Jump to Navigation

Login / Register

St Cago bike polo mallets DZR bike shoes for street and bike polo Riding in Circles

Wrist Shots! Real talk about making them legal.

I just re-read the thread started by Max (you know I love that guy)
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/23/scoop-shots-legal-or-...

The rules have changed from 2010. We don't BJ in the O-zone, we check more effectively and we score more heater goals. Just saying times have changed and maybe your opinions have as well.

Some folks love them, some folks love to bitch about them. I have played maybe half a dozen games in which wrist shots were legal. I think wrist shots make the game more exciting to watch, they give you another way to get the ball in the back of the net from all angles. If we can smoke pot relationally and legally in Washington and Colorado, why can't we score with wrist shots?

aw I love you too. seriously, old news. we'll keep it on the polo court.

My only issue with wrist shots is that we will be more likely to see mallet to body contact.There's a right way to doing these and a wrong way and the league should be very focused keeping the mallet under the handlebars when in crowded space, but if you're wide open against a goalie, it can be more lenient.

The reason being: I don't want a first year newbie trying a wrist shot and hitting someone in the face because he missed the scoop and wildly threw his mallet in the air while someone was coming in to legitimately put some body to body contact in. .edit. this could happen to anyone, I've gone for scoops and missed the ball and still had my mallet get above the bars.

otherwise, I've been practicing... ;)

See Ladies army, more wildly swung mallets and girls getting hit in the face in one weekend than you can ever imagine. Including myself in a pick up match! Thanks again Medic, you saved my life.

That will never work.

Best example of how even with out wrist shots mallet to body incidents will happen. I've seen more incidents with big dumb backswing clears than anything, but i don't hear anybody complaining how we should ban those.

Good point. I see more mallet to body happening in the defensive zone because of attempted scoop-clears than anything else. I can only imagine it getting worse if people start trying top shelf wrist shots in front of a crowded goal.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

i'm pretty sure most newbies are more worried about getting the ball than trying to look fancy and getting embaressed. we've allowed wristers at EVERY fci, and the only injury here was when nico fell over the boards.

emoxfag wrote:

the only injury here was when nico fell over the boards.

Pfft. I prefer to think I executed a sweet penguin slide across the top of the boards

Wrist shots are dumb without giving the goalie a reasonable way to defend against them.

I think that if you open up the game to more accurate ways to score and more accessible area in which to score by taking the shots airborne with increasing frequency, you have to account for that by dedicating a goalie and giving them special equipment.

What if a hockey goalie only had a normal stick? As the game has evolved to have more accuracy and wristers, the goalie pads have gotten bigger and the tools he has been given to stop the puck have increased. If you want wrist shots to be a part of the game, in my opinion you're inviting a game with a dedicated goalie.

Personally, I don't want to play bike lacrosse and this idea can get fucked. "It doesn't change the game that much" -- heard this from the shuffle crowd and the wrister crowd and I don't believe either of you! Whiffs are still commonplace - why change the game to make it easier to be bad at shooting instead of practicing? Let's have some standards. We play polo. If you east coasters want to play lacrosse, go do so. Plenty of preppy clubs over there who will surely have you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

What is the history of the NAH 6'x3' goal size? Not to go on tangent, but it seems that *these* dimensions are more easy to change than instituting special equipment rules and dedicated goalies.

I like the wrist shot, but I'd be just as pleased if we went to the hockey sized 6'x4' goals, and have awesome slap shots. Equally as dramatic to have upper 90 laser shots. Also, we could be buying goals/nets at market, instead of building them.

If not, we could allow wrist shots, and make the goal smaller. I doubt this would be popular.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

I was one of the few people at the start of NAH who was in favor of using hockey goals. Instead the majority liked a polo specific goal and that cut out the upper 90 rocket that lots of people can hit. The idea was by keeping shots low it would keep the game more safe, also the goal keeper had no way of blocking those shots.

I still like hockey sized nets.
I still like wrist shots.

I'll say it again. If you don't want to be hit in the face with a ball, put on a face mask or duck!

That will never work.

I think even calling them "wrist shots" is misleading. These are "throws". I really think that's a more accurate way to describe the motion. Throwing the ball into the net.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

BoozeKruse wrote:

Personally, I don't want to play bike lacrosse and this idea can get fucked. "It doesn't change the game that much" -- heard this from the shuffle crowd and the wrister crowd and I don't believe either of you! Whiffs are still commonplace - why change the game to make it easier to be bad at shooting instead of practicing? Let's have some standards. We play polo.

x2

A few questions:

Do you think that given the height of the goals (not much space above wheels) goalies are not able to hop, wheelie, or endo quickly enough to save shots? I think it's easy to identify a wrist shot in action and thus you (as a goalie or a defender) should have more time to react to it.

Have you been to a tournament where shuffles or wrist shots have been legal? What do you think about the people who went Turducken, ESPI 2010 (when I went with Charlie and Chris W.), The Flour City Invite, and numerous tournaments over Europe who are saying that the game didn't change terribly much due to the legality of these other shots? Are they just plain wrong? Or do you think that an across-the-board (i.e. in all tournaments) legalization of these moves would eventually cause the game to change drastically?

And the most important questions: what kinds of change are good or bad for bike polo and how do we determine this? I'm in favor of allowing all ELASTIC contact off the mallet for a few reasons: the game is easier to learn and the learning curve isn't as high for new players, the game is easier to understand as a spectator, and the game is easier to referee. I think the last 2 points are things we need to work on if we want the game to progress. More fans and less blown calls equals better polo.

pete wrote:

More fans and less blown calls equals better polo.

Hear, hear!

Also, we're a young enough sport that we can try things like wrist shots for a season, if it doesn't work and causes more issues that we haven't seen, we can correct these things. Thus far, as pete pointed out, we've experienced little change in the game at these tournaments that we've tried it at. Good teams still won out.

great points Pete. this just reminded me that I actually did have to wheelie to stop a ball from going in goal at Turducken.

I understand there's an idea of dumbing down the game with shuffle goals and I don't like the idea of being scored on with such a method (or any for that matter), but I'm complete agreement with the spectator and referee aspects. how many times have you heard "what's a shuffle" in explaining the game to new players and how many times have you accused or questioned a goal as a shuffle?

talk shit and burn bridges

pete wrote:

A few questions:

Do you think that given the height of the goals (not much space above wheels) goalies are not able to hop, wheelie, or endo quickly enough to save shots? I think it's easy to identify a wrist shot in action and thus you (as a goalie or a defender) should have more time to react to it.

It's easy to identify when a wrist shot is coming, but not where it is aimed. It will be completely guesswork whether the guy is trying to scoop it above your wheel (better hop!) or just wrist it through the five hole (now your wheels are off the ground and your mallet is probably useless).

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

As much as I like speculating, I think this is another thing that is going to be figured out simply by playing more with the wrist shot. We all have some reasons for thinking the conversation rate will be such-and-such or the wrist shot will change the flow of the game in such-and-such ways, but the only way of confirming these hypothesis is to acquire data.

I'd like to mark this momentous occasion... the transformation from philosopher to engineer is clearly underway.

BoozeKruse wrote:

Wrist shots are dumb without giving the goalie a reasonable way to defend against them.

I think that if you open up the game to more accurate ways to score and more accessible area in which to score by taking the shots airborne with increasing frequency, you have to account for that by dedicating a goalie and giving them special equipment.

What if a hockey goalie only had a normal stick? As the game has evolved to have more accuracy and wristers, the goalie pads have gotten bigger and the tools he has been given to stop the puck have increased. If you want wrist shots to be a part of the game, in my opinion you're inviting a game with a dedicated goalie.

Personally, I don't want to play bike lacrosse and this idea can get fucked. "It doesn't change the game that much" -- heard this from the shuffle crowd and the wrister crowd and I don't believe either of you! Whiffs are still commonplace - why change the game to make it easier to be bad at shooting instead of practicing? Let's have some standards. We play polo. If you east coasters want to play lacrosse, go do so. Plenty of preppy clubs over there who will surely have you.

polo doesn't have golaies. lacrosse does.
if you didn't have blow jobs sitting in front of the goal instead of playing defense you wouldn't even need a wrister.

So if you get a blow job in goal then no wrist necessary?

Witness! the wisdom of the forum! Let your polo grow!

(If you show up with the wrist in SF and can stand the ridicule then we'll promise to continue ridiculing you and will do so during tournaments. In general we suck at keeping score anyway, tourneys or no.)

Scoop-a-loop! And fuck a dedicated goalie. The game would still be small sided matches, no reason to dedicate a goalie with special privileges or equipment.

talk shit and burn bridges

not in to scoop goals

140x65

What Kruse said.

There are often eight or nine goals scored in ten minutes, it doesn't need to be any easier.

I find this hard to believe when talking about top level tournament teams paired against each other.

That will never work.

Have a look at past tournaments on Podium, many of the top level games at the end of the brackets go to 5-4, 5-3, 4-3, 5-2, etc. So I amend to say that it's not uncommon for seven, eight, or nine goals to be scored in a ten minute game. That's a lot. What other sport averages a point that often? It's not basketball!

Handball, lacrosse. Maybe a little lower for lacrosse but they can still easily score 30 goals in 60 minutes.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

So far only a few people practice this wrist/ball throw technique. Give players a year to practice and I guarantee lots of goals will be scored that way if it was to be allowed.

what's a few? plenty of people can do it. don't be sad, you said 'give people a year' like two years ago. it happened. look it up. we remember.

TRY IT. For the love of sanity, just try it. Outsiders think that polo is a fucking massacre on wheels. Are they right? No, they just haven't tried it to have an informed opinion. Who are you people, and what have you done with the adventurous maniacs that got over the fact that polo is a bunch of people riding weird bikes and swinging broken ski poles and gas pipe at a hockey ball?

But seriously, everyone... are we going to outlaw slapshots? Full windmill, backhand clearing? Hopping? Rookies? All of these things increase the potential for injury. I know that this is a passionate topic, but defaulting to the safety argument is a lazy way to run a legitimate discussion into the ground.

Why do you assume that the people against it haven't tried it?

I'm mostly referring to the number of tournaments that have experimented with it and slightly assuming that there hasn't been widespread experimenting at pick-up. Pardon that assumption, but if it has happened, there hasn't been much talk about it.

If you've got any experiences to share, please do. I'm not out to just scream "legalize wristshots!" until something is done. I just want know that people have given it a go with an open mind before we come to a final solution. There are a lot of hypotheses of how the game will change, but not a lot of large scale testing that I am aware of.

Nice stickman argument Lomax. :-)

I swear that I'm not trying to manipulate anyone. I am in favor of giving wrist shots a fair chance. If they ruin everything, I will happily stop bickering. Polo is so young, and it has evolved and improved so much in the last 3 years (let alone 10) that we should keep an open mind about what is permissible.

Straw man. Like a scarecrow.

If polo has taught us anything, it is that logic is useless in the first stage of these rules debates. I'm not going to fill the internet with pages of arguments that will be dismissed immediately by kneejerk reaction. When we move on from baseless assumption of the death of polo as we know it to actual testing and examining of the implementation of specific rules changes, I will put forth rational arguments. Until then, all that I can do is wait for people to try it.

It's unfair to compare scoop shots right now to scoop shots in the future if we legalized them. No one practices them right so of course the tournaments aren't that different. Give it 6 months and people will be able to slam dunk a ball above a wheel or through a triangle in ways that will be impossible to stop. Like Kruse said, I dont want to okay bike lacrosse.

321polo.net

It doesn't have to be bike lacrosse. Did hockey become ice lacrosse when they allowed curved blades? NHL players can easily carry the puck on their stick (by gravity or physics magic) and whip it at the net, but they don't because it is illegal. Instead, they shoot wrist shots.

Why aren't all of you anti wrist shot guys arguing for double-capped mallets?

I have never thought about double capped mallets, but I think it would make the game more challenging and negate the wrist shot argument. i'd be willing to give it a go

I'd rather play with double capped mallets than play bike lacrosse.

They're not wrist shots. They're throws. Maybe if they were wrist shots, I wouldn't be against them? But they look nothing like wrist shots; they look like throws and you're cupping it in an open mallet. That's way more akin to lacrosse than it is to hockey.

If you guys like it so much, keep throwing tournaments and allowing it and maybe the love will grow and we can change the name and stop calling this polo. Or petition NAH for a vote for the 2013 season and get this put in the rule set and the people who don't like it can start a new league.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

I think you're being a bit irrational Nick. We're all just looking to improve the game we love. Maybe these aren't the best ideas, maybe they are. This is why we have these discussions, right? No reason to start talking about forming new a new league.

talk shit and burn bridges

I know, Jimmy. I'm just talking shit.

Maybe we could all start playing with these:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

as long as the opening is less than 2.25" ID I don't see the problem.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

haha! okay you got me. you're not being irrational in the least. my apologies.

talk shit and burn bridges

When you say bike lacrosse, are you talking about people doing mallet tricks or are you talking about a straightforward flinging of the ball at the goal?

Far from commonplace in hockey, but this goal was/is allowed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAMeLu0udLs

Not NHL, though. We're bike polo professionals... that amateur stuff won't fly here.

But that is a crafty goal, and I would do it until it wasn't legal.

The point I wanted to make but didn't have time for when I posted is that this is a legal shot in hockey but I wouldn't call it a wrist shot. There are quite a few people that could directly emulate this shot on the polo court right now. I'm open to the idea of allowing wrist shots but not whatever we want to call this.

Agreed.

AirInHand wrote:

It's unfair to compare scoop shots right now to scoop shots in the future if we legalized them. No one practices them right so of course the tournaments aren't that different. Give it 6 months and people will be able to slam dunk a ball above a wheel or through a triangle in ways that will be impossible to stop. Like Kruse said, I dont want to okay bike lacrosse.

make golaies learn how to play goalie if theyre gonna sit there. i endo a shit load of the time mid cort to knock a high ball down. make goalies learn how to.

I'm not sure that bike lacrosse is a real threat. Mostly because the BJ and the carry are both illegal in the offensive zone.

That will never work.

The snow-cone is illegal, but I thought magic was still okay? Not real magic, but centripetal force magic. You can do some pretty excessive ball movement without stopping your mallet. If wrist shots were legal, I would be A-OK with outlawing all of that... make it a travelling offense, like ball jointing.

When I compare throwing the ball into the net to bike lacrosse, I'm not saying that the game will become an exact replica of lacrosse only played on bikes. It is slight hyperbole to make a point that it is a far deviation from the game of polo and would degrade the sport into one in which a high percentage of goals are scored by throwing the ball over the rear wheel of the defender, reminiscent of the sport of lacrosse.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

I honestly think if you allow scoops it will encourage more off ball screening and double goalies, because it will make a one on one situation all most a gimme goal. Also throwing a knuckle puck at a goalie and hoping a bounce goes in is not skill full.

140x65

Turducken was my first tournament playing with wrist shots allowed and I liked it. What are you all assuming that the ball will be picked up and thrown for? All the shots I saw were scooped and flicked in one motion with the wrist. I scored one goal this way and tried it four times. On a breakaway at speed, taking a proper wrist shot is actually pretty hard due to the ball spinning forward and you going fast with lots of other things to think about.

25% is a great conversion rate.

I guess if you look at it that way.....

I also played 14 games that weekend. 1 wrist shot made, 4 attempted, tons of other shots taken and made or missed. I just don't feel like it being allowed made things horribly different. It was rad

My thought is that if you can get 1 out of 4 on your first go, give you a season or two and you're going to be "shooting" that way all the time. It didn't change Turducken, but I don't think that's indicative for the widespread adoption of this rule.

Maybe I'm way off base here, but it just doesn't seem practical a lot of the time to use a wrist shot. Seems more than not a standard business end strike is what's going to get the job done most efficiently.

talk shit and burn bridges

As someone who has spent just a little time messing around with wrist shots - and isn't anywhere near as proficient as any of the actually good guys out there - I can say with confidence that my wrist shot is already much more likely to beat a goalie 1v1 than a business end strike (BES?), given adequate time to set them both up.

Now it takes probably 500ms longer to set up the wrist shot, and is harder to execute at the extreme ends of your mallet reach, so it isn't practical when you have a defender right on you. But if my teammate makes a good screen and I have a couple feet of separation I can hit the upper 90 above their front / rear wheel with more consistency than I can hit a good 5 hole chip shot over their mallet.

And that is coming from someone who has never played stick sports and isn't even good. If you get some of these guys coming from their hockey backgrounds or who have more skill and dedication, they are going to perfect that shot, if they haven't already. And once they perfect it, they will start to get faster with the execution it. I can easily see a game where everyone's favorite reaching backhand chip through the 5 hole becomes a reaching backhand wrister through the 5 hole or above the wheel.

Now, I'm not worried about the blue line / 30' slapshot going away, because I don't think a fast wrist shot will ever become widespread. Any wrist shots from distance will come in slow enough that, once goalies figure out a method of blocking them (I'm imagining a fist punch with a big 'ol gloved hand will become the standard technique), they'll have time to do so. But for looks from 10' and in, wrist shots will become pretty much the standard replacement for the current chips and 5-hole slaps.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Goalies will adapt, if you remove the score limit and let games go to time I don't see a problem. If people are going to perfect the wrist shot, why wouldn't they be able to perfect the mid air block? There have been plenty of times when I have had to block a shot high up with the shaft of my mallet, or my arm. People could start glove saving which would be insanely cool.

There is still a lot of assuming going on here. It might seem like wrist shots will be easier, but realistically, there still isn't a lot of open space to hit. Hitting one on the fly with defensive pressure isn't a breeze, either. It's not suddenly going to start raining goals, and if it does, we can get rid of the score limit (finally). Offense and defense have a way of catching up with one another. Scores will normalize, and a more accurate assessment can be made.

I've been scooping around players and passing to other players with the scoop for a long time. I don't feel like the move is new to me, but using it towards the goal is. I'll probably never replace a typical shot with a wrist shot; there is a time and a place for them and I think smart players will realize that while other players will over do it, sacrificing quite a bit and performing worse overall in my opinion. Can't really say much else here except give it a chance if you can stomach it and agree with Lomax.

x2 that last sentence. I feel like I'm being pretty fair in debating this, but in the end, the fact remains that I may or may not be a polarizing character. I promise that I won't hold it over anyone if they give any ground here. It's not about winning an argument. I thought that they were stupid once, too, when NYC was pushing for them. Stubbornly, I didn't want 'them' to change the game. A nice guy named Krist allowed wristers at his tournament in Rochester, and that change in perspective was all it took.

from alex "And that is coming from someone who has never played stick sports and isn't even good."
Some one had to say it, I've seen a dozen rookies who can scoop/do the "trick" better than they can shoot or even ride a bike. If we played with hockey sticks for shafts and could use our hands effectively to block I'd be all about the scoop. Unfortunately that's not the case. I think it would even out the playing field between A and B teams to much. But with such a big gap between skill levels right now maybe it is what we need?

140x65

As a B or C player, I can say that, no matter how good I get at my new "trick shot", it won't matter against an A-level defender because he won't let me get close enough or open enough to try it.

Wrist shots will give new / less skilled players a more reliable way to shoot, but it won't help us get more looks at the goal. We will still be slower, and less strong on the bike, and not as good at dribbling, and all the other things that separate an A from a B.

I think it might level the field between a strong-shooting A team and an ok-shooting A team a little bit.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

How many people were playing when offensive ball jointing and scoop shots were banned? As I remember, once the technique started becoming common on our court it became the only way to shoot because the accuracy is so high. An open goal meant automatic goal because anyone who practiced for a few weeks could scoop the ball from anywhere on the court over other players' heads and into the goal. There was also a lot of ball-body contact because the ball was in the air so often.

Offensive ball jointing was not in the original topic, but of you can scoop the ball into the goal then would ball jointing be allowed as well? We could bring back the ball-joint charge shot.

The comparison to hockey wrist shots is also problematic. The hockey stick does not have a hole that exactly fits the puck and allows it to be lifted off the ground, pointed in any direction, then thrown.

Make double cap a standard! We should be trying to keep the ball and mallets on the ground as much as possible...

So making double cap is going to keep shots low to the ground how? I play with a single cap and have no problem accurately lifting the ball with the flat end and a hard shot. I also imagine the same magic keeps the mallet bellow the bars? Which is another totally different problem all together in bike polo.

That will never work.

Say it with me;
Self control

That is nothing at all like scooping.

People bevel out the open end(s). A little bit of grinding makes the scooping easier.

Caps make scooping practically impossible. Thinner caps become more convex over time. Not convex enough to scoop, but sure convex enough to put air on the ball with any shot.

.

I have tried it quite a bit at pick up and went to two tournaments that had them legal (ESPI bench minor and Turducken). For both tournaments I showed up thinking it was a joke and that it would not really be legal but it was and I used wrist shots. I got goals from behind the net when I just threw it at the back of the goalie, in front of the net when I desperately three it in the goalie's knees and also some on break aways when it is easy to bring it back to your back hand and just throw it. Honestly, that was super lame and there was no fun in scoring those (or worst getting scored by those shots).

My point above to me, really confirms Nicks' point that goalies are not equipped for these kind of shots and honestly it would make it frustrating to watch. Also, X2 on the terminology "Throws".

I also agree with Rory about the fact that if you consistently legalize it, you are going to see a big different in how people use it by next year. I showed up at those two tournaments not really prepared and still scored too many scoops. If it is legalized next year, I am going to adjust my equipment and work on it all this off season. Its going to be a whole other ball game. This is why in my opinion it is not fully fair to say I went to Turducken and people did not use it that much so it won't matter. It will change!

And regarding the conversation that it is a skillful move to be able to score those throws. Well I somewhat agree. It takes practice and in some cases some throws results in cool goals. However, I feel like it is less of a skills than most other polo moves we already have. Here in DC we have people that have played less than a year who can scoop better than they can defend, pass, shoot...

Anyway, Lomax, I love your enthusiasm about it and I got to say you are pretty good at those shots. But I saw you score a lot of those goals too in ESPI bench when you would just pick up the ball and drop it above the rear wheel of the goalie. I have a hard time thinking someone in a stationary position will be able to endo and stop that move (or even put hand in there for that matter). Stick with your big shot bud, those are much more fun to watch.

polo o muetre

PierreD wrote:

Here in DC we have people that have played less than a year who can scoop better than they can defend, pass, shoot...

I think a big reason for that is because scooping is something you can practice solo, and is just a fun thing to do between games. Passing into a bucket is boring, and not like passing to a real person. Shooting onto an open net isn't as fun. Lots of skills like defending you can only practice by playing in games. Scooping, you can go behind your house and throw it against the wall a hundred times.

I don't think this means scooping is inherently easier, just that the practice scenario is very close to the game so solo practice is more effective. If you can scoop against a wall, you can scoop in a game. If you can dribble by yourself, that doesn't mean shit when you have a defender checking you.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

So here is the thing... I, too, can't stand the thought of people resorting to mallet tricks to score from behind the net or however else all of that will manifest itself. I HATED scoring like that at Bench ESPI, but we were tremendously outgunned... and it was legal. If NAH or polo at large opened up to scoop shots, I would be 100% against allowing goals of that nature. I think that there is enough of a difference between popping a quick scoop shot and carrying the ball and releasing it at the net. If that is where the argument falls apart, so be it, but I consider them to be different all together.

I really do not think doing so would be any more difficult than asking a basketball ref to differentiate between a "carry" and a legitimate dribble.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

lomax wrote:

If NAH or polo at large opened up to scoop shots, I would be 100% against allowing goals of that nature. I think that there is enough of a difference between popping a quick scoop shot and carrying the ball and releasing it at the net. If that is where the argument falls apart, so be it, but I consider them to be different all together.

I definitively agree that allowing 100% would be really bad idea. But now this makes reffing even more of a big mess since we are trying to move toward rules that are easier to implement. Some but not all scoop shot allowed would be hard to implement in my opinion and this is one of the reasons why I am not a big fan.

polo o muetre

That's just where we will agree to disagree, I guess. Reffing should be as easy as possible, but it will never be easy. I believe that anyone capable of being an effective ref would be able to see the difference. If that proves to be untrue, I will readily accept that, but not until we've tried it.

I don't see the big deal in reffing this sort of thing. We would just have to stipulate that the ball cannot change direction in the air in such a way as to imply the mallet was used to redirect the ball after leaving the ground rather than propel it along its predisposed path or adding an acceleration component in the same direction as existing impetus on the ball, a directional change of which could be defined concisely as a point of inflection resulting in a second derivative { f″(x) = 0 } when plotting the trajectory of the ball as a function of X, Y, and Z in 3 dimensional space with the impulse vector of the mallet upon leaving the ground serving as the definitive tangent at (0,0,0).

But really, I am in agreement. I do not think it would be hard to ref out "snake charmer" or wraparound shots. Like I said above I don't think it would be any more difficult than spotting a "carry" in basketball.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

tl;dr

my nose just started bleeding

talk shit and burn bridges

I love this sport.

But srsly half of what you said is bs.

Yeah but ONLY half.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

This wont be determined democratically, and there's no real new input beyond more players personal experience at a few tournaments that have permitted it. I don't think it's going to change soon. I'll say that first. Next, we're talking about only NAH tournaments since we're talking about NAH rules, so we're talking about a rule that is imposed only on the minority of tournaments. If organizers on non-NAH events wish to, they are free to legalize whatever. For a NAH rule change, I would expect a greater input on the topic globally.

Here goes...

I think the "throw" talk is splitting hairs. In hockey, how is it any less a throw? This line of talk reminds me of every thread I've read here where relating BP to another sport is either a good thing or bad thing. Sounds more like an identity crisis of sorts. We need to be comfortable with where we borrow from other sports and where we are unique. Those lines aren't clear to the community at large.

I think the safety talk is exaggerated. If safety is what is driving our rules, wrist shots/scoops would not make the short list.

I think the goalie has no defense argument has some merit, and perhaps is the most compelling. This is why I was interested in the 6x4 goal choice. If we can't really shoot above the wheel, I feel like there's a fair issue of trade. The five-hole gets smaller as you rise above the ground; the cross-sectional chord across the wheels casts a greater silhouette across the goal-line. In this way the WS is not always superior. Also, what can a goalie do to defend a slap shot in the upper 90 from 20 ft that they can't against a WS from the same distance?

To relate this to another sport. Did the advent of the slam dunk end the shooting in basketball? It certainly changed the game, but it came out in the wash. I agree with Lomax that getting rid of the score cap would create a natural distribution and things would remain in balance.

Double capped mallets? Unnecessary. "We need to keep the ball on the ground?" Why? Objectively. A reason beyond simple preference for a specific style of play would be useful if this is actually important.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Trust me, I love scooping it as much as the next person. I say to keep on the ground as a safety precaution, never suggested it was my preference of play though. naturally, when the ball is flying by you and others (not anyone specifically) what do you do? Put your mallet up in the air at it, granted this is ok in some situations but in a crowded area its no bueno, I know its slightly off topic, but the two go hand in hand.
Is your 'specific style' to just juggle it in the air the whole time?

and I really doubt anyone could lift a ball consistently on a capped mallet, yes it happens once in a while but not all the time.

JoshLn wrote:

naturally, when the ball is flying by you and others (not anyone specifically) what do you do? Put your mallet up in the air at it, granted this is ok in some situations but in a crowded area its no bueno, I know its slightly off topic, but the two go hand in hand.

Then just don't do it in crowded situations...? It seems like people are wanting to ban the action before the dangerous play (scoop before wild high swing), not the dangerous play itself (the swing).

Yes, I tried to stress that earlier. One more time for you
self control

Well Josh, I've seen you shoot, and if I'm goalie, I'm more worried about your slapshot than most people's scoop shots.

:-)

(I'm hoping to make it out to SD for x-mas to see the family. Looking forward to some SD December polo.)

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Urban Editor wrote:

I think the "throw" talk is splitting hairs. In hockey, how is it any less a throw?

I really don't think it is splitting hairs to describe the move how it is. We are lifting the ball off the ground using a circular opening in the mallet and throwing it at a target. The ball goes inside of the mallet, much like it goes inside a lacrosse stick. It is a throw because, even if it is for a small period of time, you are quite literally holding the ball. Calling it a wrist shot makes it sound a lot cooler than it actually is, which is probably why people are calling it that. Call it a scoop, because that sounds as lame as it really is.

Quote:

I think the safety talk is exaggerated. If safety is what is driving our rules, wrist shots/scoops would not make the short list.

I agree. I really don't care about this aspect of the argument. If the game dictates extra safety gear, then get the extra safety gear. You don't create the rules of the game out of convenience for how much stuff you want to put on -- not to mention, I really don't think a scoop shot rule would result in more injuries.

Quote:

Also, what can a goalie do to defend a slap shot in the upper 90 from 20 ft that they can't against a WS from the same distance?

Who shoots this shot with consistency or even with any intention at all for that matter? No one.

Quote:

"We need to keep the ball on the ground?" Why? Objectively. A reason beyond simple preference for a specific style of play would be useful if this is actually important.

We need to keep the ball on the ground because the game is more skillful when the ball remains on the ground. To me, rules talk has always been about creating a platform that allows for a growth of talent and an evolution of the game while still holding the fundamentals supreme in a successful team's strategy.

Stay on your bike, move the ball efficiently, pass effectively, make good shots.

There are seriously 4 things that you have to work on to be good at this. Call me a purist or whatever, but a slick move that sets a ball carrier open for a perfect ground pass always wins in my evaluation over someone just scooping an airborne pass over a defender. A presentation of foresight and a rad give-and-go play always wins over a moving pick. And a dedication to becoming a great shooter and the focus to make good shots always wins over someone picking the ball up and hurling it at the goal because its "tight".

There are things in this sport that should be illegal because they degrade the sport from growing towards talent and quality and push it in the opposite direction towards shear boredom. I know that explanation is lofty and nebulous but I believe scoop shots to be one of those things.

But I never used the cheat codes in GTA; I don't know what you people are like. Maybe you all pressed up-up-down-down-A-B-A and got the rocket launcher just because it was more entertaining that way.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

BoozeKruse wrote:

I really don't think it is splitting hairs to describe the move how it is. We are lifting the ball off the ground using a circular opening in the mallet and throwing it at a target. The ball goes inside of the mallet, much like it goes inside a lacrosse stick. It is a throw because, even if it is for a small period of time, you are quite literally holding the ball. Calling it a wrist shot makes it sound a lot cooler than it actually is, which is probably why people are calling it that. Call it a scoop, because that sounds as lame as it really is.

This is tangential at best. What the thing is called has nothing to do with whether or not it should be legal.

Quote:

We need to keep the ball on the ground because the game is more skillful when the ball remains on the ground.

Debatable.

Quote:

To me, rules talk has always been about creating a platform that allows for a growth of talent and an evolution of the game while still holding the fundamentals supreme in a successful team's strategy

Stay on your bike, move the ball efficiently, pass effectively, make good shots.

Can't you move the ball efficiently and pass effectively with a proper scoop? If a 'good' shot is one that goes in the goal, can't you make good shots with a wrist shot (if it were legal)?

Quote:

Call me a purist or whatever, but a slick move that sets a ball carrier open for a perfect ground pass always wins in my evaluation over someone just scooping an airborne pass over a defender. A presentation of foresight and a rad give-and-go play always wins over a moving pick. And a dedication to becoming a great shooter and the focus to make good shots always wins over someone picking the ball up and hurling it at the goal because its "tight".

How are you evaluating the plays? I think if you're evaluating solely in terms of effectiveness, then it really depends on the situation. Sometime a scoop makes more sense than a pass on the ground. Sometimes a moving pick makes more sense than a give-and-go. This much should be obvious so we shouldn't try to generalize too much. Similarly, the wrist shot will sometimes be a good idea, but not always and (I think) not as much as many folks expect. Still, the only way to figure it out is to try it!

Quote:

There are things in this sport that should be illegal because they degrade the sport from growing towards talent and quality and push it in the opposite direction towards shear boredom. I know that explanation is lofty and nebulous but I believe scoop shots to be one of those things.

It's not less talent, it's just a different kind of talent. It's not lower quality, it's just a different kind of quality.

You're making a mistake by being so polarizing. It's not good vs. bad, not hard vs. easy, not boring vs. cool. It's more like apples vs. oranges.

Quote:

How are you evaluating the plays? I think if you're evaluating solely in terms of effectiveness, then it really depends on the situation. Sometime a scoop makes more sense than a pass on the ground. Sometimes a moving pick makes more sense than a give-and-go. This much should be obvious so we shouldn't try to generalize too much. Similarly, the wrist shot will sometimes be a good idea, but not always and (I think) not as much as many folks expect. Still, the only way to figure it out is to try it!

I thought I've made it apparent that I think it's too easy and would move the game away from the fundamentals. As with all the examples I brought up. I think all those things should be illegal. I think all of them are too easy. I think all of them degrade the game. Of course sometimes a scoop pass makes more sense, because they're easy as fuck.

It is less talent. It's not just a different kind. I've spent 5 minutes against a goalie doing the stupid scoopers. It's not the game the way I'd like to see it played. I have real shit to work on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

BoozeKruse wrote:

I thought I've made it apparent that I think it's too easy and would move the game away from the fundamentals. As with all the examples I brought up. I think all those things should be illegal. I think all of them are too easy. I think all of them degrade the game. Of course sometimes a scoop pass makes more sense, because they're easy as fuck.

It is less talent. It's not just a different kind. I've spent 5 minutes against a goalie doing the stupid scoopers. It's not the game the way I'd like to see it played. I have real shit to work on.

I speculate that you were deeply scarred when you sprained your thumb after I threw you that scoop pass at Cosmo. It was the Mad Dog 20/20 and silly Diamondback geometry that sprained your thumb, not the scoop pass! Stop taking it out on the scoopers!

That said, I still think it's a different kind of talent. We can agree to disagree on this point. But we can definitely agree that you have real shit to work on.

lol, nice.

Seriously though. The Guardians are the best team in the world. They represent polo at it's finest, and they lost the title to a stacked crease, an end-to-end carry, and a heavy pick and all we want to talk about to progress the game and fix the rules is if we can start flinging the ball at the net?

Y'all are crazy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Double goalies block all the paths on the ground... but you can still scoop into the top corners! I've always thought wrist shots were the antidote to the double goalie and crease discussion. It'll force you to pressure the guy with the ball more and open up the game. But again, you need to TRY IT to see if this is true.

Also, progress is about what's effective. The meta-game should be mostly about countering strategies, not making them illegal once we realize their strength. I think the double goalie just hasn't been figured out yet. All in due time.

Start a thread about contact away from the ball, and I will be just as active there. Add one about refs dishing out more turnovers (please... use the whistle early and often), and I will wear out my keyboard.

Making the thread personal isn't going to elevate conversation. It will drag it into the mud.

(Edit: Unless I'm missing a joke.)

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

No, no. That was funny. I approve.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

"Stay on your bike, move the ball efficiently, pass effectively, make good shots."

I think this is a very reasonable summary of skill goals. I think the crux of the argument hinges on some opinions on the utility of scooping (I like "scoop" better than "throw" or "wrist-shot" as well assuming magic not gravity) as it pertains to efficiency and effectiveness. If bike polo has a vocabulary of movement, I think it's worth consideration that the use of the open end of the mallet to lift the ball can enhance (1) moving, (2) passing, and (3) be considered a skill shot.

If scooping remains solely a dribbling/passing technique, so be it. I think the justifications for (1) and (2) have been made, while the justifications for (3) have not created enough confidence for everyone to be comfortable.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

.

  • amber-balls-flying-at-my-nose-cher-clueless-dee-Favim.com-150354.jpg

how about starting a petition on like change.org(kidding, but i'm sure there are sites to make online petitions) or something to see if folks actually want to sign on to their agreement that this should be allowed. instead of all this talk on here we might gauge some sort of actual preference in the community.

Check out the survey I put up here: http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/general/2012/11/21/polo-survey-for-a-c...

Questions about scoops, shuffles, bench format, reffing, etc. I really have no idea what kind of trends to expect.

here you go: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-north-american-hardcou...

everybody has to log in to sign it but with 24,999 more signatures we can get Obama on board too.

talk shit and burn bridges

i think pierre won the thread

over it.
love ya polo-verse.

yeah everybody, lets make short-game goals less skill based and more "well, couldn't do anything about that..", decrease the length of a point and turn polo it into a throwing contest.

dont see how much of a injury hazard it poses. unless people are wildly flailing their mallets after their "shot"?
so, not even going to bother arguing that side of it

okay, yes, im a nobody in competition but wristy scoop flick shots just seem like a quick and cheap trick to make more numbers.

scooping should be left to ben and jerry's, not in our favorite nets.

three pointers and slam dunks are too easy of away to put numbers on the board.

Ooh, good idea. Let's make 3 pointers legal. Oh, wait....Never mind. Yet again, a dumb comparison between polo and basketball.

also. if wrist scoop shots were legalized would scooping with a "side cut" mallet be legal? or is that too close to a shuffle.

complications people.. ill take simple and straightforward over rulebook bickering any day.

Noodletron wrote:

also. if wrist scoop shots were legalized would scooping with a "side cut" mallet be legal? or is that too close to a shuffle.

complications people.. ill take simple and straightforward over rulebook bickering any day.

i'm fairly certin that getting a scoop with a legal sidecut is fairly difficult, so i don't find it to be a worry.

simple straight forward would mean, ball rolls over line it is a goal. anything more than that is rulebook bickering.

man, I want to contribute to this and I did my due diligence, reading all that came before, shoot, I even talked to my club members outside of the forum to figure out why this was even a thing.

in the end, it seems like scoopers "just want it" and traditionalists "just don't"

I think that's a pretty uninteresting debate/argument/discussion to give into. Scoopers haven't put forth any super compelling arguments "For", other than, "let's try it". Which is kind of hard to argue with, but also not compelling enough to implement, in my humble opinion.

The arguments for include:

1) makes reffing easier
2) opens up game-play
3) counters double goalie

The arguments against include:

1) too easy
2) lame
3) will create too many goals
4) will adversely affect game-play.

Those who are for it think we should try it because many of these arguments can be confirmed empirically by playing and seeing how it affects game-play.

pete wrote:

1) makes reffing easier
2) opens up game-play
3) counters double goalie

many of these arguments can be confirmed empirically

x2 for empirical inquiry, a.k.a. experimenting and seeing if it works. ideally there is a mix of wrist shot and non-wrist shot tournaments for an accurate side by side comparison. as far as which one should determine continental or world champion, i'll defer to the people who are actually competing for that title.

but this is really interesting because there are probably some things that can be quantified, especially with the expanded use of video recording. i'd love to see if, for instance, allowing wrist shots really reduced the number of disputed calls. it'd be difficult to draw any definitive conclusions, but it's a step up from anecdotal evidence.

it'd also be interesting to take a survey of actual scored wrist shot goals and see what percentage of them are considered lame or bullshit. again, no concrete conclusions, just interesting.

This is a good point, of those tournaments which allowed wristers, which ones had full game films? To analyze(some of) the impact, can't we just consult the reels? At least as a start, this should give an idea better than players memories.

I've been to two tournaments that allowed WS (Bench ESPI 2012, and Turducken 2012). If I had to guess, the overwhelming majority of goals were not WS. I guess a relevant question is what % of total goals made by WS would qualify the technique as being too easy?

I think some video of this year's Turducken are floating around on the web already if you want to watch. If you watch the final matches, you might see two WSs total (if I recall correctly).

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

An important thing to remember about any empirical inquiry on this topic is that it needs to be over an extended period of time. Players need to practice the wrist shot and get used to recognizing situations where it would be useful. Even if wrist shots were legal, most players would still instinctively take the regular shot rather than the wrist shot regardless of whether the the wrist shot would be more likely to score. This is the thing that needs to change before we can say the empirical inquiry is complete. We need to see what game-play is like when players have honed not only the physical act of the wrist shot, but also the situational awareness that is required to use it and defend against it effectively.

Also, I think labels like 'lame' and 'bullshit' don't add much to the conversation. Yes, we want polo to be as cool and legit (what's an antonym for bullshit?) as it can be, but I think these are secondary concerns. If you're listing the areas of bike polo that need improvement, it's coolness (or whatever) isn't even close to the top of the list. Polo is pretty fucking cool. Also, making it harder isn't at the top of the list either. Bike polo is pretty fucking hard, the learning curve is sharp.

pete wrote:

Also, making it harder isn't at the top of the list either. Bike polo is pretty fucking hard, the learning curve is sharp.

Amen. This isn't kickball... what is the fastest anyone has seen a player go from "rookie" to A-level? We're already a sport where it takes multiple years of consistent play before someone can become competitive against top-tier players. I don't think legalizing a move that will allow players to progress a little more quickly from C to B is going to change that fact very much.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

i would say this is the most compelling thing i've read yet. i may be switching over to the "let's try it" side....

My only two complaints with wrist shots are A) I can't do them yet. But I would probably take the time to learn if they became legal (not a serious complaint because I can't do a lot of things, like score or play defense.) and B) I was playing pickup this week and we decided to try it. I was sitting in goal and someone wristed it right at my chest, it bounced down into the goal. Now there probably is a good way to defend this and with a little bit of practice I will probably find it, but that just seems like kind of a shitty way to score in my opinion.

I was there and thought it was awesome. COUNT EVERYTHING!

really though, if it were a true slap shot and deflected of the golaies chest or any other part or the bike/body/mallet it would have counted too.

talk shit and burn bridges

It was pretty funny, though my ego ached pretty badly afterwards.

I'm not against the idea I just worry that it's not all that hard to take the ball right up to the goal and just flick it off the goalie as opposed to trying to aim a slap shot to do the same thing which sounds pretty damn hard to me. I'm just trying to keep the number of ways I get humiliated on the court at a minimum. Realistically I don't give a shit either way, facebook is boring and it's fucking cold outside so I'm being cantankerous on lobp. We should play a wrist shots only team vs. non-wrist shots only team game at pickup one night for the fate of wrist shots in louisville.

Last night at pick up in East Van I made an effort to score when I saw fit with a wrist shot. No discussion was made about it before hand, no rules had been changed. I knew that they would not count, but there were only 12 people out so I figured what the hell.

I actually thought I would be unstoppable. I figured I would score every time I threw a wrister and it would be just a turnover. I was wrong. I scored two all night. In 3 hours of pick up with only 12 people. Maybe East Van goalies are ahead of the curve, maybe I can't perform under pressure. I actually was upset and tried harder at the end to score wristers. It was a lot tougher than I imagined.

Mostly people were just annoyed with it I think. I will also admit it was only 3 hours of play, and it certainly was not HON, so real life data we are still quite short on.

In closing I would encourage everyone to give wrist shoot/scoop/throws a chance. You may actually surprise yourself. I see them kind of like bicycle kicks in soccer. I can score one, on a lob from myself on an open net 90% of the time. In 23 years of playing soccer I have never tried one in an actual game, and have tried less than 10 in any kind of fun scrimmage or pick up scenario. They are just not as practical as often as I would like to dedicate a ton of time working on them. Honestly hitting a slap shot in the front door or five hole is way more gratifying.

Check them out people.

That will never work.

Tall George wrote:

Last night at pick up in East Van I made an effort to score when I saw fit with a wrist shot. No discussion was made about it before hand, no rules had been changed. I knew that they would not count, but there were only 12 people out so I figured what the hell.

I actually thought I would be unstoppable. I figured I would score every time I threw a wrister and it would be just a turnover. I was wrong. I scored two all night. In 3 hours of pick up with only 12 people. Maybe East Van goalies are ahead of the curve, maybe I can't perform under pressure. I actually was upset and tried harder at the end to score wristers. It was a lot tougher than I imagined.

Mostly people were just annoyed with it I think. I will also admit it was only 3 hours of play, and it certainly was not HON, so real life data we are still quite short on.

In closing I would encourage everyone to give wrist shoot/scoop/throws a chance. You may actually surprise yourself. I see them kind of like bicycle kicks in soccer. I can score one, on a lob from myself on an open net 90% of the time. In 23 years of playing soccer I have never tried one in an actual game, and have tried less than 10 in any kind of fun scrimmage or pick up scenario. They are just not as practical as often as I would like to dedicate a ton of time working on them. Honestly hitting a slap shot in the front door or five hole is way more gratifying.

Check them out people.

the other night we had a kid who has played less than 10 times show up and stooped two great wrist shots over his back wheel just by lifting his mallet slightly. it's not invincible. it's an alternative. and no matter how good you are, it still takes some time to get them off.

Yeah, the space above the wheels on an NAH goal is not that big. If you stick a mallet head / shaft in that space, it becomes a pretty crowded area to try and fit a wrist shot through.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

One thing that would be good would be to throw it at permanent goalies. Hit then in the torso, arms, legs or head. Maybe then they would be a little more scared to be in net. Especially when there is a triple goalie situation and your team is likely to recover the ball.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but I like it either way!

That will never work.

Let's petition Kelloggs cereal to remove the offending 'S' word on their products and replace it with the more polo-tically correct tagline "2 wrist shots of raisin in every box". Together we can make a difference.

Kelloggs has it right

I don't give a flying fuck about cereal or what we name the shit. I just want people to give them a try before slandering them.

I think most of the good arguments have been brought up and addressed. Now it is up to individuals and clubs to apply some real world situations. That way when the new board is in power we can make educated votes on this and other topics.

Who likes getting checked in the steering arm? Should shuffels count? Who can be a goal ref?

That will never work.

I like cereal

I think Polo is better with a few less rules. I don't personally scoop right now. but maybe I will start.
It's kinda like the crybabies who complain when I shoot from past 1/2 court... they wanna ban that too.
whatever. Just put it in the goal hole.

Lefty Bullshit!

OK, so is there or will there ever be consensus on this? Or even a clear majority? While I was away from Havana we had a polo visitor from Italy who said they were legal and now everyone wants to do it.

________________________________________
I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones.
- John Cage

I think what we have learned from this thread is that before the NAH would even consider a rule change like this more clubs to try it out. We really are only speculating on what this type of rule would do to the game. I will throw one in a game from time to time, and I practice them a lot because I like them. I am not sure that they will ever be legal outside of just for fun and non sanctioned events. If your local club wants to play with them, that is up to the local club. Just let it be known that the rules set for an NAH style or sanctioned event will keep them outlawed for the time being.

That will never work.

Trying em out is what every club should do. We played with wristers in a game yesterday and it was pretty silly. The cold and rain puddles definitely were not conducive to good polo either.

I also think clubs should try counting shuffles as goals. I think it's obvious to say that legalizing wrist shots would change the game much, much more than legalizing any elastic strike. If you're not familiar with the difference between elastic and inelastic collisions, here's a pair of gifs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Collision_carts_inelastic.gif
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Collision_carts_elastic.gif

It's like the difference between a 'push' and a 'strike' to use terms that folks are more familiar with.

why allow shuffles? if a player can hit the ball with the small end to "shoot" they can hit a "one timer" (with a little practice)...if a player can't do either they need to be practicing and not trying to change the game to accommodate their skill level. i think it would be awful to encourage shuffle battles in front of the goal...push broom style attacks with enough momentum and force to de-tripod and de-mallet the goalie. steamroller style goals on breakaways. i also think it would lead to alot of mallets under wheels near the goal. having said all of the above i have yet to play a game in which they are allowed so maybe i'm speaking too soon.

I enjoyed your last sentence!

(Try some sweet shuffle action, you'll probably still hate it, but try it all the same.)

I think you hit the strongest argument against allowing shuffles (dangerous play in front of the goal/goalie) but I think the introduction of a crease would eliminate those issues. If you disallow shots and multiple defensive players inside the crease, you could get rid of dangerous play in front of the net, lame scrambling goals, and double-stack goalies.

Whilst allowing shuffles does mean that things can (occasionally) get messy if there's a loose ball immediately infront of the goal (as any hit could be a goal, so players get desperate/frantic), I wouldn't say that it's dangerous at all (the mallets have less wind up and stay low, etc).

It is a lame though (a cheap/lucky goal if they manage to scramble it in).

Whilst.

Lolz.

Crusher in Chief
www.lancasterpolo.com

"irregardless"

madlolz

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

thanks - that's very helpful. hope to see you in Havana some time!

________________________________________
I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones.
- John Cage

Wrist Scoops

Has anyone clearly said what a wrist shot is? We were debating about it up here, when we allowed them for a week.

Are a scoop and a wrist shot separate things?
Is a wrist shot anything with the mallet below the bars?
Or is a wrist shot a quick non scooping motion using the wrist, with the mallet remaining low to the ground?

I think anything not called a "carry" would fall under the realm of wrist shots.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

"Carry" is too normal of a word. This is bike polo dammit! We use words like "snowcone" and "magic" to define things!

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

No we don't!

Scoop (permitted):
A scoop is when the ball is cupped in any hole in the mallet head using centripetal force and is maneuvered through the air for the purposes of passing, self-passing or otherwise strategically moving the ball.

In the LHBPA rules we did away with scoop shots under 4.1 (ball handling -> shooting) by adding:
A scoop (see §4.4) is not a shot.

Wrist shots, scoop shots and BJ-to-shot(s) are all the same thing... the technique differs, but the airborne/unique element comes from the same scooping motion (centripetal force).

teflonsean wrote:

Polo is the only sport that dictates the manner in which a goal is counted.

So? Also, other sports dictate ways that goals cannot be scored. Why can't we dictate teh ways goals can be?

Bump from Kruses thread so that it doesn't get flamed and derailed.

____________
The only reason anyone does anything.
For the lulz.

If the ball goes in, count it. 'Nuf said

SKID ROW // ACT LIKE YOU
http://www.skidphoto.com

unrivaled eloquence, and shit.

____________
The only reason anyone does anything.
For the lulz.

In the never-ending argument of what should count and what shouldn't count, wrist shots should really not be as big of a question as people are making them out to be. Tournaments that have allowed wrist shots (turducken 5, eastside thaw, bench minors (minus bm3), NYC ESPI 2012, etc) have proven time and time again that it doesn't ruin the game. Blown away that shaft shots got legalized before wrist shots.

The scoop shots at the eastsides thaw this year were ridiculous. I scored 25 goals on Saturday and I think more than half were scoops. I made 2 from 3/4 court distance. Most were popped up right in front of net above the wheels of one or two defenders. I also was essentially ball dragging the ball into net in 1v1 situations. I'm not even that good at this, but with a modified arc 4 head it was too easy. That's not even the biggest ID mallet out there. It didn't help that we were using full size goals, but still. Shit got silly. Dudes like Alexis and Ian were scoring at will, it seemed.

I also missed more than a few scoops, and probably should have just shot more often. But when a prohibition is lifted it's hard not to over-indulge ;)

I guess if we had tighter restrictions on mallets and nets I could imagine a balance being struck.

Also it was kinda sad funny watching nick kruse getting bummed out by how much we were scooping on Saturday. For the record he scored more than anyone and won the damn thing without taking a single scoop. That guy's a catch.

Also: it was kinda fun to play this way, and the scores weren't running ridiculously high, so I guess it wasn't making scoring over all that much easier. But still, it felt a bit sillier than just regular old polo, which is already silly enough.

Agreed that it was absolutely ridiculous. But that's largely because we played on the 6'x4' hockey size nets. It'd have been a whole different game with current regulations 6'x3', but that's of course only theoretical.

Regulation nets even smaller, a big crease, absolutely no goal stacking nor goalie hacking allowed but wrist shots permitted? More R&D!

WHEELIE BLOCK

those tall goals were a bitch though

Winston Salem NC Bike Polo

I'm glad you were using the chance to take notes, and experiement. That's a great attitude.

I guess my reply is that *any* amount of wristshots will seem like a lot when you're not used to them being counted. It's easy to feel like their going in left and right. I saw lots and lots go over the goals (and they were tall goals), or into the body or bike. So it's hard to say that a person doing wristers was having a higher goal% than they were with regular shots (which still made up the overwhelming majority of goals).

I will concede as a proponent of the wrist shot that the 6'x4' is too large if they are allowed. However, if games don't have the score cap at 5, and goals are 6'x3', I don't see them being unreasonable. Even moreso if polo ends up with a crease.

This year had no real runaway matches scorewise, even with the huge goals and addition of wrist shots.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

I really do not like the scoop shots, ESPECIALLY on 4x6 goals.. some people are just so good at picking corners with those, and your whole back side corner is wide open and virtually un-savable by whoever is in net.

I thought they were a great addition to the game, they added a nice skillful way to score goals.

Plenty of people were missing, and I saw some keepers starting to adjust. I was practicing saving goals with my non-mallet hand.

Without a goal limit, I think it makes for a good game, and maybe encourages more possession based games, and forechecking, to regain possession earlier (as shots on goal were more of a risk).

Overall I thought it was a more attractive game to watch.

I'm a convert.

Adding to / reinforcing the observations from the Thaw last weekend:

1) Wrist shots are not compatible with 6x4 goals. I love the standard hockey goals but it's one or the other.

2) Wrist shots should not be scorable beyond half court. We have enforced half-court restrictions with ball joints. It's not a difficult thing to implement.

3) Goalies will develop such that long range wrist shots are easily blocked with a mallet-hand fist. Right now half of the looper wrist shots that go in are just because the goalies spaz out instead of trying to do something constructive to block the shot. Once people get over the freakout thing, a lot of those "boring" shots will start to get knocked down. They just don't come that fast (yet). From inside 15 feet, yeah, you're going to have to guess. Same as a business end shot.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Why not shots from beyond half court? Surely if 3 applies, then 2 is not an issue.

Or is your concerns for teams who play 3 up? Surely a slap shot from the opposite half is just as bad?

Slap shots can still be stopped at half court by a well positioned player. A high scoop that goes over everyone's reach necessitates a goalie in net.

That's the irony of sorts, in close range goalies become less effective, but they are necessary to stop full courts scoops from looping in.

I would predict that 3-up offense would become a thing of the past if full court scoops were allowed.

I've never played with them, but isn't the idea to keep a "wrist shot" under crossbar height? otherwise it's just a weird scoop?

• TORONTO • OTTAWA • VALLEY BOYS •
bikepolo.to

There were no height restrictions at the Eastside thaw, but I've played before where they were allowed with a crossbar height limit. I think that or some other height restriction would make them a lot more tolerable/interesting.

I like it, but sounds like a massive grey area/source of bullshit ("ref it was over my fucking handlebar" etc)

Agreed!

We will, without doubt, still be having this conversation next year. But there's something different about how we're talking about it now: We're talking about actual tournaments and how WSs effected them. That's good! I'll continue to use the Eastside Thaw as a laboratory for the wrist shot. I think next year, I'll be implementing:

1 - Wrist shots may only be performed on the offensive half of the court.
2 - 6' x 3' goals

Based on the comments here, I think this would adequately address concerns. There is a little bit of intersection with high stick rules to consider too. Doing big rainbow shots are theoretically Okay with me. That's their peroative. I think if you play the ball high, you have to let a team defend high as well. Shortening the area where you can WS would theoretically reduce the number of big arch shots.

The last thought I have to offer on this for 2014 is that if you *accidentally* rip a slap shot that catches air into the top shelf of a net, nobody will bat an eye--no controversy. However, if you *intentionally* wrist shot a ball into the same spot, people will be very critical and a discussion about "skill" and "ease" will begin.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

You mean wrist shots won't totally ruin the game and send the Earth spinning off into the Sun?

God, who would've ever thought? (besides Adam)

Maybe they will just partially ruin it? They will change it. And no one really knows what we will get in the long run.

I agree. It's good people are trying it more so we can finally find out. I mean, the game's obviously going to change because of it... it's a new way to score. It was just mega annoying to have people rallying so hard against it for so long without even being willing to try it.

Personally (since I'm not trying to speak for anyone else that's for it) I don't think I ever said for certain it would make the game "better," (I might have early on) even though I do enjoy watching / playing with them more. I [we] just wanted people to be willing to try it in a meaningful way before irrationally dismissing it. Also it'll be nice to feel a bit of vindication if it ends up enhancing the game, even if it's all in my head.

We're never going to understand each other.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Please change the "wrist shot" in the header to scoop goals, or something of the sort.