Machine Politics vs L'Équipe, August 2010. Photo by Steph Simcox
what are the pros and cons as you see them?
i like the idea of a rule like in basketball where no player can just hang out in the "paint" (3 in the key its called). if a player tries to camp out in front of the goal in the "paint" for more than three seconds when the ball isn't in the "paint" its a penalty on both a defensive or offensive player resulting in a turnover. no more permagoalies and no more doublestacking. if that's too radical then amend the rule so that only one player (goalie) from the defensive team can be in the "paint" for over three seconds. this would end all boring turtle games which i'm completely ok with never having to play or watch ever again.
i like the idea of a crease like in hockey because i think its boring to watch when teams doublestack and then the other team resorts to running people over to try to dab them and make them take out their own goalie. in hockey you cannot impede the goalie so that would end teams relying on sticking their bike in the goal, tbone/pinning or wrecking the goalie which i think is boring to watch. if you have a 2 v 1 against a goalie then draw the goalie to one side and pass to your teammate in the open gap for the easy bucket.
i'm also for dabs if you grab the goal or lean on it...goalies should have to stay on their bikes just like everyone else. you can't stay up permagoalie...roll out and play some defense!
in hockey you cannot impede the goalie so that would end teams relying on sticking their bike in the goal, tbone/pinning or wrecking the goalie which i think is boring to watch.
Cannot impede in any way? Because goalies get screened all the time. Now if you're talking about getting physical with the goalie, then yes. But I think screens and playing with a mallet should still be allowed, even on a 2-on-1 situation.
Not sure how I feel on the idea of a crease or paint yet. I like that there's a conversation though.
just curious...why should we be able to physically interfere with a static player protecting their net? no other sport allows this...soccer, hockey, etc...
well, our goalies aren't technically goalies. they just count as players.
in hockey, you can't flirt with the goalie, but you can mess with defenders that are huddling around the goal.
in soccer. well, in soccer you're not allowed to mess with anyone.
so until we establish full-time goalie rules:
e.g. a goal crease where a goalie cannot be messed with,
people in goal are still gonna be fooled around with.
agreed...a positive about the creation of a crease allows for rules concerning goalies without having to designate one permanent goalie.
I never suggested offensive players should be allowed to get physical with the player in the net. I was saying that yes, the NHL does not allow offensive players to go check the goalie/get physical with him.
I don't think you should be able to check the player in net, although I've played some competitive teams that didn't know who I was. We were putting up a good fight and some of them got desperate, so not only did they mallet check me, they leaned into me. I didn't care much for it, but I also realized, "Hey, I guess we can do this to them now."
It'd be nice to protect goalies from getting leaned on or checked. But I'm A-OK with mallet checks on goalies. If you can play with opponents' mallets in the trenches--boards, corners--to try to win the ball, then why not do it in net?
I've always been on the fence about this. On the ball, absolutely. But when you have a 2 on 1, and the front man comes flying up to hook the goal tender's mallet up for the open 5-hole shot...it just seems ridiculous. And don't get me wrong, I've done this in tournaments, but I never feel great about it.
Bike Polo Ronin
...end teams relying on sticking their bike in the goal...
This annoys the hell out of me more than anything. I think the simple rule to eliminate this...offensive players cannot have any part of their bike or person behind the goal line INSIDE the net.
So no can-openers?
Combination of choice: Smash + Bang
In my perfect world, no can-openers. I get the difficulty in having interference rules in the game, but this is an instance where it is clear that it is a cheap way to gain an advantage.
For a crease. No offensive player allowed inside it (does a wheel fully cross). Only one defensive player allowed in the crease at one time. That player is afforded physical protection. They aren't allowed to touch the net with their body. They can still touch it with a wheel. You can still fuck with their mallet. No slashing of course.
Fuck the paint idea though. In my opinion, after these rules regarding goalies and leaning, the most important rule is regarding ending moving picks. I feel like not very many agree with me on this though.
What do you mean by moving pick? Is cutting someone else's line a moving pick? But that is a question for yet another wildfire thread.
It moevenpik pronounce movin pick and its a type of ice cream like Haagen Daas
"So this is how it ends"MACHINE
no...a moving pick has nothing to do with the ball carrier it has to do with a non-ballhandling offensive player blocking a defensive player from getting to the ballhandler. its a penalty in basketball to set a moving pick/screen and in hockey there are multiple kinds of interference infractions based on off the ball contact/picks/screens.
start that wildfire!
As well as in soccer and rugby. All sports have rules about how an offensive player is allowed to block and when they are allowed to block. Maybe should be another thread for this though.
Movenpick is the best Ice cream on earth.
moving pick is a disscussion who take at list 1'000 post on this board, you can check several thread about it.
In my opinion, a rule against them could be a good way to explore a nice way to play this game, but finding a way to make this rule become a standard and then enforce it looks a so enormous job that i prefere not to think about. The way we play right now is good enough, if put good screen, good for you, if you read and avoid them, good for you too.
There you go. http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2012/06/14/moving-picks-interfen...
Keep your standards low, and morale high.
Isn't that part of the "rule" section?
I m against these ideas. All u need is topless goals, like rappers coupe.
X2 for topless goalies
No contact in the crease except mallet to mallet.
I wouldn't imagine the crease to be big enough for more than one player to be in it. So the second goalie would end up outside the crease when turtling.
that sounds good. i don't think you will stop people from turtling the goal but at least we can keep them from being on top of each others wheels. enough room to get a player in there to lift the goalies mallet i think would be sufficient.
"rubber side down boys"
Rules should be made to prevent broken strategies, not undesirable ones. Checking the goalie AND leaning on the goal are broken. Playing 2 back on defense is not broken, just undesirable, however boring it may be.
Rules should be made to prevent broken strategies, not undesirable ones.
Don't you guys already have enough unenforceable rules?
"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'
If someone starts enforcing any aspect of it, I'm willing to try.
Drawing a crease with string and chalk might help...may be worth doing just to see if any bright ideas emerge about how to make rules in the crease.
my dream- allow shuffle goals to count except when shot within the goal crease
you sound like one of ben hunters kids
Anything that crosses the line should count (except off the pedal kicks, and throwing the ball).
I've just started scoring blatant shuffles in pickup, the more obvious it is, the harder it is for people to call.
There's nothing like a sweet shuffle slap from the half way line (it's actually so much harder than a normal shot).
And even in tournaments, when we have a lead, a few of us have started scoring shuffles, just to show how stupid the rule is.
Pretty sure this guy is right...
I don't think I understand your logic...
If someone scores an obvious shuffle, it is in fact very easy to say "Well that was obviously a shuffle" and not award them a point.
Legalize Hand Throws - 2014
Well, it was slightly tongue in cheek, but there is some truth to it.
Partly people just don't notice, people aren't looking for a shuffle when you hit a 20 yard shot with a shuffle slap, but partly if you score an awesome goal, where the shuffle is blatantly on purpose, the general reaction just seems to be "meh, nice goal"
Also, we almost always play timed unlimited goals in pickup, so the score isn't really important anyway.
I'm not totally opposed to this. Deflections!!! Someone should host a shuffles count tournament and see how it goes. My guess is that it really won't change the game much.
It really didn't change much.
It stopped shitty misses, where a player has taken it all the way to goal, but then can't get the mallet to the right angle, or whatever, to take a shot, you just roll it in.
And there were a few more tap ins at the back post.
But it's so much harder to get power on a shuffle, try a long range shuffle shot, and trying to push a ball through the goalies BB doesn't really work either any more, most goalies are good enough to stop it.
90% of the time a shot is still the best option.
I would be shuffling into the goalie's back wheel from behind the net literally every possession.
You might want to think about that more...I suggested this several years ago. I originally thought Dillman was troll baiting. (Still think he might have been. Surprise! Lots of trolls!)
Currently have no strong opinion. The "shot rule" is as unreff-able as some other rules, as goals are counted if it just looks like a shot. Includes scoop-like shots or shaft goals. Arguing over shot vs. Not is a sucky argument.
Newbies...let 'em shuffle it in if they can. Particularly young newbies with little bike-fu.
20 yard slap shuffle: will try it tomorrow!
Yeah, I'm waiting for that to eventually change...
quit trying to turn polo into another sport. you don't need more rules, you need less. what would ron paul say about this?!
also the "crease" idea... how do you determine which player is the goalie. how do you roll through goalies. does this now dictate that one player is required there? also the idea that one can't impede on the "goalie" is kind of boring also.
i don't know. anything that makes me bring more than a couple of sticks, a ball and some cones/net is too much bullshit for the game.
everything in polo is borrowed from another sport...there is nothing wrong with learning from others' mistakes.
less rules would work with honest players...add competition and less rules equals epic fail. questionable goals/wins aren't good for the sport as a player or spectator.
i think thats one of the problems with the sport. it lack legitimacy because it tries to hard to bastardize other sports to dumb the game down. it started very much it's own game. i think it should have evolved that way. it didn't and boo hoo for me i guess. it's when kids started trying to make up rules and instead of making them themselves got lazy and were like "in hockey this, in hockey that". it's like you're looking to make the game easier. right now, i think that the rules set's only flaw is referring to other sports terms for stuff. i feel that the dudes did an incredible job on the rule set and i'm proud of them. use the rules you have and require better reffing, not more stupid shit to haul around and set up and worry about.
fuck ron paul
Now a more serious reply.
I think people taking down goalies is a bit of a shitty tactic, and if you ban that, along with leaning on the goal, and double goalies, which you could with a "crease" rule, that would make for a cleaner, more open, game IMO.
The one issue in my mind is that has to be marked out, and that may not be possible on many courts (unless it's a polo specific court, people might object to extra lines). But maybe it can just be a trust thing..
But I would agree with only one defensive player in the crease (who is then defined as the goalie). They may not lean on the goal (I guess wheels are allowed, otherwise you can't block the posts effectively), but in return an offensive player must not touch them, or their bike (only their mallet).
I think that could work.
but in return an offensive player must not touch them, or their bike (only their mallet).
I'm thinking not even their mallet. And just one offensive player in the zone. (Can we call it zone? it's a much more international word than crease) (And I'm against the whole no double goalie rule.)
Disagio Bike Polo
wait. all this talk about not being allowed to come into contact with the goalie 'cept for their mallet.
are people doing this? are people actually going beyond mallet contact to force a goaltender footdown?
i thought it says in NAH that you can ONLY mess with a goaltender's mallet, unless you have possession of the ball.
Happen really often when a goal keeper don't dab easily. people start to body check them when passing near them. This is never call by refs, almost invisble.
If you are ready to take some, that's the same as playing player mallet anywhere on the court. First time it hurts, but after you can avoid it or answer it...
Rule polo. Its like bike polo, but with lot of fuckin rules.
You anti-rule guys suck! We are not dictating your pick up. We are trying to decide how the game should be played at the highest level. Whether or not a ref will fuck it up, we should still try to steer the game in a way that we think will make the best polo. You think street basketball has near as many rules as the NBA? No! But it isn't as technical or talented. Every sport has rules. Do you guys even like sports?
The "less rules" talk is stupid. No one wants anyone to be able to put their hands (or whatever) on top of the net (or whatever) to keep on their bike. Its stupid that there ISN'T a rule about it. This discussion started in common sense territory, stubbornly barged into nit-picky 'what-ifs' and then drunkenly stumbled into some foreign land of rule-austerity.
I'm the asshole in my pickup game yelling at people not to do it, because if you give someone an inch and they take a mile.
" No one wants anyone to be able to put their hands (or whatever) on top of the net (or whatever) to keep on their bike"
Regarding to several posts in other thread, this is a fals statement.
Personnaly if your nets have a top bar, im not gonna take too much car if people grab or lean on it a lil' bit, mostly because that's a material issue and because we don't have any good reffin' system for that.
the less rule talk is not stupid. This kind of rules are hard to ref as shit, every tourney a went with rules like that provided unconsistent reffin' and shitty situation. No rule about it look better than opposite.
I've stayed silent on this argument, because I have minimal tournament experience. So I will be the Donny of this discussion. What I've noticed (from these threads) is that reffing is inconsistent all around. Moreover, "hard to enforce" is not a direct response to "should touching the goal be illegal or not". The argument that it's bullshit to lean on or touch the goal to *stay ON your bike* transcends any reffing argument.
The point I'd like to make is that no one is "pro-leaning-on-the-goal-to-stay-on-your-bike", they are merely "pro-status-quo", which is lazy. If you know something is wrong, fix it. Make it rule and it'll become fundamental in everyone's knowledge of the game. infractions will happen less, and you won't need a ref to enforce it.
Well said! I conveyed this in the thread about leaning. It's about changing people's concepts, about changing the culture of the game and holding people accountable through general understanding.
Of course people will cheat, or the rule will be ignored, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the game better.
"The game is better with less rules" is an idiotic statement. Limits the potential of the game to develop and be taken more seriously as more than just fixie kids fucking around in a parking lot. This is a sport. Sports have rules!!
Agree with most part of this. The only way to enforce this rule is make it as natural for people as a dab penalty can be.
Im never stating that the less rule we have, the better the game is. I mostly point that find a way to enforce rule like that is loosing time, because it's way to hard to organize. If you push enough in pick up people who made that to tap out, and make enough propaganda about what you considere as a shitty way of play, you gonna probably win on this, but i don't think it gonna work by the only rule definition and system to enforce it. Open side cut cheaters mallets slowly disepeared in europe, but we never wrote any rule about it. Heckling players, lobbying, provinding better mallet head make them disapear naturally.
My point is, you right about the argument on "impossible to ref can't be an argument". But i think the best way to enforce this kind of play you want to see is make it natural way: you can spend time and saliva to heckling and writing here about, that's a good way, but the simpliest way ever to make it natural, kick you fuckin' top bar, make you nets lower, and the problem is fuckin' solved.
About reffin' honnestly we pretty all have or had motivation to see good reffin' at tourneys, but we all know that never really happens, or so few that a good reffin' isnt the standard. most of ref are silent, and if they take the time clock seriously and use a loud voice to anounce it, that's already great. If you try to ref a game the most seriously you can (i tried 2 or 3 times) you gonna miss stuff around nets (wich are most importants) because of point of view, you gonna miss calls because you don't know the name or the number of the player you want to call, you gonna miss call because you gonna try to blow in the clock and push stop on the wistle because you under pressure with people yellin at you around etc.. etc.. etc..
Im not sayin' we have to forgett about refing project, but clearly make our objective and expectetion about it lower.
The point I'd like to make is that no one is "pro-leaning-on-the-goal-to-stay-on-your-bike", they are merely "pro-status-quo"
For the record, I am "pro-being-able-to-touch-the-goal-with-your-body".
People who want to see this stuff banned always exaggerate and talk about 45 degree leaning and hanging on for dear life. I am against those things. But I am for being able to touch the goal (not with your hands) without leaning into it. Which is why I said if you move the goal as a result of putting more than the tiniest bit of pressure on it, that should be a penalty. A dozen or so people agreed that was a good line to draw.
people at 45° aren't an issue, people leaning the whol game, straight on a post and hip on the top bar, who can goalkeep with their mallet without regarding to their balance at any time can be huge issue sometime.
again good quality nets (but too high and with top bar) as seattle or Toronto ones, allow you to use them as a tripod witout moving them.
the important part of what you quoted was the "stay-on-your-bike" part. I will concede that incidental contact is reasonable and inevitable (until the top bar is gone and a crease is created in which case tires and hips might still touch it.)
every tourney a went with rules like that provided unconsistent reffin' and shitty situation.
This is due to my lack of english syntax. I would mean in every tourneys i went with rules like that i saw unconsistent reffin' in this situations (about leaning or grabing or stuff we talked).
this is almost every time the case, when a tourney try to provide new rule or rules who aren't locally the same. Plus if you had that this rules implicate fouls who are hard to see.
Do you guys even like sports?
^ that is the question
all this rule conversation starts with how you define bike polo in your mind. pickup vs. tournament is very different as everyone knows. is this a "fun hobby" that some people take way to serious and travel to go to events...or is it a sport. tournaments...should have rules.
in any case, you shouldn't be allowed to use a goal for balance (and i dont think you should be able to wrap fingers in a fence or foot plant on a vertical wall)
as for the crease and paint and double goalie and ... conversation - to me it depends how you define the game itself:
if its 3 vs 3 - there shouldnt be a crease because you are not defining one player as a goalie. if a team chooses to have a full time goalie - thats on them. but there should not be rules made about goalies if the game itself does not require one. a paint rule - that would be a good idea but like someone else above said - this would require lots of officiating. if polo goes this way for tournament play, thats just normal progression of the sport to me and thats great - but its going to take a lot of time and a lot more effort to effectively run tournaments if there is a 3 second rule. but paint would be very effective
if its 2 + goalie vs 2 + goalie - there should be a crease. no double goalie allowed. no effing with the goalie. no opening up front or backdoors on a goalie by ramming your bike into the net. no other bike parts enter the crease what so ever. no smacking goalie mallets...
and i say all of this having played double goalie in the last polo weekend event i attended. double goalie is very powerful - but yes...it is boring
and goals scored because a teammate forced the goalie to dab, rammed a/their bike into the net, or smacked a goalies mallet out - yes while perfectly acceptable - are a bit of a cop out to me though. and of course in last ditch efforts, i resort to these methods myself. and yes, i am taking an easy out when i do.
I play for hugs
dude dont make me dig up my And1 mixtapes videoz.
bike polo could be street polo admit it. its a no-rule like grass polo with bikes with brakes(brakes makes a big difference with grass or horse polo i think ) on hockey courts and balls, with mallets wich designs origins from a skipole and a gaz pipe. and less players, shorter timed games .
the organization of tournaments reminds me more of local street basket tournament than a official sport competition .
weirdly, all of this is enough for me to see bike polo as a whole sport rather than a mix of different ones but i think the tournament format and ruleset should come to a more official like and worldwidely enforced.
count shuffle, ban double goalies,crease the fuck you want but make it happen so the players can focus on something to practice on , the sport is also younger in his worldwide competitive form than it has been played locally, people are just starting to really get use to play the same ruleset everywhere.
this is why i bother about acknowledging the rules, because even if it doesnt drastically change the way i m playing ,it will definitly influence on the game tendencies.
Oh my god, how are people not getting this. There are no goalies in bike polo. Only players, players may act as a goal tender but they are always considered a player. This thread isn't about goal tenders, it's about the zone in front of the net.
The crease is a semi circle around the front of the net big enough for one player.
-The acting goal tender is the first defensive player to enter and remain in the crease.
-no player may make contact with any part of the acting goal tender in the crease except via mallet to mallet.
-no player may grab or lean on the net.
-no player may enter the crease so as to interfere with the acting goal tender in any way.
Yall can play pick up however you like, but rules are important.
With out clear and concise rules there can be no way to push the boundaries of this sport.
I like it. It addresses the loophole in the current goalie interference rule, namely that you can block the goalie as an offensive player without *initiating* contact on them (eg., position your bike in a manner that prevents them from moving around to cover different parts of the net).
Are you sure you want to ban the ball carrier from entering the crease, though? Presumably there are cases where an offensive player with the ball would do this to put themselves in position to shoot, not to interfere with the goalie.
I'd imagine the crease to be a very small arc, covering mostly the horizontal in front of the net. No more than 2-3 out from the net, just the arc made by a player covering the net.
I was thinking the rule about entering the crease would only apply when it is with the intent to interfere with the acting goal tender, his ability to cover back and front door. This would eliminate the play where you roll your front wheel into the net and make a hole.
This seems pretty reasonable. I think the crease would address a lot of concerns about goal keeping.
The only thing I disagree about is whether an offensive player should be prohibited from entering the crease and thus preventing a defensive player from getting into position (can opener). If a defensive team leaves it's goal unattended, the offense preventing them from getting there seems fair to me. If this strategy doesn't work, fine, but let's make that their choice, not a rule.
Also you hit it on the head about the "goalie." Until such a term is defined in the rules, it does not exist. I like the crease approach because it defines an action (goal keeping goal tending), not a position ("goalie/goalkeeper/goaltender").
Defining the crease, allows for special scrutiny as well. Infractions in the crease probably deserve time penalties/power-plays. I don't think bike polo is ever going to (or should) do a "penalty shot" equivalent (it would look stupid IMO).
You can still prevent a defensive player from covering the net by picking them before they enter the crease.
If you allow offensive players in the crease, you open up a lot of grey zones for goalie interference (eg., "I didn't interfere with the goalie, the goalie ran into MY front wheel!" or "I didn't hit the goalie, I just had to lean on them a bit to regain my balance", etc). Then Drunkie will say mean things to you, and no one wants that.
Makes sense. I could live with that. :D
if someone is cutting into the crease and i sprint to overtake them as to prevent them, wouldn't this allow itself more opportunity for hard checks around the "crease"
Maybe. Are we banning hard checks?
If I were in that position (near the last man back while my team has the ball and is breaking up court), I'd probably be trying to get open for a pass, instead.
so basically the crease is a saftey zone to go to if i don't want to have to deal with body to body contact?
[kuhn-sahys] Show IPA
expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse:
ie: don't be a dick.
and you ARE dictating how we play pick up. because if we want to play a game, we would want to follow what ever silly rules you decided to enact so if we play in some sanctioned game we aren't at a disadvantage. but when rules are written by those that deem themselves at a "higher level" of play, you discourage the growth of the game and put the rest of us playing with less bullshit at a disadvantage. "you crossed this crease. its a circle ONLY I can be in. what you didn't know?" it's stupid.
Goalies are already exempt from body to body contact under the current ruleset. This discussion is about clarifying how goalies are identified and protected.
Making a rule concise doesn't necessarily make it easy to enforce.
The pickup equivalent of this rule is "don't block or hit the goalie", and it can be enforced by yelling "get your front wheel out of the net and make a play" at an offensive player. I'm not sure what's silly/discouraging/bullshit about that.
Every sport has a learning curve. And it's not stupid. Like he said, there is a big difference between pick-up street basketball and ANY organized basketball game. I get what you're saying, but no one is trying to bog down the flow of the game. This conversation is about making sure neither the offense or defense has an unfair advantage in a given situation. Rule conversations have always been like this. I remember when settling on a ball-joint rule caused ridiculously heated arguments.
i really dont want rules to rule our game but the unfortunate fact is that there are unintenional dicks playing bike polo , so to slay another day, weR3 have to put them in check with a fecking written rule instead of just telling them to feck off and go play bike golf hockey. luv ye all, wise up
two things. 1. i think i misunderstood the intent of this rule. 2. today at pickup i completely changed my opinion of this idea.
break it down for us...what prompted your change of heart?
too many dicks in one spot. i couldn't shoot or pass because 5 people were piled up in the goal. i also found myself showing some new players how to set up in goal, and one of my friends set up a sweet little can opener and it infuriated me. i normally stay away from goal (as i can't play it nearly as well as i can prevent in a defense spot), so this never happened to me.
and i read through a little more carefully what people were saying. i at first responded only to the idea, and as people discussed it, they made good points.
I favor trying this out. Chalked lines for a crease sounds like a fun way to experiment.
These ideas sound like they'd make games flow better. Anything that makes the game flow better is bueno and more fun for all, in my view.
Really, just the same old reffing challenge. Read below for further blathering that's surely been said before.
All players have to understand and then (agree with, and) PLAY by the rules for it not to suck. ( In a competitive context) Because, of course we can't afford professional refs yet, hey? For example, holding the door open. I think I understand why people get upset about it, and consider it a dick move. But can't it also be construed as a dick move for the goalie to get all pissed because they didn't read a can-opener coming their way? So anyway, it has to be clear and the players on the court have to agree. Or we need paid refs. ;)
How about a pro-flow rule about too many semi-stationary dicks for more than a few seconds in any one spot on the court? I tend to bugger out of those group hugs / ball and shaft slapping on the boards because they're so boring.
Credo quia absurdum
I would be in favor of a rule which stipulates that no player or players shall engage the ball along the boards in such a manner as the player, players, and ball remain stationary or near-stationary on the boards for more than five seconds. Such behavior includes but is not limited to: shielding the ball with your front wheel and propping yourself up on the board while raising your head to look around for your teammates. Any players not initially involved in engagement of the ball along the boards which then opt to join the clusterfuck shall guilty of "Contributing to a Boring Clusterfuck".
Penalty is death.
What's the hand signal the ref makes for "Contributing to a Boring Clusterfuck"?
delay of game, possession (half court) to the other team.
Realistically this rule is impossible to govern because we generall can't mark up the courts in a way that would make it enforceable. Boring clusterfucks are a part of this game, we've all over defended a goal when we thought we might lose. They suck, plain and simple. I feel like this is a good time to reference almost every final I've ever seen which didn't involve double stacks and other such crap. Why worry? the teams that are the most interesting to watch aren't losing to teams that double up and if you're trippling up, well you're gonna get hit, probably hard enough to fall, and you're gonna take your team with you.
The only reason anyone does anything.
For the lulz.
After a gr8 try out of "the Crease" at the 81 team London Open Tournament i would like to propose,
Hey Lads and Lassies , How would it work if we just said that the player furthest from the goal line (between the goalposts) in the crease is not allowed to tri-pod , Anyone see any conflict of interests there?
just how do you plan on enforcing this... roman candles?
Instruct the player to tap out and any interference during tripod can be deemed a goal at the reffs discretion........................but yes roman candles would be even more effective.
It would be SE Regional 2011 all over again!
Winston Salem NC Bike Polo
I would not call the London Open Crease a great try.
The job was halfly done to me, the aim was just forbiding double goalie, so creating a crease just for that was not interesing in my opinion.
If you have a crease, it needs to concern defensive players and offensive players.
I am signing off now to drive to shitty's polo birthday bbq in Santa Cruz . Looking forward to see any comments in about 24hours .
We did do this at the London Open, but the rule was a second defensive player cannot be stationary in the crease for more than 2 seconds.
I felt it worked fairly well, but I would change it slightly, to make it easier to ref, and fairer for everyone:
Only one defensive player (the goalie), and no offensive players, may be stationary in the crease.
why no offensive players?
To keep people from screening out other nonstationary defenders? I partially see the reasoning behind this, it keeps the crease clear which helps with reffing and makes it easier to goal judge but there is something to be said about about waiting for a pass right on top. I feel that this addition does have some positive value but I would like to see it tested with various sized "creases".
One thing I'm curious to hear about from people that played the open is which size worked the most effectively. I saw complaints about each court being different but was told later that was on purpose to test the idea. Cody has said the larger (largest?) of the creases worked the most effectively, what was that size? Overall did it work?
Yeah, if the intention the crease rule is to stop lame defensive tactics, then the same should really apply to offense, and to encourage a flowing game from everyone.
In addition make the rule one sided could lead to attackers just waiting until the defenders have to move out of the way.
I'm not sure that this does make the game more flowing. I think that goal keepers keep the game from being flowing and having an offensive player disrupt the stationary goalie can lead to very interesting pretty goals.
True, I think this is where some research is going to come into play. Also, when actively disrupting a goalie I wouldn't call an offensive player stationary. Another good example of rules that will be interesting to make calls on but could be a good addition.
I'm still wondering what would happen if offense is in clear posession and defense has two stationary players in the crease.
Whistle and stop play?
If there's a tap out, who gets it?
When does play restart?
If play doesn't stop, what if defender doesn't move, or is slow, or gets blocked on the way out? What if defender blocks a shot? What if defender interferes with offense on the way to tap out?
In short, defining stationary/double goaltending is not too hard. We know it when we see it. What is supposed to happen next?
In the London Open we were using a delayed penalty: ref warned the team and if they failed to move out of the crease then the ball was given back to the attacking team once they lost possession.
if players can't hear the refs, which is true for at least the five or six most important games at any tournament of significant size, then warnings are useless...
Sounds weak to me. Imagine: defenders turtle around the goal, delayed penalty called. Offense takes shot and looses ball. Play stops, ball goes back to offense at half court. Defenders re-form turtle, and repeat sequence. Crowd yawns audibly. I think this falls short of the desired outcome.
Maybe an immediate penalty (i.e., tap out immediately after ref calls), with teeth added like a 30 sec penalty for interference. No play stoppage, and real motivation to get out of the crease. Theoretically.
In the scenario you describe we would have ejected the players that repeatedly broke the rule, see 6.4 here:
The audible warning thing was mainly to accommodate any teams that may not have read the rules properly (the majority), I agree that relying on anything audible from the ref is a bad idea... but we were trying to introduce a new rule with as few freak outs from players/teams as possible.
New rules are hard. Thanks for sharing!
By the sound of it you did a pretty good job of it.
Well, the intention wouldn't be to disadvantage the attacking players, and the advice to refs (in London) was a delayed penalty. Tap outs are not a penalty in our ruleset (except for dabbing).
So as long as the attackers retained the ball it wasn't an issue.
If the defender were to stay in the area, and interfere, or block a goal, I would go through the usual range of penalties, turnover to the attackers, or 30 second/2 minute, depending on the severity.
Personally I'd probably also call a penalty shot, if it's likely a goal was stopped, assuming a penalty shot is in the ruleset.
In London I was watching a game and swooning over the Australian dudes who were playing and the play was getting sort of bunched up. They were on defense, an offensive ball carrier was behind the net sweeping 'round. Another offensive player had injected himself in the crease to sort of pick, sort of just be in the way, sort of fuck with the goalie -- doing all that stuff. One of the Australian dudes moved into the crease also because there was this sort of eminent pile up in which the result would most likely be a goal against if he didn't try to separate this harassing offensive player from his goalie or get in front of the ball or do something.
Because he was in the crease, the ref told him to roll out and the play was essentially opened up to a free goal for the offensive team. He was taken out of the play due to the rule.
If you're going to have a crease rule, you need to say that no one can stop there except one defensive player. Goalie shouldn't necessarily be allowed immunity but harassment should always roll through - the area in front of the net should stay mostly open and the rule should prohibit offensive AND defensive players from residing there for long periods of time.
Beyond that it's just about figuring out size. It needs to be big enough to be affective, otherwise, as seen a lot in London, the second defender would just sit right outside the crease line to the same effect.
BoozeKruse , when the ball is actually in the crease do you forsee the dynamics changing, coz if you are hustling for a ball at such close quarters it is likely that most players in that situation are going to be unable to complete a wheel revolution in 2 seconds or may need to reverse to obtain the ball or will be blocked from leaving the crease by a defending or even an offending player.
this game has always been based off a point system. more and more people want to compete so games became timed. with timed games came new strategies to the game like running the clock or stacking the net to prevent goals. with these new strategies comes new issues and need for new rules like making a crease. i know that there will always be timed games and so these rules need to be discussed. stacking the net is probably the best strategy for preventing goals. hopefully we can continue the game as it was made it(TO FIVE POINTS) for finals and even semi final games but for the games before those they will be timed. i am FOR having a crease because timed games are here and arent going anywhere. in a game to 5 points its not a great strategy and if all games were like that these other rules against stacking and dumping wouldnt be necessary but they are because we have to time games. on another point. GAMES TO FIVE ENCOURAGES GOAL SCORING, GAMES TO TIME ENCOURAGES GOAL PREVENTION!!!!! we talk about other timed sports and comparing them to polo. there are timed sports and point system points for a reason. in timed sports like hockey and soccer it is impossible to "clear" the ball or there are even rules against it "icing" in polo there is room for creativity but we cant loose the fact that what makes this game awesome is scoring goals. when there is no clock you got to get out the net and go score. goals to end games
I don't think untimed games would mean the end of defensive-minded strategies. Teams with less offensive firepower will still rely on blocking shots and getting breakaways, because it is a good strategy when you're up against a more skilled team.
agreed. I think that too many people are focused on other games and trying to make this fit a mold. it's like when one doesn't understand something they compare it or try to lump it to something else. it defeats creativity.
that said, at the FCI4, we had untimed finals and it was killer on the players, especially sice the winning team already had one loss to the second place team going it, so they had to play two games back to back untimed. BUT the games were incredible. delay of game tactics that slow down and make the game boring are deleted this way and keep the game fun. but i digress, this is off topic.
our first attempt on designing a crease. It was about 1,50m from the front to the goal line. next time we'll make them slightly bigger, but this seems to be a good size.
What if you stuck with that size and used a hockey-like rule: only one defensive bike allowed in crease (unless offender or ball are in the crease first). Do away with the issue of the 2nd bike being stationary.
that would change the game a lot more. no rolling through the crease before an offender or the ball are in... don't know if I would like that, but might be worth giving it a try.
we were thinking about changing the 1 wheel in the crease london rule to no stationary wheels at all.
So it seems this thread has turned from a no contact area in the very front of the net, to an out of bounds area right in front of the net. Is the concept of the crease to protect a goalie from being t-boned or to get rid of the 2nd goalie?
NAH way on the begining of this thread was more about protecting goalie, then Euro trend (after London open try) was first about no double goalie rule.
It seems that now both are included in the crease idea:
-As you make double goalie illegal, then you want to protect the only goalie from "dirty" play.
-As you make fuckin' with goalie illegal, then you want to ban also a too strong defense that you can't disturb.
It seems that logical consensus is sayin' that you can't allow a rule and not the other, otherwise you gonna get an unfair advantage for one of the team.
perfect...exactly. a crease should both eliminate doublestacking and offensive t-boning/can-opening. it would eliminate the pileups caused by players trying to both set and fight through screens/picks right in front of the goal. so the rule should maybe address not just defensive doublestacking but also offensive screening/picking in the designated crease...which means no offensive players in the crease unless they are the ballcarrier and no defensive player(s) in the crease unless they are designating themselves as the goalie. i would suggest the crease being offlimits even to rollthrough since if you allow the offense to rollthrough then you have to allow defense to rollthrough. how do you enforce minimum speed or maximum time in the crease? it wouldn't change onetimer plays as the rule does not stop your mallet from entering the crease.
I think making a crease to forbide double goalie and make the game more flowing in a bad idea, then bike polo is not going to be a sport but a show. This discussion remind the one after Berlin WHBPC concerning forbiding the block/screen.
Choosing to play with a double goalie is a tactical option as choosing to play 3 ups or choosing press very high on the court or to use screen more that pass in offense. When you're using a double goalie, you have only guy aginst three to try to steal the ball wich is very tiring.
Concerning the flowing, I think spd make the game way more static than any double goalie defense. With SPD you can freeze a guy almost everywhere on the court really easily, wich was impossible with flat pedal cause if you stopped you bike you were down in 80% of the case. Would you banned spd to make the game flowing ?
Last thing concerning the crease is, who we will able to draw one in his local court. In Paris we can draw one where we play on saturday, but not were we play on tuesday and thursday, wich is very annoying cause they are the competitive session, so we can't play with a rule like that on our rink.
To conclude I'm not really against the idea of the crease, but I think we should no over react to some tactical choice by adapting the ruleset. Strategy make the game interessing to play and if we don't offer teams to have choice with their strategy with a too contraining ruleset then all the team will play exactly the same way and we are not a sport anymore but just an entertaining game.
Im thinking that double goalie tactics can be defeated with time, and a team organized in a way to open a net where two people is stucked in can make it right now. So maybe time would get rid of double goalies tactics or make them way less efficient in the futur.
But if a crease rule appears, after several tries in differents tournaments, i don't think it's gonna be such a big deal to play it, even without drawing it on your court. As we play on courts where the middle tap out point is sometimes missing, we get a good idea where we have to tap in. It would be the same if the double goalie rule appears. If the aera is one meter large and long, you gonna aproximativly know where you can put your bike, not straight in front of the first goalie, but one or two meters far from him.
As when you play street basketball, im not sure players are always couting down the time in the crease, but people respect it more or less.
I don't think entertaining for crowd have to be an argumement for switching rule. But if the major part of the players begin to say the game is better played with this rule, then the rule gonna appears for sure. Cheaters mallets was not bad for the show for people just watching polo, but we get rid of them because of the players majority mood.
Just want to know also, are people thinking that too many teams in europe played this way in the last two majors tournaments ( EHBPC and WHBPC) ?
Because part of the problem is maybe that the winning team played this way, so this tactic get more exposure.
but there is not so many teams playing like that in the top ten of both of these tournaments in my opinion.
if you take the top 5 of WHBPC, it seems that CMD was the only team playing like that, im i wrong?
Double goalie isn't a magic tactics. When we play it with Iron ponies, we make it so bad that is probably more easy to score on us this way ( bb in the same line, so if you go throught the first one, you get good chances to score). Some other teams as hooks play it better, by placing the goalies in better positions, they are more efficient. Call me daddy find the perfect match, Lefty and righty, close and well organised. But if you look at the final of WHBPC, the major issues for guardians is not the second goalkeeper, lefty will, but greg, who stop a lot of shots during this game. You can play double goalie and don't get any advantages of it because you are not organised. The fact that they won by playing this tactic when they were up by one or two goal doesn't mean that this strategy is the one people gonna fallow in the futur, even for them.
My only complain would be: if the only way to score on such a defensive play is to get into the slot, and hop around by hacking mallets and pushing players, this could really become boring. As we played the Bench minor in Bordeaux, the court was really slippery, so players had to keep a static defense to avoid free dab', the game looked like a piece of shit, 5 players hoping around and hitting mallet in front the net.
But if you find a good way to score on this kind of defense, by putting clean pick on the second goalie and smart mallet hook when your teamate shot on the goalkeeper. Or by get accurate shot on small holes, then that's fine for me.
Maybe a rule can work. Maybe the "natural" way we play the game gonna give us more weapon to go thru this kind of play in the futur.
Im not seeing this way of play as a real issue for now, but if players majority is thinking that', it's fine to find a rule who work.
I agree with a lot of this. My main concern with two or three players protecting the net is that it encourages the other team to enter the key and physically move people. This will result in some kind of major pileup or penalty 99% of the time, not a very appealing situation.
This is the crux of the whole issue.
If you stack goalies, I will come in and try to bust it up. I will put a body on your second goalie in attempt to down them. It is just unfair in my opinion to try to take off-the-ball checks out of the game but still allow for a stack-em-up defense. And if off-the-ball checks aren't illegal, you create this ugly style of game that no one wants to watch or be a part of. I don't WANT to go in the crease and try to move people around... I want to get open for passes and make shit look sweet, but that style of game forces physical aggression in front of the goal and it's bound to look gross.
Open up the area in front of the goalie and the game gets better. Take off-the-ball checks out of the game and create a crease. It gets better to play and to watch. Making a crease doesn't make polo a spectacle, or take away the sport or make people less creative on the court. It opens the game up and makes the best plays, the ones that deserve a goal, into the plays that most commonly GET goals.
Totaly agree with the point of avoiding as max as possible dirty contact in front of the net, then it make sense to have a crease and if you want clean this area it make sens to have not the many players around offensive and defensive. Bordeaux BM was a very good example of non interessing game due to so many peolple in front of the net bunny hopping and fighting against each other.
My main point concernig all of this is, the rule should not be an anti double goalie rule as it was done in London, but a rule with the idea of making the game cleaner and my general idea was to say too many people want to change rules to make the game more entertaining like no goals limit or need a plus 2 to win a game, biggest goals etc... We need to keep in mind that we have to keep a strategical part in this game.
To clarify: my view for the Open was that the overly aggressive/knife fight style play was in reaction to a team employing double/triple goalie tactics and that trying to open up the area in front of the net might lead to a cleaner/more enjoyable game all round.
I prefer the idea others have had since that attackers and defenders (all players except one defender/goalie) should be encouraged to stay out of the crease.
There are many strategic ways to run a defense that will work even with a crease rule. Unlimited goals, win by 2, no double goalies; none of these ideas make the game any less strategic in my opinion. Also, there is nothing wrong with keeping the game entertaining and fun for both players and spectators.
Wrist shots make double goalies pretty useless. Oh, you're blocking every path on the ground? That's cool, I'm going to go top-shelf. You'd have to pressure so much more on defense, the double goalie would keep 2/3 of your team from pressuring and thus would be a bad idea.
Everything counts, bench format, the future. Just sayin'.
p.s. it's silly to see people speculating about what spectators would or wouldn't enjoy watching because of how incredibly biased we all are by default.
Might as well have called it gay.
Pete , love ya but
There's a perfectly well established sport that already allows all this called Bicycle Lacrosse the link to which is in YOUR HEAD.
Go play it and count the sheep while you do it..... Oh no you wont have to because you'll already be sleeping from the boredom of unlimited goals from the wrist shots as you hold onto your Majestic Pink Shaft muttering goalgoalgoalgoalgoalgoal to yourself coz everyone else is out playing bikepolo................even in your dreams
how about a large crease (like 3m semi circle from center of goal line) and the rule is no two defensive bikes in the crease for more than 5 seconds?
Or even no 2nd bike at all, neither offense or defense, for 5+ seconds? This would prevent exceptions where two offenders are allowed in close.
Offenders must tap out. Interference en route to tapping gets more severe penalty.
Should be easy to see/call, for players and refs. It would change the game...require some getting used to.
Couple of things to add to the crease after seeing it and a couple of other things in ladies army V. First, it's difficult to see as a ref, figuring out a good way to mark it that won't get us fired from our courts is going to be important if we want to use it. Second, I think bigger will be better, the size in Vancouver made it difficult to create an impenatrable stack but it didn't free up too much space. I'm not saying huge but maybe 125% of the size EVBP used.
Third, and this is partly another rule. Shots blocked by a downed goalie, Dangerous topic, difficult call, I feel one way to facilitate this rule if it's going to be used is players downed in the crease. If you block a shot while dabbed in the crease the goal counts. I propose this after seeing Meg lee shoot on a jack knifed player about 10 feet out from the goal, while it didn't cause a lot of argument there was still some issue with whether or not it should have been called. I feel that if the crease is going to be added to any future ideas of the rule set it can help with this ambiguity. Honestly, if we're going to use the no blocked shots by dabbed players rule, then having a defined area where this rule is enforced might be the most helpful way to call it for the refs.
REMEMBER THAT TIME THAT CLEMENT STARTED A THREAD ABOUT LEANING ON THE GOALS AND EVERYONE STARTED TALKING ABOUT A CREASE??!?!??!?!?!?!??!??!?!?
I think I read like half of this, so if this is all redundant bullshit forgive me.
I like the idea of having a crease like in hockey. A small crease. One larger enough for a goalie to move his/her bike from left to right and have his front wheel out toward the play, similar to how goalies in hockey move up to the top of the crease to become a larger obstacle that the puck must pass. That's it though. Enough room to protect the goalie/give the goalie space, but not enough room in front to prevent a double goalie.
In order to enforce the crease, wouldn't it make more sense for this to be the goal judges responsibility to call? I don't think that's asking too much. The crease should only be used to protect the goalie, not prevent double goalies. How big is this crease you guys are thinking about? Think about how little a defense man in hockey actually enters the crease, because if he did, he'd be screening and interfering with his own goalie. I don't believe a normal sized hockey crease would prevent double goalies.
I like the rules in terms of hitting the goalie, and wouldn't minded if they stayed. You shouldn't be allowed to interfere unless you have the ball in which case you're going for the ball and not strictly interfering. And offensive players should be able to at least approach the crease when the ball is there so that they have a chance to score.
I don't like the double goalie strategy, but like people have said before: it's a strategy. If people want to allow other teams to control the ball 90% of the time, go for it. The argument that it's not the direction we want polo to go is not really sufficient for me to be like yeah, let's make that strategy illegal. It'd be like making scoop shots or shuffles illegal had they been allowed beforehand simply because "scoops take no skill." If it's not dangerous, I don't think it should be prohibited.
I don't understand this perspective. Sports evolve and rules evolve to preserve certain styles of game play and eliminate others for the entertainment value, movement and creativity involved.
The blue line and offsides in hockey and soccer.
Icing in hockey.
Interference in soccer, hockey, field hockey, lacrosse.
Blocking penalties after 5 yards in american football.
Goal tending in basketball.
Moving picks in basketball.
On and on and on and on and on.
Rules serve two purposes. They protect players, and they guide strategical game play. To not have a serious discussion about what our sport would be without certain defensive and offensive strategies does it a disservice. We need to focus on what makes our sport better to spectate and what the rules can do to encourage the development of skillful strategy and execution as opposed to unskilled strategies such as the double goalie, regardless of how successful these strategies are. Ay yo.....................
you know what kruse, I had been writing my post for like...20 minutes and you sweep in and write yours all swiftly. Makes me look like I'm ganging up on somebody.
Regardless of strategy discussions the main reason to use a crease, one large enough to significantly space out a double goalie is to limit the off ball contact that occurs in front of the goal. During worlds I saw many goals scored off of the "can opener" technique. One person riding into the double goalie and just wiggling back and forth until enough people fall over that their team mate can get a good shot. This is the type of play that needs to be discouraged. It's messy, and isn't going to garner any further support for this game when our highest level of play depends on how well you can shove stationary players off their bikes. Defensemen in hockey don't screen their goal tender because they get in the way and once it's trapped play stops, also they have better places to be, such as preventing shot opportunities. In polo there are just enough wheels in the way to hope it bounces out and creates a break away.
And while we're drawing from hockey, why not look at recent rules changes in the NHL and their purpose
but after the 2004-05 NHL lockout, one rule change wasn’t going to cut it; drastic measures were needed. Fearing that the league would lose fans, the NHL made a series of substantive rule changes all designed to boost offensive chances, scoring, and entertainment.
(full article, http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/biggest_rule_changes/nhl_rule_chang...)
Why not just write the rules in the beginning to accomplish those things? (obviously this creates another question of higher scoring timed games and then the bench enthusiasts are gonna start talking and yadda yadda yadda, but there are other threads for that too.)
I do feel the need to state that I feel that hockey has a lot to teach us but our rules still need to come from our experiences as a sport. if a good idea is conveniently written down in another sport after we feel we need it, then I fully suggest plagiarizing the shit out of it.
if you don't know...I can't help you...
or...what's hocley, precious?
One thing that other more established sports have always done when instituting this kind of rule change is try it out somewhere first (witness AHL or the D-league) and tweak as necessary. I like the general idea of a crease, I love the idea of limiting off-the ball checking, and if the rest of my club feels the same way, we're gonna try those ideas out this year at our local tourney. My suggestion is; everyone else who's in favour, do the same and report back on what works and what doesn't.
London tried it in the open 2012, i liked it, i know there was a few problems, especially with the rain washing off the markings, but in the end the gameplay was more open and the team with the more adventurous style won.
Im sure it would take a far more detailed breakdown to convince some people of its merits, but if the Euros, NAs or Worlds had a crease im sure the highlights edit would be enough to change some peoples opinions on the rule. It could also draw a lot of people into the sport if we had a large tournament video that had an emphasis on slick, technical and skillful plays rather than dramatic big hits and crashes.
I didn't like that much playing double goalie and neither being or forced to "fuck them up".
About the crease idead, i like it. I'm not sure if it's a good idea but adding the "motion" factor to the number of players allowed may work.
To enforce it, or at least try it in our club, i don't think we need (for the moment) any marks on the ground, but instead work with what we already have:
1. the crease size equal to the approximate reach of the defensive player mallet in front of their own goals (see drawing).
2. there's only one static player allowed in the crease and it must be a defender.
3. any other player, either defender or attacker must be in forward motion.
4. contacts in the crease are not allowed, in exception to mallet like contact.
"player in motion" is hard to define but the aim is to let players ride through the crease but players have to be a bit scary of the crease too. "i can go in there but at the very systematic risk to be called".
If #3 (players in motion) doesn't work or leads to too much gray area: remove it.
Doing markings with chalk is probably the best we'll get here, right? I mean, only a few limited clubs have courts that they work with their Park&Rec to even make improvements to. What I'm getting at is that there's a hard truth about the infrastructure of our community *already* being strained, so further court requirements may do more harm than good.
From my position, I'm mystified that we created a proprietary goal size, instead of going with what is market availible. The real result of this is that most clubs don't have the resources to make their own goals, so they play pick up with the "wrong" goals that *are* availible. Now, we'll end up adding this rule in, which wont trickle down to the clubs, and it will disproportionately effect clubs.
I mean, the idea of the crease is one that I could probably get behind for the rules--It doesn't excite or offend me. I just think that creative play might end up providing a solution instead of some technocratic idea that will be incredibly hard to make the game universal across the poloverse.
Bigger courts and more room behind the net makes the double goalie strategy not as affective. I think this years WHBPC showed that.
Lets put it all on the table we are talking about CMD. The reason why double goalie works for them so well is not because its impossible to get the ball through two goalies, its because Will is facing towards the goal hes shooting at and the team that just took the shot is facing the wrong way so he gets a good breakway. Wich wouldn't mean dick but he is fucking lethal one on one. On a bigger court its easier to back check and get some pressure on him.
With more room behind the net there's more space to create a play. I would be willing to bet there will be less dbl goalies this coming year. They have all ready dropped considerably since 2012.
That being said going in and fucking with the dbl goalie is not pretty but some times it has to be done so if dbl goalie was to become the bread and butter of all competing teams I'd be the first to vote for a rule against it.
If we were witnessing weak teams getting really far in tourneys using dbl goalie, I would agree its a problem. The fact that highly skilled players can use it effectively doesn't mean that much to me. The main reasons CMD are so successful, IMO, are that Paulo is a beast at winning the ball back, and that all three of them are efficient goal-scorers. I don't care how good you are at defense, if you aren't scoring on the other end, it don't mean shit.
That said, I'm in favor of a crease rule to open up play in front of net, though I have practical concerns in how it would be implemented and reffed.