Machine Politics vs L'Équipe, August 2010. Photo by Steph Simcox
pick on somebody your own size
Hard to tell from the gif but it looks like either Toppling (6.2) or Kicking (8.3).
Or maybe just a check where he took himself out too, so no penalty.
Legalize Hand Throws - 2014
Toppling, looks like he was just trying to footdown but made contact.
Play advantage to team with ball, ball turnover if possession is taken by offending team.
yeah i think this is unintentional toppling, so just a ball turnover. but hard to tell. if it was intentional (like greg stepped on joey's frame or foot on purpose, to down him) then a ref might consider 30 seconds. but greg doesn't play like that and this video doesn't prove anything that bad.
No intention needed: if a team gains an advantage by dabbing a player then a toppling penalty should be assessed. Make the call 30 seconds if a scoring opportunity was lost.
Greg's habits/style of play should be the last thing on the ref's mind for an accurate call to be made quickly.
(In my opinion the wording of the toppling rule is black and white.)
people intentionally topple others all the time (although perhaps less now than in the past). it's the "if i'm going down i'm taking you with me" attitude, it's bush league and refs should penalize it. it's the difference between "cheating in order go gain advantage" and "gaining advantage unintentionally".
i know that intention can be hard to perceive, but that's what distinguishes a good ref from a bad one. most sports include intent within the ruleset, particularly when it comes to figuring out the severity of the penalty. just like "scoring opportunity" as a factor. prior habits / style of play can also be a valid way of deciding on the severity of the penalty. for example, if a player has done the same thing 3 times in one game, they get 30 sec whether their foul prevented a scoring opportunity or not.
Anyone have any ideas on how to differentiate between toppling, and over-committing to an (otherwise legal) check?
I think this is a really good question. A "clean" check (shoulder to shoulder) should not include throwing yourself off your bike in order to deliver it.
Reminds me of the rule in hockey that you can't jump as you check someone, that's called charging.
We also need to borrow the concept of boarding from hockey--clean checks near (but not against) the boards that result in a player smashing into the boards defenselessly.
Boarding has more to do with a check that causes the checked player to fall dangerously into the boards (especially hitting their head). It also has to do with whether the checked player was vulnerable, say if he was playing the ball on the boards while stationary and then a player comes up to him and checks him violently. So for those instances, there should be a boarding rule against those checks.
Charging isn't really a great term to use for over-exertion of the body on a check. It's more about traveling some distance to deliver a violent hit on someone than it is about over-exertion of a check. Maybe over-exertion could be added to the definition of toppling? Instead of having the toppler always be defined as the player who was dabbing and forced another to dab also, could we add the definition of toppling to include a checking player that over-exerts his/her body which causes both him and the checked player to dab? Something like that but better
Man, that's where it gets tough.
Maybe over-exertion could be added to the definition of toppling?
Dabbing isn't a ball turnover.
Checking someone (cleanly) so they dab isn't a ball turnover.
But if I check someone cleanly, and also dab myself, that's a ball turnover?
Not saying it happens enough to warrant deep thought by the rules committee, but we're all about philosophical rule discussions here.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. There's a difference between a clean check that leads to both players dabbing and a check that was overly aggressive that leads to both players dabbing. I guess I'm saying there's a point where you check someone and both people dab where it's probably from you exerting your body too much.
I'd say the latter can be dangerous and if there's some sort of rule to protect the player from a dangerous hit, it might be worth it. It would be up to the ref to determine whether a check is overexertion and/or dangerous
Charging isn't really a great term to use for over-exertion of the body on a check. It's more about traveling some distance to deliver a violent hit on someone than it is about over-exertion of a check.
"Over-exertion" isn't really a great term, unless you're talking about how i felt after 12 minutes of 35 C polo.
But look it up, in hockey charging either means travelling some distance OR jumping, into a check. And it's a smart rule that keeps the game safer.
I'm not arguing for a charging rule, but i don't think what Alex mentions above is toppling, toppling is something very specific where player 1 gains advantage by making player 2 dab while player 1 was either dabbed or in the process of dabbing. i think it confuses the toppling rule by adding checking into it.
Hmm you're right. I never should have questioned a dude from Toronto on hockey rules :/
Looks Like Dillman is running off court to get some pizza or something. LOL. He left his bike on the court. The other guy looks like he got tired of polo and decided to mosh.
Combination of choice: Smash + Bang
looks like 28weeks later
"So this is how it ends"MACHINE
The gif is way too fast.
^^ - It's like 3 separate penalties, all on Greg.
The distinction in the intent of a toppling penalty is not that the player who checks cleanly (so... not greg because it wasn't clean) causes a dab and dabs themselves. The distinction is that the player who initiates physical contact causes the other player to dab in the course of their own foot down.
In the case of a clean check, the question you have to ask is "was the checked player's dab a result of the initiating player's dab, or were they indepentent?"
In this case, you could have called a clear t-bone, a clear arm extension, and a clear toppling.
Send him off!!!
Gotta disagree with you on the toppling call. Brian is pretty clearly going down while Greg is still seated firmly atop his bike.
However, since Brian was only going down because of the clear t-bone and the clear arm extension, well...
You'll see. Unless you drilled out your eyes because they were too heavy.
I agree with everything here, granted I don't know if I'd see all three in real time. I think the ref should catch one of them at least.
Keep your standards low, and morale high.
Super hard to tell what's going on, even in the stills, but in the first pic it looks like Brian is turning into Greg and Greg is turning away from the collision. His arm is only extending to brace himself as he's going down. Incidental contact, no penalty.
Refs keep using that word, I do not think it means what they think it means.
§220.127.116.11 – Incidental bike-on-bike contact is contact that doesn’t affect play and is not dangerous.
No penalty will be assessed for bike contact deemed incidental.
Yeah exactly i often heard "incidental" being used in place of "accidental" or "non-intentional".
This has come up a few times at pickup in exactly that way.
"We just got tangled up, man. It's not like a T-boned him, he should have stayed up."
Doesn't matter if the other guy sucks at riding his bike, if you run into him and he falls it's a penalty.
Really? So now we have to stop the game every time there is contact and someone falls? Really? Well the refs apparently missed about a million calls at worlds if that's the case.
The rules are very explicit in that matter, yeah.
If you initiate contact and it has an effect on the play, that's a penalty. Someone dabbing definitely "effects play".
Doesn't mean that's how it gets called, or that's how it SHOULD be called. This is a case where refs might wanna stick to calling the "intent" of the rule rather than the literal interpretation.
Really? Wow so no contact? We'll good job you guys that sounds stupid.
I don't know if I'm just getting old, or its cause I haven't played in months, but I'm starting to feel like DougD in this motherfucker..
Yeah as it's currently written in the NAH V3.3 ruleset:
3.1.1 - A player who causes contact between their bike and the bike or body of an opponent will be assessed a penalty ranging from a ball turnover to a major.
(Then the "incidental" exception is described later:)
18.104.22.168 - Incidental bike-on-bike contact is contact that doesn't affect play and is not dangerous. No penalty will be assessed for bike contact deemed incidental.
I think a lot of people gloss over the "no bike on bike" rule because it's pretty easy for a ref to make an on-the-spot decision about what is a fair play and what isn't. But the fact is, if we're trying to move toward a more comprehensive ruleset, we can't leave ambiguous language like this in there and expect refs to just know what they're supposed to let slide, and what they aren't.
I imagine a place like Cuba that doesn't get many outside players coming in, who read this ruleset and go "Well, guess that means no bike on bike contact whatsoever" and they start calling penalties every time someone gets too close along the boards. I don't think that's what we want.
Yeah I realized after I posted that you were just referring to bike contact, not all contact... Posting in bed before I have coffee...
I'll be the first to admit I'm a shitty ref, but I still think the contact there appears incidental. It looks to me like Dillmans wheel ends up under Greg's and they both went down. It was not dangerous and it doesn't appear to give either side an advantage.. Kremin is riding past their crash in the opposite direction with the ball. If anything it's a penalty on Dillmans since he is taking out a defender, right?
I don't think that any sport can anticipate all contact scenarios and write rules explicitly so. Before getting too deep in a convo about rewriting rules based on a single .gif, maybe we simply use this as a educational moment for refs.
More directly, and to repeat what others have already said, the community needs to be corrected on the meaning of "incidental."