jointing that extends beyond this time limit will result in a ball turnover.
DODI TIME!
But seriously: Why not stick with the own half court rule only? Who´s is going to be responsible to time the 2 seconds? No way that person is going to have a stop watch for those 2 seconds but rather it will be estimated 2 seconds?

I agree that the balljoint rule should probably stick to "own half".
The two seconds will be estimated by the referee. More like two "beats". The idea is used in lots of sports and isn't that weird.

Ref sees guy start to ball joint...
*in his head* "ball-JOINT, ball-JOINT"
That's two seconds, blow the whistle.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Ball joint for 2 seconds, lift mallet, ball joint for 2 seconds, lift mallet, repeat as you wish = basically unlimited ball joint?

Yep, pretty much. Defensive strategies will have to adjust to account for balljoint-heavy ball handling in the offensive half.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

I don´t think there is much one can do defence-wise in a 1 on 1 situation against a player with good mallet control who is allowed to ball joint for up to 2 seconds.

Yep. I agree.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

In the world of hypotheticals, all I can do is disagree with you.

I'm of the opinion that a team that maintains this as a strategy will get worked by any skilled opponent in the tournament. I would challenge you to exhibit any sort of competitive success by employing such tactics.

The two second rule is a great way to phase out a move that everyone has hated for the last 5 years. I agree with Nick above, any player trying to find a loophole in this rule will have a hard time being effective with it.

Yes, the 2 second rule doesn't need to be actively timed, it's more for the ref to pick up any instances which are clearly more than 2 seconds.

Regarding 8.4

Player B has been at fault for this for many rulesets now.

It is not a players responsibility to get out of the way of a t-bone.

Don't ride into areas where you might t-bone someone.

It was more of a general question and not really specific to the new ruleset.

So basically there is no scenario where Player A would be at fault for not giving Player B the time to react?

nope. Otherwise you end up with right-of-way rules.

are players allowed to purposefully draw a foul? e.g. can i short-stop people into t-boning me, like taking a charge in basketball, as a counter-strategy to people riding way too fast? if someone rides fast enough the space required to stop becomes considerable, can you disallow intentional drawing of fouls without giving a de facto right-of-way to players moving above a certain speed?

it's not in the 2013 rules specifically either, but i know the refs in florida were not calling fouls if they felt the fouled player was trying to draw a foul or left an opponent little time to react.

If you are going too fast to avoid a collision in that close of proximity to another player, then the foul is on you. If you wanna go fast, make sure you have a lane that cannot be closed by someone else.

Don't rely on other people staying out of your way.

[Edit: I refer to letting someone going too fast and out of control through a window I could close on them as "Being nice". If you try to squeeze by on the boards and my only options are to let you go or put you in a painful position, you are counting on me to "Be Nice".

If it's pickup I'll probably Be Nice. But you're a dick if you rely on everyone to Be Nice to keep you from hurting yourself. It'll catch ya eventually.]

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

I think Chris is just trying to make sure that it's not his fault when he tacos his wheel by rolling his bike infront of someone at the last second :-P

321polo.net

just making sure the reality will match the ruleset and hopefully, under pain of turnover, people won't taco so many of my wheels this year : )

but seriously, do we have a de facto right-of-way rule when a pick comes "at the last second?"

as i've said on other right of way threads, i think we have do have a de facto right of way rule ... i've never seen a ref call a t-bone on a player who gets cut off at the last second.

most players won't sacrifice a wheel just to draw a ball turnover or even a 30 second penalty on the other team. but in some cases it could be a good strategy, to force someone to tbone you--but only if refs are actually going to call it.

so yeah i have the same question as Chris from Grand Haven Michigan.

Ha i get called for that, I even bend my frame on the crash. You are sill lying on the floor and the ref give a ball turnover for the opponent.

I've called it before.

So I can't set a pick or screen? What happens if someone runs into me off ball?

I agree that arm extension checks and pushes should go, but I am going to miss the idea of the buffer elbow.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

10.3 is super unclear

10.3.1 Sounds like everything is forbidden
10.3.2 Oh, wait, there can be exceptions
10.3.2.1 Almost everything that is relevant to the game is an exception to 10.3.1, except knocking off a goalie (but putting a T-bone in front is no problem, since it is a "particular position on the court where he may want to ride when my teammate comes around the goal...see what I'm saying?). It is not stated whether the offender is allowed to use his shoulders or not when setting a moving screen. I think what you really want to say here just doesn't come out clearly

Why not turn it around?
10.3.1 You can screen any player anywhere on the court if he is trying to get in a postion or area of the court. A moving screen includes/excludes the offender to use his shoulders (choose what you want, but state it clearly).
10.3.2 If a player is not trying to ride anywhere particular (who knows?), particularly if he is the goalie then don't mess with them and don't push them around. ;)

I agree that there is some clarity to be desired, particularly surrounding 10.3 and where contact (and by whom) is legal.

It states that the OPPONENT is allowed to contest the screen with physical contact, but is the initiator of the screen allowed to make physical contact?

10.3.2.1 should include if proper body contact per 10.1 is allowed when setting a 'moving screen'

lancasterpolo.com
agile for my size.

More clarification is not needed, the rule is proposed exactly how it reads. You can not engage someone without the ball with physical contact.

It seems unrealistic and sloppy to me to write that you can lean on someone but you can't check them. A definition of such is a sliding scale of force applied rather than an either/or distinction.

You set a screen without contact and the defender has a chance to break it. We can not prevent off-ball checks and allow players at the same time to drive opponents into the wall with no reasonable counter-strategy.

This proposal gives defenders a higher chance to defend than in previous years without banning moving screens. I see the need for it, especially with all the noise about preventing off ball contact.

Nick Kruse wrote:

More clarification is not needed, the rule is proposed exactly how it reads. You can not engage someone without the ball with physical contact.

It seems unrealistic and sloppy to me to write that you can lean on someone but you can't check them. A definition of such is a sliding scale of force applied rather than an either/or distinction.

You set a screen without contact and the defender has a chance to break it. We can not prevent off-ball checks and allow players at the same time to drive opponents into the wall with no reasonable counter-strategy.

This proposal gives defenders a higher chance to defend than in previous years without banning moving screens. I see the need for it, especially with all the noise about preventing off ball contact.

But then you need to state in the definition of the moving screen, that it has to be "contactless", unless the opponent is trying to break it (in that situation the person who puts the screen is probably leaning in against the opponent not to get knocked off themselves, right?)

I think the interference rule is written perfectly. If you want to set a moving pick you're still more than welcome to, you just can't grind your teeth and slam a defender or ride them into the wall anymore. You're also the one initiating the pick, so you should be the one anticipating any contact and preparing for a hit.

10.3 makes no sense. Or does it mean no checking

This is a fast moving sport, that can not stop on a dime and change direction like people on feet can. Most of the screens that we make are moving and the opposing team knows this as well. Thats were the whole idea of battling for position comes into play, and when your battling for position their is going to be contact. Where is the line going to be crossed on; is it a screen or is he taking his line. There is 6 people moving around on bikes in tight quarters, of course there is going to be contact. Screens become a huge part of that, it makes absolutely no sense to take contact away from the screen. By no means am I saying we should allow checking in a screens. Im just saying riding someone off shoulder on shoulder is part of that and a safe way to screen and block someone. Also, the guy being screen can counter the screen if he is pushing back on the screener. Here is an example where it does not make sense:

You have the ball, you get contested by the opponent, you start making contact/ or not, you dump pass and roll hard to the right(if your a righty), that is a type of screen that happens a lot and almost always with contact. Is that a penalty then?

Also, this is a team sport not an individual sport, and as a team you make up plays, and weather you have the ball or not if your roll is to put on the screen you are in play.

I think that possibly, this is just a miss print or miss wording of some sort. I just want to point this out so we can make it black and white, instead of grey.

Small things:

§4.1.4 - for the joust I think we should add that the referee drops their hand when they blow the whistle. We've had a deaf woman play with us (very well!) for a while now. It became pretty clear that she could never joust because she would have no idea when the whistle was blown. A visual cue for the start of play would be great.

§6.2.5 Penalized not Panelized

Thoughts:
I'll be sad to see the elbow buffer go too. I agree with the shoulder to shoulder only contact, but it was nice to have space between the bicycles. But the elbow/arm use is too easy to make dirty.

I thought the section on the moving screen was pretty clear: you can set a moving screen but cannot make physical contact. The player being screened may give you legal physical contact in return. So basically if you're setting a moving screen you should be ready to be checked. That makes sense and you know to expect it.

My question on §10.3 is if YOU have possession of the ball and somebody is guarding you closely can you check the defender to create space? They don't have the ball so the rules make it pretty clear that you cannot check somebody without the ball. Is that the intention? Essentially that there are two people who can be checked: those setting moving screens and the player with the ball?

4.1.4 - Makes sense

6.2.5: The elbow buffer is not gone. The rule states explicitly you cannot *initiate* contact. If a player is initiating contact with your forearm, your only obligation is to not push back.

This was the way I explained steering arm and extension infractions to referees last year. The key word is "initiate".

10.3, if you have the ball, any defender guarding you is making a play on the ball meaning they can check you legally, and yes you would be entitled to break the screen with contact.

Ok I understand meow, with the 6.2.5.

Again there is a gray area here. If I use my elbow as a buffer, I still have to match the force that is coming in on me. which means Im naturally pushing back. The full arm extension is fully understandable, but we should be able to own your space and if your in it, we should be able to push the other player out, with the allowable elbow buffer.

thats my opinion anyway

Ahh... gotcha. Glad to hear about the elbow buffer. I'm not sure why the word initiate was so invisible to me. Going back through I think that the wording is clear. Thanks for the explanation

taco tony wrote:

So basically if you're setting a moving screen you should be ready to be checked. That makes sense and you know to expect it.

Attacker A's team has the ball. Attacker A is riding around the offensive half trying to get open for a pass.

Defender X checks Attacker A hard, forcing him to dab.

Attacker A: What the hell? Off the ball check man!
Defender X: You were screening me!
Attacker A: No I wasn't, I was just trying to get in position for a pass!
Defender X: Whatever man, you were between me and the ball.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Attacker A: Not the ref.
Defender X: Not the ref.

So let's consider somebody actually WAS the ref. Can you give him some help in determining whether A did indeed put a screen on X or not (I suppose it is not the face expression that gives the tell...)? Explain your rules if you care enough. That's what this is for. And if people have problems understanding the rules then consider a rewording to make it more clear. All you do is disagree on anything anyone has posted so far...

And what to do in a situation where both players have a reason to prevent the other person from crossing their way? Do both have to try not to touch each other and just ride straight ahead all the way across the court until someone gives up?

django wrote:

So let's consider somebody actually WAS the ref. Can you give him some help in determining whether A did indeed put a screen on X or not (I suppose it is not the face expression that gives the tell...)? Explain your rules if you care enough. That's what this is for. And if people have problems understanding the rules then consider a rewording to make it more clear. All you do is disagree on anything anyone has posted so far...

A moving pick should (hopefully) always be relevant to the ball. In the situation above, any player with basic situational awareness of the game will be able to identify that Player A is in fact not trying to pick Defender X. Of course this hinges on where the ball is on the court in relation to these two players, which wasn't given in the example. Please clarify your request for clarification.

Well all I am saying is that there are grey areas and not everything is so clear as you can see by lots of questions popping up. If the rule says you are not allowed to play physical at all except you are going for the person IN BALL POSSESSION then question is what happens if two people are fighting for the ball?

Say a lefty and a righty want to go for the ball that is resting some distance ahead from them. The righty comes from the right, the lefty comes from the left. Both will want to get the ball on their stick side meaning they have to screen the other player when riding towards the ball. The options here are (when both have the same speed):

1) R and L see what eventually is going to happen and both initiate shoulder contact. Somebody eventually wins and earns the ball. Both do something that is illegal according to 10.3.1 (initiate cotact to a play not possessing the ball)
2) Only R sees what eventually is going to happen and rides towards L. However, L has studied the rules more carefully and just lets R initiate the first contact without responding to it. Game is stopped, ball is turned over to L. Is that what we want to see?!

So if we want to see 1) happening the wording should be changed. It should be allowed to make contact on a player fighting for the same position or the ball if he is approaching in a similar way and has an equal chance. Right?

In your scenario, what I would like to see is a display of speed and acceleration to win possession of the ball rather than a shoving match where a bigger player beats a smaller one by forcing them out of the way.

Right now the rules say: if you want the ball, pedal faster than the other guy and win it. Don't hit him because he doesn't have the ball either.

I think that's what I want them to say.

Ok, I think understand where you are trying to go. Thanks for claryfying.

Ok... so what should ref call in situation like that.... ( it happens often )
Ball is close to the board , me and the second player are trying to get it... I'm closer to the board ( to the ball too ) than second guy... What I usually do ( and what was perfectly clear ) : I check the guy , which force him to increase distance to the ball , and then I get the ball ....
I've attached the image - hope it is legible
Is it now my bad?

  • check.png

Pajac, The Beardless

ignore me, Kruse explains it much better

Thanks for your drawing, we have discussed this scenario frequently when we were writing the rule.

Black player is screening the purple player from the ball, and thus inviting the check. Black player can not check purple player. But black player's screen invites purple player's contact. Should purple player choose to engage black player, black may defend against his physical contact.

You are in the wrong if you engage in the physical contact with the purple player. You are not in the wrong if you screen the purple player and they engage in the contact with you. In scenarios where the referee can not tell exactly what happened or who initiated, this will probably not be called.

But... If purple player will initiate contact with black player then is purple player foul ... because as well as purple , black player is not in possession of the ball.... am I right?

no offence - It will look hilarious when both players will not be able to make contact in that situation :P

Pajac, The Beardless

No-one is going to care about a bit of incidental contact.

But if your first thought in that situation is "I'm going to take out the other player", rather than "I'm going to get the ball", then that's wrong, and what this ruleset is trying to avoid.

I just wanna clarify that purple player can initiation contact with black because black is screening purple from the ball. Purple has the right to physically challenge black under this proposal.

At some point, the screen is nullified, right? What if a screen crosses that threshold, and the roles reverse?

Counterproductive or not, the person that was screened initially could continue to engage the other player (perhaps to keep them from joining the attack), either crossing over into illegal contact (once positional advantage is gained) or reaching a point where neither player has an advantage (which could be seen as justifying legal contact by both players simultaneously).

Why allow any contact away from the ball at all?

If moving screens are allowed, physical contact is one of the only options for countering it. If we were to exclude off-ball contact entirely, I think you'd have to only allow for stationary picks like in basketball.

I'm not for or against that idea, at this point. If you can offer some counter-strategy to a moving screen in a world where all off-ball contact is illegal, I'd love to start building a case for it.

Just go a different direction or change your velocity? Learn to fly? I mean, I don't care as much about finding the silver bullet for the moving screen as I do about eliminating opportunities for shenanigans. You don't think that a scenario will arise where a player can use the legality of that specific type of off-ball contact to yell at you about the outcome of a questionable play? It opens the door for players to welcome a screen so they can legally bulldoze another player. I am so confused by how off-ball contact isn't being outlawed entirely that I am starting to wonder if I'm actually crazy.

I'm with you more than you might think.

And I agree with what you're saying: It is questionable play, in my personal opinion. You can't do it in any other sport because the assumption is that the defender has a right to make a defensive play on a ball, and an offensive player has the right to get into an advantageous position. Neither player should have to be primarily concerned with breaking CONTINUOUS pressure from a player, let alone physical pressure. This is why I said that moving screens would have to be banned entirely. It would be somewhere between hockey and basketball: Every player is entitled to the space they occupy, and a player cannot continuously impede their movement toward the play.

I feel like offensive screens, that are executed sparingly and to great effect, are a desirable part of the game. These screens often include little to no contact (less now, with this rule) and are used briefly. Some players take it to the extreme and focus their entire effort on NOT letting a player make any play at all. It turns a 3v3 game into a 2v2, or 1v1 game. If defenders focused on defending and attackers on attacking, you'd see crazy fast ball movement just like in all these other super exciting sports.

But to come full circle, if moving screens are allowed: There needs to be an out. An allowable counter-action. Let the screener invite the off-ball check: At least it's mutually accepted, and players who don't want to play that way don't have to, and can't be checked off-ball thanks to this rule.

We can respectfully disagree forever, I guess. IMO, no ball->no contact.

The real wrench is that we are (aside from a few special players) objects with dimensions and a relatively minimally adjustable trajectory as opposed to someone playing a sport on foot/skates where they are a point with 360° of freedom.

I would expand, but I'm on my phone. You should respond preemptively, and I will tell you how you've got me all wrong when I get to a keyboard.

Seems like there will be more times for this scenario where the ball appears there suddenly, and Black isn't intentionally screening--the positions are just incidental--and Purple finds it within her rights to check Black. Is that a problem?

Purple (P) is trying to screen red (R) from the ball because P's teammate blue (B) is going to get the ball.

P is clearly ahead of R but needs to close the gap to the bord in order to cut the way off completely. P will have to slow down at some point. R in return is screened by P and therefore allowed to challenge the screen (as long as P is moving, right?) So R can ride full blast into P's shoulder as long as they don't make any bike contact, right? But if P is already almost at stopped how can they not be completely knocked off their bike? Did I miss anything here?

Edit: Is this a situation where a flagrance would be called against R?

  • Screen_break.png

Another great scenario, another great drawing.

I would find it hard to believe red could check purple in this scenario without it missing the requirements of the "high and even" clause in 10.whatever (on my phone, sorry). I'd assume they would most likely be carrying momentum through purple from behind, which is against the new rule.

I think that in this scenario, purple has won positioning. Red will probably have to concede possession for the time being and resume defensive strategy, or risk being penalized. They are beat on the play.

(r) gonna Check (p) on the side in this case, not from behind, no?

For me this is a situation where (r) should have the right to open his way for the ball against the screen.

Ps:
These draws are dope and make everything way more clear. They should have this in almost every message exposing a situation.

Ps2.
In one day this thread became completely impossible to fallow without reading tons of message, shouldn't we open a new thread about every new real change this ruleset make?

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

(r) gonna Check (p) on the side in this case, not from behind, no?

For me this is a situation where (r) should have the right to open his way for the ball against the screen.

In his description, he states that purple is CLEARLY ahead of red. Therefore, I would assume any check that red puts on purple would be from behind.

In the scenario in which red and purple are even and one is not behind the other, contact is going to be inevitable as two players converge on the same location. Coincidental physical challenges at the location of ball are not going to be called for penalties, even if a player has not touched it yet.

However, disregard for the exact location of the ball by purple or red in order to "snuff out" the opponent, will be called for off-ball contact.

A good rule of thumb is to just ask: "Is the player making a play on the ball and is the contact incidental TO that play on the ball or are they solely attempting to put a check on the opponent?"

The focus of all players of all players must be on the ball, with contact being very near the ball and remaining incidental.

...in this proposal.

P is only clearly ahead before he has to slow down when approaching the board. Also he may be standing sideways enough so that R is not really coming "from behind".

I would assume that if R can outgun P and get beside him in time to force shoulder on shoulder contact, then he can legally create contact. But if P asserts his position IN FRONT of R, then R no longer has the opportunity to physically challenge? In this case of P wedging R to the boards, P must assume the possibility of contact if they are both vying for the same space and P is impeding (therefore screening) Rs chance at the ball.

Long story short, if you are screening and attempting to stop an opponent from reaching the ball you are inviting the possibility of getting hit, as the opponent has the right to the ball. Purposefully putting your body in the way of an opponent would then assume that you are ready and willing to be contacted.

However, contact can only be made shoulder to shoulder. And not from behind. Therefore if you have closed off a lane and are in a vulnerable (ex: back to opponent) position to your opponent, he cannot make contact and you have therefore you "won" the space.

Is this right?

Yes great interpretation and summary!

django wrote:

(P) (B) (R)

Exactly.

This explanation helped a lot. I had been wondering about this myself. So once purple initiates contact you have the right to push back, just not with excessive force?

My one concern is that a hard check from purple can result in the sort of dangerous checks (boarding in hockey) that occur when a player is checked a few feet away from the boards. This is a penalty now, though, right?

Correct. Just because you are allowed to hit someone doesn't mean the other rules don't apply to you.

321polo.net

For potential refs out there trying to decide how to rule in this sort of situation, what kind of logic should they apply to determine whether the (ambiguously purposeful) obstruction of a defender is a moving screen?

Should "active" as used in 10.2.1.1 be taken to mean "intentional"?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Thank you for asking the question this way instead. Sometimes, a screen will be intentional but so nonchalant that a referee will not be able to determine that it was an "active" screen, this is true.

A referee should not take "active" to mean "intentional" directly, though, because we try to keep interpretations of intent out of the ruleset where we can.

What "active" means is that the offensive player will be matching accelerations in order to STAY in the defender's way. Should the defender try to speed up AROUND the screen and the offensive player accelerates as well, it's an active screen. If the defender slows down to try to duck behind the offensive player and the offensive player hits the brakes, it's an active screen.

The reason the word "active" is not a big scary thing to define in this scenario is because if a screen is not active (if the offensive player is not matching the moves of the defender) then the screen is easily broken by the defensive player by simply doing one of those things: speeding up or slowing down.

Contact on a player that is not actively screening but, for lack of a better term, "coasting", is still illegal but I believe that seeing someone do it would be a rarity. I believe that it would be rare because engaging a player who is "coasting" rather than "actively screening" is not the most efficient or effective way to break the screen. Players will, 99.999% of the time opt to just go around them one way or the other. And the .0001% of the time, when that one idiot DOES inefficiently and ineffectively check a player that is just coasting before them, they will hopefully be called for off-ball contact.

There are plans and actions in place to train NAH referees on all of these new contact changes, and all of the language I used above will be used in those trainings. I know this because Joe Rstom is in charge of the reffing for 2014, and he helped me write every single change that has occurred from last year's document.

And I cooked you breakfast too.

Hmmm... from my point of view... It is much better to allow players to initiate check if they are fighting for a ball possession... ( in both drawn scenarios ( be my and Django ) all players would be able to initiate check ). .... Rules written in that way make legal all the sweet checks between players that are riding to lose ball... and in the same time they make illegal off-the ball checks ( except screen breaking )
I believe that there is a reason why you didn't do that .... Can you share your motives?

Pajac, The Beardless

taco tony wrote:

Small things:

§4.1.4 - for the joust I think we should add that the referee drops their hand when they blow the whistle. We've had a deaf woman play with us (very well!) for a while now. It became pretty clear that she could never joust because she would have no idea when the whistle was blown. A visual cue for the start of play would be great.

§6.2.5 Penalized not Panelized

Thank you for this input! We will change both of these things.

tony wrote:

My question on §10.3 is if YOU have possession of the ball and somebody is guarding you closely can you check the defender to create space? They don't have the ball so the rules make it pretty clear that you cannot check somebody without the ball. Is that the intention? Essentially that there are two people who can be checked: those setting moving screens and the player with the ball?

You can not initiate contact on the defender. If they challenge you with mallet play, you must make a decision with the ball. If they challenge you physically (because you are the ball carrier), you are allowed to contest it.

Remember guys, the word "initiate" signals that 10.3 applies to the instigator of the physical contact.

Anyone who watches hockey or soccer knows that interference rules are tough to legislate. Seriously, look at the NHL's interpretation: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26348

It took them over 1200 words to explain what they mean, and even when outlined to the finest detail, commentators of hockey games and players of the game are constantly asking about its interpretation. We are not here to write 1200 word rules (the NHL ruleset is 215 pages long). We are here to write a concise document that, coupled with referee training, maintains consistency and teaches players what the referees are looking for to make calls.

"INITIATES" is key. You will not get a whistle every time you raise your arm to protect yourself and you will not get a whistle every time you set a screen that turns into a pushing match. This is about intent and a player's intent, pending approval of this ruleset, will no longer be to physically engage opponents that are not in possession of the ball.

Taco Tony, I appreciate the general demeanor of your posts here. Thanks!

Nick Kruse wrote:

"You can not initiate contact on the defender... If they challenge you physically (because you are the ball carrier), you are allowed to contest it... "INITIATES" is key. You will not get a whistle every time you raise your arm to protect yourself and you will not get a whistle every time you set a screen that turns into a pushing match. This is about intent and a player's intent, pending approval of this ruleset, will no longer be to physically engage opponents that are not in possession of the ball.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the explanation and pointing out initiate. For whatever reason when I read the ruleset that completely washed over me. It's clear now though.

Thanks for the time I'm sure was spent on this. Good luck dealing with all of the Armchair Rulemakers!

Thanks for explaining this better, sorry if I was being abrasive. I just started picturing a bunch of whistles being called and not letting people play the game, is all. If refs are being trained properly thats great, and I know '14 will be even better than '13 already was as far as enforcing rules goes.
I guess I'm also thinking of pick-up, team nights and the people that want to play to the rule set that NAH puts outs and avoid the constant argument of what is legal and not.

No problem and you weren't abrasive. I was just at work and couldn't bang a longer explanation out.

It is my belief that this interference rule is not going to be intrusive to how people already play the game. As always, refs will be looking for egregious violations first. I believe this to be just a slight tweak on what setting a screen actually means, and I believe it's necessary to phase off-ball contact out of the game. It is hard to phase it out without saying "this is exactly what a screen is and this is exactly how you are allowed to do it."

Nearly all other sports have phased out off-ball contact by making moving screens completely illegal. We had to find a round-about way to write an interference rule because the community expressed pretty loudly that they like the screening and the getting-in-people's-way and stuff.

Thanks for being polite. I know that you guys want to make this sport safe, and are trying to wean out unsafe play. I definitely back that 100%, and I can't imagine that coming up with rules to a new sport, is easy either. I haven't been playing as long as a bunch of you guys or even played in NA's(maybe this yr if I'm lucky...dam Cascadia), but I am a very committed player that wants to play to the rules, plus the old skool rule of "don't be a dick" and would not like this sport to be full of a bunch of crying sissies. I've seen you play enough Nick to know you definitely don't want that either, and Im pretty sure that most of the polo world feels that way too.

Im sure this has been said before, but there is a unique quality in our sport vs the sports that we like to compare to, in that we are on a mechanical machine that can not react, move, or collide in the way that the players of basket ball, hockey, or soccer can. I think that moving screens are safer for us( if done properly), then making them illegal. I think if we try to ever make it illegal we would see a lot of people flying over there handle bars.

Anyway just expressing my feelings, after your explanation I do feel better about it and look forward to see how this gets called this year.

10.1 Needs to be clearer or is completely unfair. I know it says initiate contact

Does this mean no more arm extension at all or does it mean no more leading in with an arm extension( our version of a stiff arm), which I agree with. You still should be able to own your own space though.

I am a short guy and no matter what am almost always playing with people that are taller than me. No matter what I do, tuck in my arm or not, the taller guy will always win against me because he has the higher ground, thats just physics. The only way to counter that is to put your arm out and change the pivot point in which a taller guy can come in on you. So, in defense of the bigger guy coming in on me, my arm comes up, to keep him from getting that advantage( that is owning your space). If he is coming in for a check, or he is trying to smother me out I should be able to put my arm up in defense.

Again this just seems like a grey area to me.

remember when we used to build our rule sets in your moms basement. ahhh, i miss those days...;)

nice work fellas

Maybe Interference should have a provision for being in the area of the ball when determining who is labeled as having possession.

Based on the current "last touch" definition, I could clear the ball 100 feet away down the court, then get checked 4 or 5 seconds later as long as no one else has touched the ball in the interim. I still have "possession" despite being nowhere near the ball or the play.

Edit
Or as a more important example, consider the goalie making a stop by deflecting the ball behind the net or clearing it into a near corner. The goalie is now deemed in possession of the ball until someone else touches it (even though the ball is 20 feet away), and so the goalie can now be bodied until they have to dab. Given one of the reasons for the interference rule is to ostensibly protect goalies from off-the-ball contact, that needs some clearing up.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Taking care of this. Good call, thanks.

Looks great. Thanks for the all the hard work guys

§4.4.1 – A goal is awarded when the entire ball crosses the entire goal line after originating from a
‘shot’. A shot is defined in §5.2. A shot may subsequently deflect off of any surface except the
broad side of an offensive player’s mallet head or the shaft of an offensive player’s mallet
before crossing the goal line and be deemed a valid goal.

§5.2.2 – Actively directing the ball into the net with any part of the body or bike is not a shot.

Clarification question: How is active/inactive direction of the ball determined? If I am stationary (inactive?) can my teammate shoot the ball at my wheel with the resulting deflection counting as a goal? Or let's say the shot is wild and bounces up into the air off an attacker who is clearly not trying to actively deflect it, but it goes in anyway? Thanks, b

-my stomach is a pickle-

brian -bwin- wrote:

§4.4.1 – A goal is awarded when the entire ball crosses the entire goal line after originating from a
‘shot’. A shot is defined in §5.2. A shot may subsequently deflect off of any surface except the
broad side of an offensive player’s mallet head or the shaft of an offensive player’s mallet
before crossing the goal line and be deemed a valid goal.

§5.2.2 – Actively directing the ball into the net with any part of the body or bike is not a shot.

Clarification question: How is active/inactive direction of the ball determined? If I am stationary (inactive?) can my teammate shoot the ball at my wheel with the resulting deflection counting as a goal? Or let's say the shot is wild and bounces up into the air off an attacker who is clearly not trying to actively deflect it, but it goes in anyway? Thanks, b

HI BRIAN!!!

1) If your own teammate shoots the ball, it can deflect off of any surface/person/item on the court except the broad side of the opponents mallet or the opponents mallet shaft and be counted as a goal against you if it goes in your net.
a. Your teammate shoots the ball, it hits into an opponent's wheel and then goes into your goal -- that's an own goal.
b. Your teammate shoots the ball, it hits into an opponent's wheel, then hits the opponent's mallet head, then goes into your goal -- that's NOT an own goal.
c. Your teammate shoots the ball, it hits into your own player's body and goes into the goal, that's an own goal.

d. The opponent shuffles the ball (NOT SHOOTS IT), it hits your mallet that is just sitting on the ground and then goes into the goal -- that's NOT an own goal.
e. The opponent shuffles the ball, it bounces off your wheel and goes in the net -- that's NOT an own goal.
f. The opponent shuffles the ball, you aim to push it out of the goal area to make a break and go the other way with it, you miss a little and the ball deflects into your net -- THATS AN OWN GOAL!!!

Let me know if that answers your question or if you have any comments.

HI NICK!!

So let's move it to the other side of the court, my team is trying to score against the other team, same situations outlined above. My team is shooting the ball, and the ball is deflecting off me or one of my teammates and winds up in the other teams goal. In one situation the shot deflects off of a stationary teammates wheel (which maybe happens to be parked at the exact right angle/position for a deflection into the goal, maybe not) who doesn't actively direct the ball into the net by pushing/turning/leaning the wheel. In the other, the ball is shot and it goes wild, bouncing off of a moving teammate (either their wheel/bike/body), not directed "actively" in any way towards their goal, and then goes into their goal.

-my stomach is a pickle-

Both of those situations will count as a goal for your team.

The only way the goal would be waved off is if the referee deemed that your teammate MOVED his wheel in such a way that the wheel "shoots" the ball into the goal.

Edit: Brian, after further consideration, I feel like a little more wording is needed here in regards to offensive deflections into the goal such as headbutts and booty bumps. We are going to add a little something to make this more stringent so that you can shoot and have it deflect off a teammate but that you can not shoot and then have your teammate headbutt the ball in from out of the air or "hump" it into the goal. You know, like humping.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Nick Kruse wrote:

headbutts and booty bumps

Nick Kruse wrote:

"hump" it into the goal. You know, like humping

tryna take sexy outta bike polo!? outrage!

Thanks for the clarification, mang.

-my stomach is a pickle-

Going to have to do this move next season just so I can hear my teammate argue with a ref about whether or not I humped the ball.

You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.

Nick, firstly thank you for your never-ending work on our ruleset. Secondly, last night at pick-up (newbie night) I encountered a situation I've never seen before. Attacker is close to the goal, takes a shot and before he can contact the ball a defender got his mallet in between the ball and the attacker's mallet. Attacker's mallet pushes defender's mallet (the side; not the end) into the ball, which rolled into the goal. The defender made no contact with the ball prior to the momentum from attacker's shot. We ended up awarding the goal, was that the right call?

D FENS

Totally a goal.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

This is going to be largely up to the goal judge in a tournament and it's definitely hard to see in real time. But yeah, goal.

[ applause ]

---------------------------
carve. smash. eat shit.

"2.5.1.1 – The shaft is made of metal or carbon fiber"

Why the exclusion of other materials (e.g. bamboo)?
I might be completely wrong and ill informed; isn't CF dangerous when broken? It splinters and is impossible to trace back when it's ends up in your bloodstream..

I hope these rules will become universal one day.

It looks as if "Head Butting" has been taken out of the rules. (I'm sure Forrest(SF) is happy about this!)
And replaced with a "Head contact" rule in section 10.6.

Is headbutting now legal? As long as you don't hit the other player in their head/neck?

Glad to see the addition of Section 9.6 - Mallet Dropping and Section 1.1.9 - Hand Signals. I really like the addtion of hand signals/flagging for the Goal Judge too(this is basically how it is done in soccer with linesmen).

Excellent work Nick and Joe. Thanks for being dilligent and answering all the hypothetical situations!

8.6 sweeping. why is this a penalty? what is your reasoning?

if i am allowed to break someone's tripod with a sweep of my own mallet, why not my wheel? am i now allowed to trap people by firmly establishing my mallet on the ground right in front of them?

edit: and relating to 9.3.1.1, wouldn't any mallet that gets under a wheel that isn't ruled a jam automatically be considered a sweep against the other player?

Can a screen only be made with a bike? Planting your mallet to obstruct a player moving or even holding it out (below shoulder height of course) to try and get the other player to ride into it forcing a bike-on-mallet? Not a very attractive act and I certainly won't be doing it but I have seen a version whereby a defender reaches around from an attackers drive side, putting their mallet across the front wheel, more or less holding it there trying to get around the wheel to the ball. Sometimes the attacker gets brought down by accidental (I'll give the offenders the benefit of the doubt) hooking which should draw a penalty I guess. But still an obstruction "screen" that may not draw a penalty unless a crash, or near crash, happens?

hellochris wrote:

8.6 sweeping. why is this a penalty? what is your reasoning?

if i am allowed to break someone's tripod with a sweep of my own mallet, why not my wheel? am i now allowed to trap people by firmly establishing my mallet on the ground right in front of them?

You can break a tripod with your mallet because you are hitting a mallet. It is a pretty well understood rule these days that if you break someones tripod by hooking their front or rear wheel out with your mallet, it's not okay. You may call it "making them crash", but in essence you are breaking their tripod just the same. So if Jamming is illegal (formerly Tripping), then the reverse must also be made illegal. It's totally logical. And to answer your hypothetical: It's always been a viable strategy to plant your mallet in front of someone so they can't ride through it. This rule long ago was "Mallet to Mallet, body to body, bike to bike", and then it became a sub-section of the Tripping rule: §7.3.1.1 – If the referee deems that the dabbed player rode into the mallet of an opponent, rather than a situation in which an opponent hooks the player’s wheel, no penalty is assessed. Basically this meant that if your mallet was firmly planted and someone rode into it, you wouldn't get a tripping penalty. We've just made it official that if that happens, the player who rode into the mallet committed the penalty. See the evolution?

Playing someone's wheel with your mallet is dangerous and cheap, the reverse is not. I tend to think of the front wheel as another implement, like a second stick. Isn't there room to penalize "jamming" without disallowing all wheel to mallet play?

Are you allowed to firmly plant your mallet lengthwise across the court surface, knuckles to the ground, and claim all that space?

And I guess I disagree, fundamentally. I feel like playing a mallet with a wheel can be dangerous and cheap.

If someone was planting their fist (like that one move with the funny name), I suppose it would be illegal to ride over their mallet. But that move has to happen so quickly I'd assess that as a deliberate initiation of contact from the mallet, so it would be jamming instead.

I'm agree with Chris, I think that's different to play wheel to kick mallet than the opposite, and I see this move a lot of time not being called. And as people know that you could make it, that's not dangerous because you are waiting for it as a mallet to mallet break a tripod.
Making it illegal and you can imagine people claming space because the put your mallet on you way.
you could put you mallet in front of someone riding, make him fall because he ride off and then call it the guy who make the fool?

Breaking tripod with wheel should be fine for me.

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

Breaking tripod with wheel should be fine for me.

Jep!

Your logics have a one little problem here, I'll try to point it out:

1) Mallet breaks tripod by wheel pulling -> illegal
2) Wheel breaks tripod by mallet pulling -> illegal
3) Mallet breaks tripod by mallet pulling -> legal
4) Wheel breaks tripod by wheel pulling -> illegal

I Agree that 1 and 4 should be illegal and 3 schould be legal, these are obvious.

According to your logics 2 is the reverse of 1 and therefore illegal, which I think is a bad way of thinking. I could ask why isn't 4 allowed since it's the "opposite" of 3.

I would rather make it a question on how is the tripod broken? By pulling the wheel (not cool) or by pulling the mallet (cool). Therefore 2 in my opinion could(!!) also be legal.

"Logics" don't support your argument in my opinion.

django wrote:

Your logics have a one little problem here, I'll try to point it out:

1) Mallet breaks tripod by wheel pulling -> illegal
2) Wheel breaks tripod by mallet pulling -> illegal
3) Mallet breaks tripod by mallet pulling -> legal
4) Wheel breaks tripod by wheel pulling -> illegal

I Agree that 1 and 4 should be illegal and 3 schould be legal, these are obvious.

According to your logics 2 is the reverse of 1 and therefore illegal, which I think is a bad way of thinking. I could ask why isn't 4 allowed since it's the "opposite" of 3.

I would rather make it a question on how is the tripod broken? By pulling the wheel (not cool) or by pulling the mallet (cool). Therefore 2 in my opinion could(!!) also be legal.

"Logics" don't support your argument in my opinion.

The word I guess should not be "opposite" but "dual". Let's put it like this, ">" is going to mean "pull., so we have :
1) M>W
2) W>M
3) M>M
4) W>W
You can see clearly that 1 is the dual of 2, while 3 and 4 are self-dual.

So when someone accidentally puts their mallet down in front of my wheel and it causes me to bail there is no Jamming penalty. Makes sense.

But in this exact same situation I would be up for a Sweeping penalty. Is that correct?

if someone tripods infront of me to stop me from riding past them and i ride through their extended arm (they are facing my way) to break the tripod and keep my line, is this legal?

and if some one plants their mallet across a goal to block a player rolling into their goal and hits the mallet?

Can openers just got easier!

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Chris, I think some of your arguments here are pretty good.

If anything, the rule was put in there to try to just clean up contact of all kinds. If we have players knocking goalie's mallets out with their wheels, using their bicycle as a tool to make other players dab, I believe we are promoting sloppier play.

When I ask myself what people want the game to look like and what makes for exciting, vibrant play, using a front wheel to ride up to someone and knock their mallet out isn't really on the list. So I put the sweeping rule in to clean it up.

Having said that, I don't care about this that much. It's very far down on the list of things I think are important. So if there is no further debate on this topic or points raised from supporters of such a rule, we will remove it.

I wish you much mallet knocking success.

I very much support such a rule.

1) I don't see what this move adds to the game
2) You can't cleanly hook the mallet with a wheel, it's potentially as dangerous as a slash.
3) Why add one exception to the no bike contact rule?

These are my thoughts as well. I just meant that in the spirit of "picking your battles", I'm not going to argue this one if a lot of people or a majority of people agree with Chris. I'd rather remove it. Still on the fence here I guess until more people say they want one thing or the other.

I think using your wheel to apply pressure on an oponent's static mallet (by for instance turning your handle bar) is not a bad thing (if its not a "hitting" motion, but mor like a "push"). I think it is as fair as defending the ball by turning your wheel in order to block an approaching mallet.

Knocking your wheel into their mallet or even riding your bike into their mallet on purpose is something else and shouldn't be allowed.

BTW I just noticed there is a sperate tail whip penalty (8.5), but not a seperate penalty for front pivoting into the oponent. Is there a reason for that?

The tail whip penalty covers pivots as well.

D FENS

For sure, it's far from the biggest issue.

i'm sorry if i battled you, nick kruse. did not intend.

John H wrote:

I very much support such a rule.

1) I don't see what this move adds to the game
2) You can't cleanly hook the mallet with a wheel, it's potentially as dangerous as a slash.
3) Why add one exception to the no bike contact rule?

Seconded

i disagree with this rule as its written. while i understand off-ball wheel-to-mallet contact (the example of using a wheel to clear a goalie was mentioned) is undesirable, i find myself in the situation depicted below quite often. (Black lines are bikes and red lines are mallets.) If I have the ball and a right-handed defender challenges me, one strategy i see used is to attempt to reach around the front of my bike to steal the ball. my reaction to this would be to bring the ball back towards my rear wheel. If they leave their mallet in front of my bike, this severely limits the routes i can use to ride out of the situation. In my own head i always conceptualized a sort of hierarchy: bike=bike, bike> mallet. that is to say bike to bike contact is illegal, but bike motion takes precedence over mallet motion/ positioning, at least for the ball carrier. Thoughts?

edit: i realized a drew a left handed defender, but i guess the handedness of the defender is not that important

  • polo11214.png

I applaud the efforts to clear up off ball physical play, but I feel like removing shaft shots/deflections as a viable way to score is a step backwards. In my opinion, polo needs more ways to score, not less.

I'm not particularly worried about shaft shots, but am also a little perplexed about the pervasive desire to limit scoring possibilities in a sport that is currently not all that offensive.

I'll grant folks who hate shuffles that one, maybe even no-wrist shots too, but why no intentional wheel goals? If we're looking to increase skilled plays that seems like an obvious one to me.

Not all that offensive? There are probably 20 shots and an average of 5-7 goals in 15 minute games. All final games went to 5 this year. When we play games equal in length to a hockey game, there are like 25 goals a game.

I think there are a lot of people who agree with you on the wheel thing. There are a lot of changes in the rules this year regarding contact and procedure. A big part of me wanted to avoid a lot of the experimental stuff this year because coupled with all the other changes, it may have been too many things to learn all at once. A slower progression is bound to be more successful on the whole, I think.

Also, changes like wheel shot goals need discussion. It is clear you have the skill in argument to change opinions, you changed mine on things that are in the current proposal. So lead discussions over the course of next season and I'm sure the 2015 ruleset will look a lot different than this one!

Fair points all, Nick.
I agree that discussion is good and slow change works best.
Let's talk about it over a beer in Minny!

I think it is interesting and somewhat disappointing we took a step back on what we allowed for goals. Granted, according to that poll that so many responded to and was used unofficially to gauge the community's thoughts, it would seem that that is what the community wanted.
55% wanted only business end shots. Not a staggering victory for business-end only supporters, but there you have it.
I don't like it, personally. I would've thought by now people would see it doesn't magically change the game. If anything it keeps the game rolling smoothly instead of having stoppages over "ball went in net, what part did this ball originate from" to clarify goal-no-goal situations.

I do agree with you. Though I'm pleasantly surprised that 45% of people were open to other options.

No penalty shot?
My only beef with this is you cant award goal with out it going into the net. I can't think of a single sport that has this. Even a penalty shot with on an UN-protected net would be better than just awarding a goal.

140x65

I agree, I'll work on this

First off: I agree that something akin to a penalty shot should probably exist. I trust the rules folks to think up something that works.

That said, hockey does very rarely award goals even when the puck doesn't go in the net. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awarded_goal_(ice_hockey)

The specific scenario is when a team pulls their goalie and an infraction occurs that would normally award the attacker a penalty shot. Instead of the attacker taking a penalty shot against an empty net, the goal is awarded.

The parallel with polo is pretty interesting since polo doesn't have a designated goaltender...

American Football / NFL also has provisions to award a touchdown if there is a "palpably unfair play" like someone running off of the bench to tackle a guy who was going to score.

Ball never crosses endzone, touchdown still awarded.

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Cotton_Bowl_Classic#Game_summary

"Alabama running back Tommy Lewis left the Alabama bench, entered the field of play and tackled Moegle at the Alabama 42-yard line. As a result of this action, referee Cliff Shaw awarded Moegle a 95-yard touchdown on the play even though he never physically reached the end zone."

Interestingly if you watch the play, dude probably wasn't even going to score: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoCf3WqVyx4

#33 totally had the angle on him.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

x2 for the penalty shot. It's the best way to deter flagrant penalties on breakaways.

Penalty shots in bike polo were ridiculous and the chance given to the attacker does not equal the chance they may originally have had. The two man advantage from the London Rules were a great way to even out any lost opportunity from a foul and not simply awarding a goal.

People stuff up on an open goal all the time. What other sport offers a goal that never happened? Rugby League is the only one I know of and that sport is a joke.

-"ridiculous" why?
-What's the two man advantage rule and in wich london rules?

(And if rugby is a joke what is our?)
Agree that we shouldn't allow goals that didnt go through.

You go to nets on a breakaway, there is only you and the goal keeper. The defensive player is too late to put a legal move, so he just put is mallet under your rear wheel, making you fall like shit.
For that i don't any power play situation, i just want the situation to be given back to my team: 1vgoalkeeper.
More balanced than a power play and way more easy to enforce (30 sec penalty are pain on custom courts with ref without assistant).
For me such a penalty should have been done since a long time.

Well, the suggestion in the past has been to have penalty shots + a power play.

I think it's the best way to make sure a foul on an open goal can be cancelled out, without awarding a penalty goal. In addition it's very exciting to watch, and while it's a sport, it doesn't hurt to look out for the entertainment value.

But, if we did award penalty goals, there are quite a few sports that that allow for penalty goals or points.

Penalty Tries in Rugby Union and League
A goal is awarded in hockey, if the goalie is pulled where there would normally be a penalty shot (though that's more of a case of not needing to do it on an empty net)
Tennis awards points,games,sets for misconduct

Penalty shot are dope, necessary, tested and approved. We should have them in the ruleset since ages.

Agreed, we had them in a world championship ffs, not having them is a step backwards.

Precedent for the awarded goal is present in many other sports. Sorry you didn't know that, but I am pretty against removing that rule.

A topple from behind on an open net needs to have the goal awarded. It's awarded in hockey, it's awarded in the NFL... Both for good reason.

If you do not give the goal, there is no reason to withhold from fouling someone on a breakaway.

The simple fact that it's a breakaway on an open net implies tht the penalty is going to come from behind and be flagrant. This situation will be rare anyway.

The penalty shot's use at worlds in 2012 was superfluous and idiotic considering the knuckle drop maneuver.

Edit: sorry I probably shouldn't call things people like "idiotic". I just think of Yorgo blocking that penalty shot at worlds by putting his hand on the ground and subsequently falling over and not being able to understand why anyone thought that it was fun to watch.

penalty shots are a joke

The penalty shoot-out at Turducken was definitely lame. Boring to watch and took way longer than the time that was allowed for golden goal.

It seems that 1/3 of the 2013 worlds champs are for PS, another 1/3 think they are ridiculous, lets just ask the last 1/3 and get rid of this question for this year :).

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

It seems that 1/3 of the 2013 worlds champs are for PS, another 1/3 think they are ridiculous, lets just ask the last 1/3 and get rid of this question for this year :).

a perfect system in my humble opinion

I see not any argument against penalty shot but "idiotic" or "joke".
Please can people against giving a breakaway against a goalkeeper a second chance because it was stopped by a fool explain why they find it stupid?

And we are not talking about making shoutout at the end of the game instead of golden or solver goals.

And yorgo stop was like a dive in soccer, and Quentin should have wait one second more to shoot after be leant, this penalty shot was valid and more of that the call was absolutely legit : nobody between Quentin and the goalkeeper, yorgo reach and hook him causing him make him fall before shooting.

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

I see not any argument against penalty shot but "idiotic" or "joke".

Seconding Ben on Turducken shootout. It took forever, and was sort of boring. However, this was a shootout to break a tie on a game that had already been in OT, so it's a little different than a penalty shot awarded from a foul.

Personally, I see a valid reason for awarded goals.

1 - It creates a real consequence for very bad sportsmanship. If I'm on defense, and violently fouling you means the difference between a 99.999% goal chance versus a %50.000 with a penalty shot, guess which I'm going to do? We should STRONGLY discourage and penalize this sort of play.

2 - If we use penalty shots in game, we had better be calling the fouls. Otherwise, the defender's choice is not 99.999% vesus 50.000%. It's that it's only 50.000% if the ref calls it, and lets face it, lots of flagerant plays occur specifically because players think they can get away with it.

Awarded goals should exist, and they should hurt.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Hi, I just showed up and I didn't even read the proposal but I disagree with everything. I demand that my voice is heard!

The new ruleset doesn't exactly seem as if it was hashed out over a few beers for shits and giggles; hours and hours would have been put in to the development. None of the rules are stand alone, but require people to actually read the other rules and apply them in combination to a specific set of circumstances. I understand the need for clarification from our European friends, but if English speaking players don't have a basic grasp of the written language, they should not weigh in on a discussion about the rules. Most of the questions so far can be answered simply by reading the rules in their entirety rather than responding in a reactionary way to the first rule you see that doesn't make sense to you.
The sport needs fundamental change at the top end. 2013 saw an unprecedented number of on court fights and dangerous play, none of which is good for our personal well being or the development of our sport.
The recent ruleset is black and white, any hypothetical is almost definitely covered, especially regarding the most contentious of issues; contact.

Perfectly put, thank you!

321polo.net

Thank you Nick and Joe and everyone else who contributed to this work!

Nick! Why the specific change on left handed versus right handed joust? 4.1.7 seems a bit tight. I watch lefties who play, and joust, on a consistent basis against righties. Suggesting a change that I hope you'll check out.
My suggestion:
§4.1.7 – All right handed jousts must occur with players facing forward and left of their opponent. All left handed jousts will occur forward and right of their opponent.
§4.1.7.1 – In the Event of a Left vs Right Handed (LH vs RH) joust, the LH player will start in the position of a RH player as in 4.1.7 and, upon approach to the ball, the Left Handed player must play the ball over their steering arm in a downward seatbelt swinging fashion.
§4.1.8 – Jousting players maintain a straight line from their respective position to the ball until contact has been made.

I also suggest you change 4.1.3 so that the referee can guarantee that 4.1.7 will be honored.

§4.1.3 – The referee asks each team if they are ready and for the jouster from each team to declare from their respective positions, as defined in 4.1.7, by putting their mallet in the air before returning it to their side for the joust. Only one player may signal for readiness to joust.

One more for 4.1.1 as well.

§4.1.1 – Teams always begin facing forward to their opponent and their rear wheels contacting the wall behind the net in order to be considered ready.
§4.1.1.1 – Players who intend to joust must be in position and be able to signal readiness according to 4.1.3 as well as 4.1.7.

sonofagun wrote:

Nick! Why the specific change on left handed versus right handed joust? 4.1.7 seems a bit tight.

4.1.7 is same as 3.1.7 was in the last ruleset. There´s basically no change?...
http://www.nahardcourt.com/rules/

Left handed players can joust against right handed players, they just need to joust right-handed. This doesn't mean switching mallet hands, it means putting their mallet on that side of the bike. Kruse wrote this rule to allow for this exact situation.

"Jousting players hold their mallet on the side of their bike that a majority of players in the game consider their “mallet side”." That sentence indicates that if 4/6 players are left handed, a right handed player would simply have to cross their mallet over to their steering side.

Firstly a hearty slap on the back for the effort, skill and thoughtfulness being shown by the rule-designers and those recognising the spirit of the endeavour through their contributions here. By way of positive input, can I ask for some clarity on a few very minor points?

1.1 Referee
1.1.9 – Hand Signals

Is it possible for the referee to indicate the type of penalty being awarded through hand or other signals too? (as opposed to verbally having to communicate)? Too many stoppages have been occurring whilst players see it necessary to ‘consult’ with the referee, when in fact they are indulging in gamesmanship or sneaking a breather.

It would also help the spectators to appreciate the justice being served and defuse heckling from the otherwise uninformed.

Perhaps symbols could be designed and printed out to be shown to teams and to spectators by supporting officials, especially in the latter stages of tournaments?

1.3 – Goal Judge
1.3.6 – Signals

In general, when the Goal Judge makes a signal - is that immediately binding for the players or are they merely signalling to the referee to consider and/or ratify that call?

4.7 – Timeouts
4.7.1 – During live play…

When a team audibly shouts ‘time out’ to the referee is it the intention here to state that the period is only then legitimised by the referee (the whistle being blown)? Are there any circumstances when a called time-out should not be granted by the referee (other than using up the permitted allowance)?

If the referee can only hear spectators making the call (as often happens) what is the advice to players and referee in this instance?

5.4 – Ball-Jointing
5.4.1 – Can the player that was engaged in ball jointing (for less than 2 seconds) then immediately release, shoot and score a goal?

8.1.3.1 –If a Goal Judge signals a dab by a player using the goals to stabilize, does the accused player act on the Goal Judge’s signal as a binding instruction or should they wait for the referee’s confirmation?

8.3 – With the rise in popularity of the wheelie-turn and it being usually executed to one’s blind side, would a referee be obliged to call a ‘bike contact’ penalty should the turning player hit or land on an opponent, whether that opponent be stationery or have moved into a position wittingly to be contacted and awarded such?

Whilst I’m here, I support the introduction of 8.6 – Sweeping rule.

Neil - Cross Hares, Manchester UK

Hey Neil.

The Goal judges can signal, but ultimately the final decision lies with the referee.

Ball, jointing: Yes, you can joint, shoot, score (as you can now in the defensive half), there is no requirement to score.

Wheelie-turn into another player, if it's non-incidental, is a penalty, yes.

Thx John - Toronto treating you well I hope!

Neil - Cross Hares, Manchester UK

just curious...why is there nothing in the ruleset specifically addressing players reaching over your handlebars/across your body?

going head to head and having people reach across/in front of your wheel on the ground leads to sweeping penalties and that's covered...but what about head to head where the defender reaches over your bars/across your body and ends up hitting your bars, clotheslining you or at minimum impeding your forward progress momentarily? this is especially common in righty vs lefty but righty/righty and lefty/lefty do it to try to steal the ball as the ball handler puts it through their bb in an attempt to beat the defender using their forward momentum.

when players are going the same direction and the defender reaches their mallet arm over the bars/across the body of the ball handler it leads to weird chicken wing situations. it technically could fall under the "holding" penalty but the argument can be made that it's playing the ball and can be of such a short duration that it's not impeding the player. it could be assessed as a mallet over the bars scenario as well as "high sticking"?

I'm against reaching over/across for the record.

"tail whipping" is covered...but in the worlds videos I see defender after defender sloppily endo pivoting their rear wheel/axle into the ball handler with their wheel/axle making contact while their wheel is still in the air (in order to pin the front wheel with your rear wheel it has to make contact before it hits the ground otherwise you'd be skidding into their wheel rather than pivoting). is this not "tail whipping" or are the calls just not made and will be this season?IMHO swinging axles around into the drive side pedalling foot area is not something we should encourage. I've been gouged/skewered more than once and it's just as painful as being hopped on and landed on by an axle so I'd like to see this regulated. learn how to pivot precisely or get penalized until you remove it from your repertoire! one good hit to the ankle bone and you're injured for the rest of the tourney...once it stiffens you are slower, period. yes there should be a physical toughness/endurance aspect to this sport but not like that. it's like cleats out in soccer, elbows in basketball, etc...regulate it! a broken ankle is for life.

jason f-off wrote:

just curious...why is there nothing in the ruleset specifically addressing players reaching over your handlebars/across your body?

Well, let's see:

Quote:

...but what about head to head where the defender reaches over your bars/across your body and ends up hitting your bars

Already illegal according to 10.7

Quote:

..., clotheslining you

Already illegal according to 10.1

Quote:

or at minimum impeding your forward progress momentarily?

Just back up. If they proceed to do it again, that's an active screen and you can ride through them according to 10.3.

Quote:

"tail whipping" is covered...is this not "tail whipping" or are the calls just not made and will be this season?

Yes, as you can see, tail whipping is covered. These examples you give should be called.

ex.1 I see how 10.7 could be applied...I like it.

ex. 2 I see how 10.1 could be applied...I really like it. so any mallet arm extension over my bars/across my body that makes contact is an arm extension infraction...that's awesome. what if they don't make contact but just kinda threaten contact to see if you'll slow down or if you're willing to risk having your steering arm fucked with at speed?

so reaching over a wheel in order to poke the ball is an arm extension penalty if it contacts any part of the bike or player?

if a player shoulder checks you as you pass head to head is that an acceptable check or are head to head checks covered under dangerous play? it's so easy for their hips to catch your bar and even successfully executed coming to a dead stop from a head to head hit is bone breaking territory or whiplash or head clashing or pedals/chainrings to ankles and shins and knees. maybe I'm a baby...in football I hit running backs and knocked myself out more than once but I had pads on and knew what was coming with no fear of sharp or metal objects getting in the mix.

"tail whipping" is one of those things I don't think people really care about but as people get better and faster it's gonna be a problem area if we don't calm it down now. why isn't tail whipping a player on the boards considered trapping? is it because they have the ball or is there also a duration aspect to the infraction?

thanks for taking the time to respond to the stuff in this thread...that's pretty awesome.

jason f-off wrote:

is this not "tail whipping" or are the calls just not made and will be this season?

I'm not sure, are you going to blow the whistle when you volunteer to referee this season?

I'd be the definition of a "ref with an agenda"...so until I can ignore my disgust with the boring ugliness of current legal polo I have to stay away from the whistle. I still love polo and I love what it has the potential to evolve into and nothing against the rule makers but everyone has their own idea of what polo should look like and I'm not capable of beatific impartiality. I don't think people realize how many whistles they would hear if every tiny infraction was called...I would incessantly interrupt any game I reffed with staccato blasts of machine gun like whistle stoppage. pick a polo video to watch and count on your fingers steering arm contact, from behind contact, any and all arm extension, any and all tail whips and any and all bike on bike...just the bike on bike alone will have you trying to keep track of which multiple of ten you're up to!

i do appreciate the spirit of your post...we need more refs and especially educated refs that will stick to their guns and I should be called out since I'm posting/complaining...but I have to decline since I know I can't ref the game accurately according to the ruleset because some of the contact rules are just too ambiguous for me personally to interpret confidently. my fault not the rulesets...I'm down to volunteer in other ways...I always build courts, goal judge, refill water jugs, etc...some of us are cut from the wrong cloth.

I've uploaded an updated version of 4.0 (We'll start versioning after this one is approved).

There was some clarification added to Interference. As well as some typos, grammar and other minor changes.

We discussed both the sweeping and penalty shot ideas and opted to leave it how it is.

At this point it's ready to go to vote. Find the most updated version here: http://www.nahardcourt.com/proposed-2014-ruleset-version-4-0-beta/

Just overwrite your old file, so that one doesn't start circulating.

are head to head checks illegal? I can't find mention of them unless they simply fall under the legality of "high and even"?

are shaft shots illegal now? all shots must come from the round end kinda reads like they're gone.

I'm down for both to be banned...hate head to head checks and shaft shots just encourage high sticking.

Refs, goal judges, and time keepers should all be equipped with a copy of this ruleset.

Goal judges and or time keepers should be responsible for calling off the ball play such as trapping/toppling.

Helmets should be cpsc certified as a bike helmet.

Bikes should have an actual brake. coaster or lever

Goals should have a shelfed or two cross bars on the top.

4.1.8 which direction does the straight line have to be? if i am on a collision course with my opponent can i deviate my course even if nobody has touched the ball?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

I don't think the bike helmet rule would be in the interest of the sport right now, as there are no commercial bike helmets with face protection (except full face downhill helmets). Sure there are hacks, but I'm not sure that's any safer. There is a reason so many people use hockey and hurling helmets.

I think until there is a commercial product that fulfils those needs, NAH needs to stay well away from helmet rules, for moral, and legal reasons, in case someone gets hurt because of the rules, and sues a tournament/NAH

Sued because someone was required to wear a bike helmet while they ride a bike?

Face injuries are the priority? Not concussion and worse?

I guess if I was a vegetable it would be nice to know they could have me looking handsome with a nice toothy smile and chiseled nose.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Yes, but polo isn't just riding a bike, it's also a sport, like hockey, where you can get injured in the face, and potentially have career ending injuries. I know of two players with partial blindness because of bike polo.

Right now there isn't a product, off the shelf, which covers all eventualities, so I think it would be bad for an organisation to mandate against players protecting themselves against certain injuries (which a bike approved helmet rule would do).

Right now it's the players choice as to what they focus on protecting, as long as they wear some sort of helmet.

But you are definately riding a bike. Can you not wear safety glasses to protect your eyes?

The rule states that I need to have a helmet nothing regarding a cage or shield so I assume the helmet was required to protect against head/skull/brain injury.

Montana (where's the money) Norvell knew the important of this years ago when he required this at 2008 worlds in Philadelphia.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

I guess we would need to know why a helmet is required.

If I can put anything called a helmet on my head, whether or not it will protect against head injury why do I even have to wear a helmet?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

I think you and John essentially want the same thing, people wearing helmets.
The issue with specifying "bike helmet" versus "helmet" is semantic. "Helmet" encompasses ALL helmets whether for hockey, lacrosse, hurling, bike, snowboarding, skateboarding, skiing, downhill cycling, bungee jumping, etc., etc. "Bike helmet" encompasses a small percentage of "helmet", for instance downhill, track racing, road, etc.
If I was to wear a hurling helmet and I got popping in the face and lost vision in one eye I wouldn't receive any money from any insurance for the event because it wasn't a "bike helmet". And, if I was a dick, I could sue for this reasoning.
Helmet = safety, yes. Some people wish to keep their eyes and teeth in their head more than others so they wear other types of helmets. By simply saying "helmet" in the rules those people are covered, as well as those of us who won't/can't wear full face protection and wear bike helmets.
True some of the helmets listed in "helmet" won't protect as well as others (maybe?) from the type of fall that occurs in falling from a bike, but its better than nothing. And honestly, some of those helmets might be *better* since a lot of head trauma from bicycle accidents is cause by rotational force - which occurs when those sweet "aerodynamic" pointy bits of the helmet hit the ground in a funny way and cause the head to jerk and the brain to spin around.

But I digress.

shotgun your bike!

The fact that "helmet" encompasses ALL helmets means I could wear anything called a helmet...costume gladiator helmet, taekwondo helmet, dick helmet...regardless of whether or not it provides total protection or none at all.

To which I inquire why any rule at all about a helmet?

Also people need to be more responsible with their mallets. We need to reduce scenarios where players mallets are near the faces of others. "Get a cage" is a cop out. More/stricter rules regarding mallets being near players faces. Correct the behavior>deal with it.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Well, maybe some little specifications to the helmet should be made. For instance "bike helmet or sports helmet with a hard plastic cover". I think the main reason for helmets is to reduce the severeness of falls and mallet hits. The amount of your skull that you want to protect is up to yourself same as with your knees, legs, hands, and ellbows. But serious head injuries are mostly avoided by just wearing almost any helmet, which is the point.

About the cages I think no matter how strict you make the rules there is always the possibility to be hit in the face. If you bend down to lay your mallet across your bottom bracket hole you put your head in a dangerous position. I would feel uncomfortable doing this without a cage...

Yep, I won't make anyone else responsible for my sight, regardless of what the rules say.

Last year I recommended the nomenclature:
"Helmet certified for action sport use."

Which would preclude people from wearing buckets on their heads and calling it good. Not that anyone has every done that or ever will.

Costume Gladiator helmet, on the other hand... that's an idea.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

I would agree with all of this with a slight change for the helmet rule (color me a biased hurling helmet user). Not necessarily certified as a bike helmet, but it must be certified by a safety commission as a helmet for an existing sport. That sport being cycling, hockey, lacrosse, hurling. Most products already have these certs in place for their sports.

And 10000% brakes because "fixed gear as a brake rule" is something left over from a 2010 argument that should have been fixed then. Fixed gear is a drivetrain setup that happens to feedback to speed. Arguing otherwise is counterproductive.

Certified by a safety commission for an existing sport where the risk is hitting your head on a hard surface...concrete, asphault, ice.

Hurling helmet is made for running around on grass.

How often is there soft grass or pitch on a polo court?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

If we were to write in that rule allowing only those helmets approved for use hard surface sports (i.e. asphalt or ice) by their respective certification standards, i'd stand behind it. We can all argue til we're blue in the face on the subject but the simple matter of the fact is that the hurling helmets don't have the certification to compare directly against cycling or hockey helmets.

Anything to reduce the blunt force trauma due to a mallet impact or a fall from a bike is a plus in my eyes, this coming from a person who has cracked their head open from not having a helmet on.

A hurling helmet is designed to reduce injuries from having a solid piece of ash swung like a baseball bat, within close range. Nothing to do with grass, and in my experience head injuries in polo have more in common with hurling than road biking.

ouch.

Really nice work...once again a comprehensive ruleset to work with. Last years was pretty good too. It would be nice to see die hard execution of this ruleset with no deviation. It seems hard to update an existing ruleset that hasnt had a full seasons worth of execution. Cant really know for certain what does and doesnt work.

The handsignals seem excessive and unnecessary. Maybe just one signal to indicate a penalty has happened and will be called at change of possession.

More importantly, ref education. The whole ruleset is moot if EVERY ref doesnt know it or is willing to enforce it or cant appropriately interpret etc etc

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Two players off the ball, who has right of way to occupy space?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Even/mutual/coincidental physical challenges for the same space or positioning away from the ball probably won't be called for penalty.

I find it hard to imagine a scenario where this happens and one player isn't screening the other, though. I honestly can't even think of a situation in which two players on opposite teams would want the same exact space. Seems stupid to me, as a player i would rather have the space in front of the other player.

Perhaps you can give a hypothetical example, otherwise I can not envision what you're describing.

I envision two players that want to occupy the same space...Weird that is stupid to you, as a player. Many spaces have a strategic advantage to be in while you do not have the ball. Certainly a defender could pick up on this and choose to occupy the same space.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

The place where I intend to receive a pass has been spotted by someone else.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

I have decided to abruptly stop in the space i wish to occupy leaving someone riding a close to intersecting line no choice but to tbone me or hit my back or front wheel when they thought they were going to get passed.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

from what I gather...it's legal...and it sucks.

above however many posts there's an illustration where two players are going for the ball and the player in front (by however minuscule a margin) can swerve and short stop as long as the swerver doesn't initiate contact. since it's legal in that example when neither are in possession then it follows logically that the bike that is in front (easily determined since bikes are so unidirectional despite bikehandling progressing) can change direction or decelerate as abruptly as they wish anytime or anyplace on the court as long as they don't initiate contact.

we have a player here who does this shit on the regular and it's like do I swing wide and avoid getting reverse tboned but potentially miss out on a playmaking slash towards the open space/goal or do I lean way back on my saddle, brace myself, accelerate and try to dab his wack ass by hitting his back wheel with either my front wheel or pedal as I dive to receive said pass?

technically anytime anyone goes behind anyone in a diagonal/line crossing matter a little brake feathering from the person in front will force the one behind to grab a handful to avoid wrecking or at minimum dabbing. it's like screening without having to touch them.

Who is responsible for making calls for off the ball contact?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

4.1.9

We have decided that our jouster will only move 3 feet from the back boards on the joust. Does the opposing jouster have to come all the way down go behind our player before they are eligible to score?

This is a right handed joust and all jousting players must pass to the left of their opponent.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

I like the way you think, this is a good one (and one I wondered about last year).

§4.1.8 – Jousting players maintain a straight line until a player makes contact with the ball.

So once the ball contact is made, you can cross their line as soon as you want, and they can cross yours.

Of course, if I was trying to game that rule, I would time my joust so that I reach a point a few feet in front of them when they make contact with the ball, pull straight across them, and let them t-bone me, thus winning possession of the ball. But I'd be risking my bike, and health, so in reality I wouldn't.

Alternatively you could just send two people up on the joust.

Player A is slightly ahead, deemed the Jouster (?). He follows the jousting rules.

Player B a half wheel behind, not governed by jousting rules and so can take any line or position he wants. Player B can peel right in front of the opposing jouster, force him to crash/t-bone, whatever.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

The wording of this rule should accommodate teams that choose not to contest the joust.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Mallet Dropping.

May I place an opponents stick from on top of their goal or from the fence to cause them to get a mallet dropping penalty?

May I play with the broken piece of my mallet that has the head?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

I'd probably call that under unsportsmanlike behavior, but I guess there isn't a specific rule against it.

The second would almost certainly be called under

§2.5.3.1 – The referee disallows the use of mallets that they deem dangerous. Examples
of dangerous mallets may include: Mallets that splinter, shatter, or break easily, mallets
with sharp protrusions, etc.

Almost certainly is not a call.

There should just be a rule that says you can't play with your broken mallet.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Agreed.

Ref or time keeper should have a first aid kit.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Not sure that's a rules thing... More of a "if you're going to host a tourney, having someone on hand with medical knowledge (not just someone with a whistle who happens to be assigned to a court... who watched House) would be a good idea" (and maybe mandatory for insurance reasons m idk, I've never hosted a major event).

shotgun your bike!

more importantly a tool kit

Ha tools>safety

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Maybe a rule where teams are required to show up to the court with a small toolkit so that they can take care of their equipment?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Agree with Brian here, we tried to have the usual toolkit for each ref chair at Geneva and it worked well, a wrench, a 15, a set of allen key, and you can save some precious minutes.

They should also have a notebook and a pencil.

I know we can't video record everything but it would be cool if the refs would make notes on the number of and types of penalties they call so it can be analyzed later and we're not going from memory four months down the line talking about "some guy did this thing once and so now we need a rule to prevent that." It would also be helpful if you could jot down a note or two (RIGHT AFTER IT HAPPENS) of things you saw that you think should be addressed and then make it public so everyone's working from nearly the same frame of reference.

I know some of the people here have an aversion to the scientific method because it potentially can weaken their emotional, not-based-on-data-arguments (jab jab jab) but the more hard data we have, the better the rules will probably come out.

It's completely awesome that some of the rules were changed because things were caught on film and analyzed. It would also be awesome if there were a ref's record kept that had potential to accomplish the same thing in the absence of video.

This is a great suggestion. We attempted at NA's to have the scorekeepers writing down the: Penalty, Player, Time. But often the scorekeepers didn't know the players and didn't understand the foul. I'll try and include this and come up with a convenient way to actually collect this data. Probably some kind of webform so the data can be entered immediately, and compiled automatically.

NAH need a fundraiser to purchase ipads (or some other tablet). If you had those, I'm sure Vince could easily add note taking into podium. Similar to live play by play of Bench, they could record goals, fouls (with notes), etc with team and players names at their finger tips.

321polo.net

I'm talking only about the ref stuff, but I wouldn't spend thousands of dollars in time and equipment without first knowing if it would actually be more convenient than writing it down and then entering it at the end--or if it's even advantageous to keep the data. It seems like it would be, but who knows... let's test it out with a minimal investment before we go balls out. We could spend a season recording all of it and it could tell us nothing new.

We can accomplish nearly the same thing for the first year for roughly $50 worth of pencils and notebooks from Target... along with few hours to input the data at the end of the day/weekend. Seems like we need a proof of concept (or to concentrate on the reffing part to build on the POC that the folks at the last bench minor and NAs did with player stats).

I agree there should be some standard form they enter stuff into when they distill their notes down for display but let's not put the cart before the horse and build out an elaborate IS.

I'd also test the speed at which refs can enter notes by hand vs typing them. I wouldn't want them to miss game time time because they're touch screening a bunch of different fields. There are some companies/industries that tried to introduce tablets into the field but they failed because it took 5x as long to get the data in... just something to keep in mind.

Seconded. You wouldn't necessarily need a fleet of iPads either. I could see this working out well if the ref just has an on going dialogue in the box with the score keeper. The ref or score keeper wouldn't need to know peoples name, just pick out a distinguishing characteristic. Something like "blue team, red helmet, full arm extension, 5:37, turnover". Score keeper enters data on a physical sheet. Who red helmet is, as will as all the other players, can get hashed out after the game is over. Then the sheet, with all the players names can get entered by the tournament organizers onto the Web form.

shotgun your bike!

It makes sense to me that one of the people watching/officiating a game have this because there isn't always someone with these items nearby when they are needed.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

In section 4.1 there are a number of provisions created exclusively for "the jousting players".

"Jousting players" hold the mallet on majority side...
"Jousting players" must maintain a straight line...
"Players will joust" to the right / left of the opponent...

Do teams need to designate which of their players will be jousting before the joust?
Can my team send two jousters? Which one do these special rules apply to?
Can my team send no jousters, in which case the special rules do not apply (mallet handedness, straight line)?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Will the voting be public?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

What is the maximum BAC a player or ref may have throughout the course of the tournament?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Nick RVA wrote:

What is the maximum BAC a player or ref may have throughout the course of the tournament?

Minimum 0.08, if it's after 11:30am

PLEASE TAKE THIS QUESTION SERIOUSLY AND RESPOND SERIOUSLY (everyone after Joe)

lomax wrote:

PLEASE TAKE THIS QUESTION SERIOUSLY AND RESPOND SERIOUSLY (everyone after Joe)

How?

as many clubs are becoming legitimately registered sporting groups and have public liability (3rd party insurance) i think it's a legitimate call.

crazy to think of a sober tournament, but it's worth the question.

By having an NAH rules representative respond seriously? I'm pretty curious how you would like to see this one answered now, actually.

This is a no brainer. What is the point of any ruleset at all (especially one so concerned with safety) if refs and players can be as drunk or stoned as the desire? What is it now, 8 or 9 tournaments out of the year? Save it for the after party. It reduces reaction time. Any amount is too much.

I was going to respond seriously this morning but got distracted.

Two aspects of this:
1. Players - This will increasingly become an issue as insurance is needed and venue's are found that have more strict policies. At this time, I think that if a player is so drunk they are endangering other players, there are rules in place to remove them from the game (Game Misconduct). But from a tournament organizing aspect, there might be times when it needs to be regulated. I don't think it belongs in the ruleset though. If the players were to band together and create a "code of conduct" document with these requirements, it might go a long way.

2. Referees - At both North Americans and WHBPC this year it was understood ahead of time that you needed to be coherent and mostly sober. I know there were a few people always keeping a close eye on this and it will continue to happen in the future. An outright ban on drinking for volunteers won't exactly help in recruiting them, but if we are paying referees I would expect them to abstain until after their duties are done for the day. But again, this doesn't need to be in the ruleset at this time. The ref's association will handle this.

8 or 9...more like 3. only 3 tournaments out of the year per player, right? YOUR region's qualifier, YOUR continent's championship and then worlds...those are the only events that would HAVE to follow this ruleset (assuming worlds even follows this ruelset) and only at these 3 events would YOU have to worry about your BAC or your THC or whatever.

polo form a game to a sport...worth it.

Exactly. Less than 10 days out of the entire year to be sober while the sun is up

I'm not opposed to the idea (it's certainly my personal policy), I just think a rule or policy without any practical enforcement possibilities is as good as no rule at all. Are we going to require tournaments to have a breathalizer/blood testing on site? We can't even find goal judges.
Think about professional leagues with billions of dollars in play and how even some of those athletes take the field with various drugs in their system (Doc Ellis, Ron Artest etc. etc.)
The idea that we're gonna be able to regulate this with anything close to fairness just seems unlikely to me, and it's no good to have a 'when people complain' rule in place.
I think as the play gets more competitive generally the level of intoxication goes down (IMO anyway), and the number of people playing drunk is relatively small. I also think it would be better to have no one playing drunk, but how one practically enforces the rule is also important to think about when making a rule.

Good point, and it's a problem that really doesn't want to be solved anyway. I should have kept quiet. It's a battle that can't be won.

Don't give up! Just heckle harsher!

shotgun your bike!

"Jousting" players are ones that are "jousting" or "racing for possession of the ball".

If you send no jousting player, then none of the jousting rules apply to any players on your team, because none of your players are jousting.

Any players that make considerable advances towards the ball will be considered to be racing for possession of it and are subject to the rules for jousting players.

-------------------------

We have no blue line, I can't keep players behind it. There are a million ways in which you can find the descriptions of a 19 page document insufficient in describing the intricacies of the game to the finest detail. The face-off procedure for the NHL is 2,677 words. Is this what you guys want? And if you want this 250 page ruleset, who will you find to write it?

We did not get involved with this task so that we could create a document that would stand up to this kind of pedantic criticism. That task is not in the scope of the volunteers that took this on. All told, there's probably over 100 hours put into this, and it's only 19 pages long. We've created a concise document that can be cohesively understood by players getting into this sport in a matter of 30 minutes.

So yeah, you will find holes and come up with scenarios that have never occurred on a polo court in the past 12 years of the game and you will say "WHAT ABOUT THIS?" and I will have to tell you that it's not in there, explicitly and discretely. I will say that there are protections and powers granted to the referee to control the game in the way that we've seen people play it.

So I hope that this document is read and understood by a community that keeps in mind the time and place that "bike polo" finds itself squirming through. And I hope that teams at qualifiers and NAs this year don't find ways to exploit the ruleset in a dangerous manner so that they can proclaim "AHA! GOTCHA!". But I'm just hoping.

Yeah, that team could bring that second guy up on the joust. Have him turn right so that the opponent jouster runs into him. Everyone will get hurt and a bike will be broken and, technically, turning right wasn't against the rules. But that's your friend, man. We just can not entertain every one of these hypotheticals at this point in time. We have done what we wanted with it, it's miles and miles ahead of what we had last year, and it matches the state of the game and the state of the community.

Thus, that shit's submitted dudes. Vote it up or vote it down. Also, take it over for next year and make it exactly how you want it. Thank you sooooooooooooo much for everyone's help, I really mean it!

It was not clear whether or not you had to send a player on the joust.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Scenarios I referenced happened last season.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

"Any players that make considerable advances towards the ball will be considered to be racing for possession of it and are subject to the rules for jousting players"

This would have been a sufficient response, and could maybe be a line item in the ruleset, maybe could have saved you the rant.

Most of MY what ifs are founded in things that have happened to ME... Where Ive been left confused because I thought and interpreted a certain rule a certain way. Places where there seems to be a grey area are worth asking about because I would like to be on the same page as the officials and other players when I attend a tournament.

And rather than having to sit with pen and ruleset in my hand on a tournament elimination day, with all of the other players and refs and officials, I would prefer these extreme or outrageous to you scenarios addressed here and now.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Okay okay you're right I'll talk to joe about adding this line.

Nick RVA wrote:

"Any players that make considerable advances towards the ball will be considered to be racing for possession of it and are subject to the rules for jousting players"

How about: "Any player that is traveling at a substantial and uninterrupted pace towards the ball will be considered to be racing for possession of it and are subject to the rules for jousting players"??

I dont understand the uninterrupted pace part...

Could the jouster identify themselves when the ref is asking each team if they are ready for the joust?

"Jouster" positioned to the right of their own goal?

I liked the way kruse said it.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

"Any player that makes eye contact with an opposing player will be considered to be racing for possession of the ball and subject to the rules of jousting players. If a player makes eye contact with 2 or more opposing players, they will all be considered jousting players."

There. Now everyone knows who is jousting, if you don't want to joust keep your fucking head down. That's how we play.

Who is this lone brakeless fixed rider that has so much pull that he keeps getting grandfathered in?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

that poor bastard is just going to have to deal with the implications of always being considered "racing"!!!

It's in the ruleset already. Thanks dude!

Backspace key a handful of times could fix that.

Im not concerned with what implications they deal with, Im concerned with them crashing into me.

Could a ref deem a bike with no brake unsafe at an equipment inspection? The refs call is final, correct?

This does not help forward progression and prevents stopping.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

hurling helmets are made to protect from smacks of a hurl, not from hitting your head on the grass!!!!!

The helmet's effectively two pieces. From what I read in the Irish standards, the shell's only tested to simulate the impact of the sliotar. The face mask's test is to simulate both the slitar and the hurly. The design of the mask was based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of facial injuries are to/around the eyes due to getting butted with the stick when playing a high ball, not swing injuries. Most swing injuries happen to hands / torso.

I know you didn't say it directly, but lest anyone think the helmet shell's tested/certified in situations to simulate getting hit with a swung hurl at full speed, it's not.

dont know about the test standards, but ive seen people take smacks of hurls on the helmet and facecage, helmet is fine and they are fine. Hand injuries happen when the hurls lock and slide down the shaft, moreso than swinging and hitting hands. I think the stresses on a hurling helmet are more in a game of hurling than a game of polo, also note there is no requirement for senior hurlers to wear a helmet, only juniors have to wear a helmet.

Johnny166 wrote:

I think the stresses on a hurling helmet are more in a game of hurling than a game of polo,

No doubt about that. Hurleys are at least 3 times as heavy as a polo mallet, sliotars are heavier and harder than polo balls.

Hurling helmets will not prevent a concussion if you fall and hit your the back of your head hard on asphalt, but other than that they can easily handle anything polo can throw at them.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Enlightening.

Dare I say that I speak for the majority of polo players when I say that :

"The helmet rule, as it is worded in the 2014 NAH ruleset seems pretty alright with me."

Just wear a helmet, made for some sort of impact, with or without face protection, and you can play polo.

"§2.5.1.1 – While on the court, all players must wear a helmet"

Check.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Everybody will agree, that this is a toy and not a helmet. Try again!

Eh, I just think a couple more words in the rule would be well spent. The guy above even added that language subconsciously: "some kind of helmet designed for impact resistance".

Everyone will agree except for the people who want to cause trouble. Maybe it's some libertarian who doesn't like being told to wear a helmet, or someone with disdain for rules in general. If that person ever comes along, there will be no grounds according to the ruleset to tell him he can't wear his costume helmet, or bucket, or newspaper sailor hat.

If the rule writers wanna dismiss this as frivolous or just semantics, they won't be wrong. I'm not in charge of deciding what addition make the ruleset overly verbose. Discussion here is not assertion that something must be changed, just suggestion that it is worth consideration to do so.

I think some specificity on helmet type is worthy of consideration, even if it's just "Helmet designed for sport use".

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

I see no language against shields in this ruleset

Dude. His fly is open.

Perv.

321polo.net

You could easily lose a toe wearing those things.

That's a good point, where are the flip flop restrictions?!?!

321polo.net

RE: Bike Helmet v Helmet

People keep talking about concussions. It's important to know that a concussion is your brain hitting your skull from a rapid acceleration/decelleration. When I got my concusion, I was wearing a helmet. I am very for helmets, and I hear Nick Vaughn's statement that not all helmets are created equal, but I don't think this is as hard to officiate as it seems. Give discretion to the ref, and let the reffing association issue a statement on equipment.

That said, multisport helmets like a Bern Watts are pretty ideal for polo with falling, and with the addition of a cage, they are good protection from melee. Bike riding helmets are only rated/good for one fall. I think hockey and hurling hemlets are good. Cricket is good for melee, but I think it's bad for falling.

If I'm a ref, and a joker shows up with a costume helmet, I don't see a dilemma in ruling that the player/team is not ready.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

VOTING IS OPEN

I sent out emails to club reps today. They hit a lot of spam folders. Check them!

Or, tell your club rep to email me at joe@nahardcourt.com with a Yes or No vote. If I messed up, we'll do another round of voting. I'm figuring that out now.

Just to confirm, is this offer only open to NAH reps? Or are reps from other regions other than NAH able to contribute. It may offer an alternative perspective as well as make it easier to adopt into these regions to move towards an 'international' ruleset.

If organizers from other continents want to work directly with me on editable versions of the rules, I'd be more than happy to provide that.

whats being done to train refs

140x65

Wrong thread dude.

We have some concern here in South Florida about the approved NAH court size

§2.2.2 – Courts are constructed of a solid material with perimeter boards extending to a minimum
height of 4’.

The 4' is our concern. Worlds 2013 took place on our mini hockey regulation courts in Weston. Hockey court regulations say that the boards can range from 40" to 48" - I believe the walls for Worlds were about 42", so by mandating the 48" walls most of our hockey courts are not NAH approved. There didn't seem to be much trouble with the walls being too low at Worlds this year. I mean it should be noted that much of the walls around our hockey courts are also bordered by chain link fence above the walls, so it is not like they were significantly more dangerous because of their height. I never even heard of this consideration coming up until now. I could imagine that 48" is an ideal height for self-standing/hand built walls, but I don't think all of our established hockey courts should be illegal according to NAH. All the other measurements are good for bike polo and fit the other rules.

Do you think language in the rule can be changed to range from 40" - 48"? (this would allow most established hockey courts to still fit the wall rule) Or could the fences be considered as part of the court height? (They only go around about 3/4 of the court) That is probably the simplest way I can imagine to rectify this without making the language more complicated in the rule and it would allow mini hockey courts to still be NAH approved.

This is the one issue that keeps us from voting yes. We await your response.

"Until the wheels fall off or the lights go out..."

It's already been changed to 40"-48". I'm going to upload a new pdf tonight. Thanks!!

When this rule was being written it was to ensure that wooden courts were safe. It was not directed at hockey boards.

warning: agenda...

§2.2.3 – Courts must have two doors located symmetric to the half–court line, for access to an area that players will use to serve Minor/Major penalties.

I am enthusiastically in favor of this rule, period.

however, I am wondering how you are going to enforce it considering 3v3 polo is pretty much played only on tennis courts or in parking lots. how many cities play pickup on NAH approved courts? how many cities have access to NAH approved courts? how many qualifier courts met current NAH requirements last year? NAs? I literally can't think of any courts besides hockey courts that have this kind of setup (which to me is awesome because hockey courts have real boards, consistent and visible markings, an actual playably smooth surface, legitimate lighting and are long enough and wide enough to open the game up). are bids for tournaments gonna change from selling people on the host city to focusing on quality of polo...I FUCKING HOPE SO!

is this a purposeful move by the NAH towards legitimizing polo by incentivizing the allocation of hockey courts? if it is I applaud it. I APPLAUD IT LOUDLY AND PUBLICLY!
DEATH TO SHORTCOURT!

No, it's not really the intention. It's just saying that you gotta have two doors to serve penalties and they have to be the same distance from the middle.

If it wasn't a rule last year, there's no reason the courts would have been that way. Doors are easy to add to plywood courts.

§7.2.1 – An Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty will be assessed when a player is judged by the
referee to be behaving in an unsportsmanlike manner.

The rules show examples of unsportsmanlike conduct, but no clarity on what the penalty actually does.

Examples:

§7.2.1.1 – General disruption of game proceedings or excessive protest of referee’s
decisions.

Okay, so the player won't accept the ref's ruling. If they keep protesting, does the ref give them a minor?

§7.2.1.2 – Verbal or physical assault of a referee, goal judge, timekeeper, event organizer
or any other player on the court.

Isn't this scenario already covered by §6.7 - Game Misconduct? Would this be a Major? An Ejection?

§7.2.1.3 – Knocking or relocating an opponent’s dropped mallet in order to make it more
difficult for them to recover.

Would this be a ball turnover? What if they didn't have the ball? Minor?

§7.2.1.4 – Failure to tap out or leave the play after dabbing.

This one is important. The player who is goalkeeping is dabbed. They intentionally stays in goal and block a shot. If the player is dabbed and thus out of play, would it be reasonable to say the goal is open, and thus by §6.8 – Awarded Goal, be an infaction on the offensive ball carrier resulting in an awarded goal?

The base question on the last one is: "How long should an offensive player be reasonably asked to wait while the goal is openned after a dab?" If the answer is vague, and your the dabbed player, it's in your teams interest to not move. I don't think we want that sort of play. I believe that we want to have rules that are very critical of intential rule violations on scoring opportunities.

EDIT: I see that §8.1.2.3 addresses the last example. Thank you.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

AY YO. THANKS FOR ASKIN THAT.

Section 6 references the severity of penalties a referee may give out.

Section 7-10 references the category of penalty that the referee must call.

So a referee can give any penalty in sections 7-10 to the severity given in 6.4 through 6.8. Sections 6.4 through 6.8 give guidelines on when a referee should issue each of the severity levels based on the circumstances of the game and recklessness of the penalty at that point in time.

So a really egregious unsportsmanlike conduct penalty... say someone bashes on the ref, calls them a racial slur, threatens them with physical violence... that referee has the power to dole out a more severe unsportsmanlike conduct penalty than if they just said "STUPID CALL STUPID CALL" over and over or puts up just a bit of excessive complaint or something.

Would it be better to list every penalty and under every penalty, give the exact call that it will get every time? This is how the NHL does it, and its air tight. They say: If you high stick you get this penalty. If you high stick and cause bleeding, you get this penalty. Take for example their severity "chart" for the charging penalty:

NHL wrote:

42.2 Minor Penalty - The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a minor penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent.

42.3 Major Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a major penalty, based on the degree of violence of the check, to a player guilty of charging an opponent (see 42.5).

42.4 Match Penalty – The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by charging.

42.5 Game Misconduct Penalty - When a major penalty is imposed under this rule for a foul resulting in an injury to the face or head of an opponent, a game misconduct shall be imposed.

They seriously copy and paste almost this exact thing into 80 different rules.

For brevity's sake, we created a section that tells what severity of penalties you can issue, and then we created a different section for each of the ACTUAL violations. Referee quizzes and training will grant even more insight into what NAH wants to see given and for what kinds of things. But we want the referees to make smart decisions and we're giving that responsibility to them. Maybe we will move towards an NHL style layout to avoid any and all confusion in the future, but this year we have a large amount of people voting NO on this ruleset because it is too long, because there are too many things in it.

The penalty structure in last year's thrown together set really made no sense. At least there's some structure here and we tried to balance it.

Also an awarded goal is completely legit in that scenario. Refs judgement. A player should be allowed a reasonable and expected amount of time to clear out. A goalie dab followed by a shot 1 second or even close to 2 seconds later is still no goal if the person is making earnest effort to leave the play.

Judgement call for sure. But you'll know. You'll totally know.

I'm curious, why is a player allowed time to get out of the way. If they have just dabbed now, or 2 seconds ago, surely the effect on a blocked goal is the same.

In my mind I would call this the same way, regardless of time, as I think this is about effect, not intention.

Now, IMO, where intention would come in would be if the player purposefully tried to block it, in full knowledge of being dabbed (ie, cheating). Then I would consider a penalty for them, as well as the goal (not sure if that's even possible under this ruleset).

Good point RE: "effect."

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

I do worry a little about getting too loose with the awarded goals, such that players see a dabbed goalie as a target rather than the goal itself.

"Oh he's dabbed... I'll just hit it into his wheel, they'll give me a goal for that."

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Legitimate concern, but if the penalty isn't suitably harsh you'll get a lot of "accidental" dabs on the goal line that block shots.

Obligatory first-to-five removal suggestion:
Getting rid of first-to-five makes each goal worth less so you're not 20% closer to losing if you don't intentionally dab in front of goal and block a shot... just sayin'

I disagree. Dabbing is part of the game. Evaluating a goalie dab as a point in time and allowing all goals after that exact point in time is just not reasonable in my opinion.

Reasonable effort to clear the area is okay. Unreasonable delay is not. We ony want to allow goals that don't go in the goal when it's necessary and I only think it's necessary when a defender is obviously making an effort to cheat, such as a penalty on a break away on open net or wen a defender is not TRYING to clear out.

Or when the defender lays down in front of the goal and pretends to be hurt...

321polo.net

I've never seen this happen. What I do see a lot of is:
"Oh, hmm. My handlebars seem to have jack-knifed. Surely I cannot be expected to move my bike with the handlebars facing the wrong way. Once I fix my handlebars, I will go tap out at the first possible moment. Ah shoot, my quill stem got turned a little bit too..."

There SHOULD be some point at which hitting the ball into a goalie who is clearly not trying to get out of the way becomes an awarded goal. I hope there is a definitive ruling on that somewhere, so we have something to cite when it comes up. Refs discretion only works when there is a dedicated ref.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

London Open 2012, Lefty Will pretended to be injured and layer infront of the net. Luckily the ref saw through it and let play keep going until the ball hit Will and they called it a goal. Definitely a low point in game play.

321polo.net

I think that just creates an unneeded grey area, where it just turns into a game of chicken, with the goalie trying to take as much time to leave, and the shooter waiting enough time for them to clear, before they shoot against their wheel.

I know that's all very theoretical, but it just opens up the possibility of cheating, inconsistent calls, and appeals from teams that the time was/wasn't long enough.

Using an analogy from hockey:
"In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal."

So in that case, regardless of the intention of the player, the effect on the goal (or lack of it) was the same.

"if a player who is dabbed, blocks the ball from crossing the line, the referee may award a goal." No time to wait.

Says the referee may award the goal. He doesn't have to. So the referee makes the call in hockey, too. I see absolutely no difference in our rule and theirs.

I agree.

It was more your interpretation of it vs mine.

I love you.

you too.

get a room

Thanks. That's very helpful. Perhaps we'll be at the NHL this-for-that level for penalties one day, but this will work for now. Especially if refs get training and perhaps an annotated version of the rules with notes from other refs, etc.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

The month of february is going to be spent taking this 19 page ruleset, and turning into 100 more pages of description, with examples. And no one will read that either. Maybe I should just spend the time making gifs!

gifs with funny horn and whistle noises, please.

321polo.net

I think I speak for everyone when I say, if given the choice between a new comprehensive ruleset and hipster hockey, we're gonna take hipster hockey every time.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

The AHBPA is considering clarifying talk-back to the ref by having something like a designated team 'captain' which is the only person allowed to approach and ask a clarification from the referee. Any other person challenging the ref, or anything else such as complaint, offensive language etc will be a minimum 30 second penalty and up to the refs discretion for anything larger.

The captain can be simply marked with a bit of tape on the handlebar etc.

Hey polo community.. can we give Nick a Big Fucken' Thank U for doing a Great job with the rules.. I know it wasn't easy at all adding new rules and eliminating some! Thank u for doing this all this for us to have a cleaner and better polo for 2014!!

"We don't need no education"

Nope.

Should I start a separate thread on interference/contact, or keep plugging away at this monster thread?

new thread! new Thread! new thread!

I believe Kev closes threads at 300 posts and starts another one anyways. It is probably best to start a new one that focuses on the topic you are interested in.

Yeah this seems like a good time to stop as any. Here's jav's bodily fluid exchange thread.