Jump to Navigation

Login / Register

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

The Future of the Shot (Shafts, Shuffles and Scoops)

This has been discussed a lot of times already. Let’s discuss it once more. Some people think that the inclusion of shaft shots to the previously small list of what counts as a legitimate goal was a rash decision without community consensus. Others think that it’s the first step in the righteous movement to legalize all of everything.

Be precise. What do you want for NORTH AMERICAN HARDCOURT tournaments for the 2014 season? I know this has all been said before, but we need to figure out if we should go forward, step backward or leave it at counting the shaft.

Current Form
§4.1 – Shooting
§4.1.1 – A shot occurs when a player strikes the ball with the round end of the mallet head or shaft of the mallet.
If a player ‘pushes’ the ball rather than strikes it, the motion is deemed a shuffle.
§4.1.2 – Actively directing the ball into the net with any part of the body or bike is not a shot.
§4.1.3 – A shuffle (see §4.2) is not a shot.

No shaft shots, scoops, or shuffles. Every goal is the ref's or goal judge's decision.

.

  • mike.gif

Don't bring cake to a donut fight.

Ian RVA wrote:

.

  • mike.gif

§3.2.5 should be rewritten as follows:

NAH v3.4 wrote:

§3.2.5.1 - A goal is awarded when the entire ball crosses the entire goal line.
§3.2.5.2 - After a goal is scored, the game will restart according to §3.3 with the team who was last
scored on in possession of the ball.

Make the ref's life easier. Make the goal judge's life easier. Make everything count.

"But scoops/shafts/wheel shots/shuffles are lame/easy/boring/whatever"
If you're playing to time instead of five, both teams have an equal chance to get easy/lame goals. If your team is getting scored on with shitty shuffles in the crease/right in front of the net, you need to be playing better defense.

We ran a friendly tournament last weekend with nets and "anything that goes in the net counts." There were no refs and no goal judges. I do not recall hearing a SINGLE dispute over whether something was a goal. Sure there was nothing on the line, but that doesn't stop folks from wanting to win.

I just don't agree that making the ref's life easier and making the goal judge's life easier is enough reason to fundamentally change our game. When we have access to refs and goal judges that aren't drunk spectators who volunteered a minute before the game, the issues with spotting goals disappear. We flew JT to our qualifier in exchange for a sober, knowledgeable, experienced bike polo ref. We got exactly that, and we had very few issues/disputes over goals over the course of the weekend. Most of the ones we did have had more to do with equipment issues like holes in nets.

I also don't agree that it's okay as long as both teams have equal chances to get easy/lame goals (really?!). This is also based off the assumption that people are cool with moving to timed games with unlimited goals.

I think this is the most complex of the issues that need to be worked out. I myself am not against wrist shots entirely, but I don't think shafts, shuffles, or wheel shots should count. I think if it comes off the "business end" of the mallet, its a goal. I'm open to a lot of changes being talked about in the game, but seeing more and more of the strategy that involves rushing the key, hopping around and falling all over everybody until the ball goes in the net is what makes me dislike the idea of everything counts. How about we give reffing a little more time to come into it's own before we completely dumb down the goal, essentially for the sake of making it easier for "pickup refs" to do their job while at the same time probably trying more to focus on playing in the same tournament?

I totally agree that the real, long-term solution for reffing in polo should be qualified, knowledgable, sober refs (though not to say anything done in the near-term to make reffing easier would be temporary). I disagree however that really on-point refs will completely get rid of contentious calls, especially the most contentious call that can be made: game-winning goals. There are a ton of examples in any sport you care to choose of game-deciding goals that are called incorrectly by professional, sober, experienced, paid referees. Why do we insist that in polo, the referee team must not only accurately judge not only whether the entire ball crossed the entire line but also determine if the shot came from the business end and was not pushed or scooped or if it was "intentionally kicked in" with a wheel. It's not about making the lives of pickup refs easier, it's about letting refs focus on making the tougher calls.

cody wrote:

both teams have equal chances to get easy/lame goals (really?!).

Eh, that wasn't a great way to put it. The main thing is that if you're letting your opponents inside of your crease, you need to be playing better defense. No disagreement on the point that allowing any shot to count requires playing games to time. I make the case for that in another thread (although by the current NAH rules, there is no such thing as first to five anymore).

This is definitely a complex issue with consequences that carry over into other rules. Jamming the crease and just toppling your opponent is definitely a shitty strategy that makes the game look bad. That said, I think the issue can be dealt with pretty easily with rules we already have in place. At the ref's discretion, goals could be recalled due to toppling or non-incidental on the part of the offensive player. The referee team can focus more directly on the play at hand and the bodies in motion, rather than the orientation of the mallet.

Count business end shots and own goals. No wrist shots. If the ref is in doubt, they let the goal stand.

if i cared, i'd say "seperate the NAH into crybaby conservatives and the rest of us. THE CBCHBPA can stifle the sports progression while the NAH progresses. problem solved."
and "i say let it fly!"

or seriously. business end of the mallet. what you do to make it in, with that side, is your business. shuffles and shafts can eat a butt.
but i don't care. if i did, i'd say the sport needs to evolve. it's like football caring about how the ball is carried acros the line. if it's in the hands, it's a touchdown. liek basketball, if it's through the hoop it's points. you guys want to copy other sports rules, free your minds man.

The refs job:

Keep the game
1. Entertaining
2. Competitive
3. Safe

In that order. Shuffles are boring. If you can't tell if a ball was legally hit or not, its an organization problem. start with goal judges, then we'll get cameras later to do the job.

what about counting points instead of goals?
2 points for a "serious" goal and only 1 point for a shuffle.
or maybe 3 vs 1, if you want to discourage shuffle goals even more.

that doesn't solve the problem at all

fedepresti wrote:

that doesn't solve the problem at all

go on.....

if you're trying to simplify the ref's task, giving the shuffle and the shot different values doesn't do the job, besides the problem is that this might be a game-defining situation and it does nothing to solve that either.

Spend an entire day allowing everything that crosses the goal line to count and then ask yourself.

Was it easier to score a shuffle goal?
Was it easier to score a shaft goal?
Was it easier to score a wrist shot? (this one may already have an answer)
IN general was it easier to score because of this?

IF all ballz cross the line counted as goals I don't think the findings would be that it was easier to score. experienced players and developing players know when someone has to take the shot (timing of the shot) to have the highest probability of scoring. Type of contact seems to have less to do with it. Its not always easy to score on a goalie and it never will be even if more shot types are allowed.

Also everyone gets better if there are more ways to score. Better on both sides of the court. My stick handling will get better if i know I can manipulate the ball more ways that count as a goal. My defense will get better if I know that I'm responsible for keeping everything out.

Anyone remember how many wrist shots were scored at the first bench minor...espi v...espi bench?

I can quote a well respected leader/contributor/founder of this here NAH as saying not enough were scored to justify needing it.

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

x2

Do it. Try it with an open mind. I've been a helpless rookie and a competent veteran at tournaments that have allowed it, and I've not been blown out nor have I had an unfair advantage over people that can't/don't do it. Defense remains defense. Shots still travel toward the same 3'x6' net.

Oh god no! That would require some kind of scientific process and critical thought rather than simple conjecture.

It's so silly that there are so many people against even *trying* out what you're talking about and seeing what the data say before condemning it. Like Lomax said... give it an honest go and be willing to change change an opinion.

I don't know how it's going to turn out, everyone (including myself) who's pro-scoop, or shaft, or whatever could be completely wrong and it could make the game boring, or make the terrorists win, or whatever other justification they want--and if we're wrong, we're wrong... what's lost? A couple months, or a "season" in a game that's like seven years old, that has no major contracts to worry about or large sums of money on the line if viewership goes down--that's worst case, a "lost" season. Big deal. It could potentially be really awesome, but we'll never know... people keep talking about wanting to advance the game... not sure how that happens without trial and error of different ideas.

We've definitely tried a lot of other ideas / structures / rules that've turned out less than stellar, we didn't all drop dead, right? I fail to see why *trying* an idea like this is such a non-starter for so many people.

You ever try and explain to a spectator why a ball in the net didn't count as a goal??? That shit is confusing to them and bores them and makes them think That shit is confusing!!! Then they typically leave and scratch polo off their list as something they have seen enough of and it didn't capture their interest.

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

1

I was confused about things when watching other organized sports that have been in existence much longer than polo for the first time, the concept of a shot off a mallet is pretty easy to explain. That being said, I've never been against trying something that other people are doing and like in the game. Will give it a shot soon hopefully and see how it goes.

Just curious if this were to be accepted in the future, does the size and shape of the mallet matter anymore and do we regulate ski pole shape and size? What's the point of using mallets designed to strike the ball a specific way anymore? Or is that something we just stick with because....? could we ever see people playing polo with blocks on the end of their shafts or playing with shovel shaped mallets/ thicker ski poles designed to corral and launch balls or hit balls out of the air?

Good point. Imagine someone playing polo with a hurling stick ... i could see pretty huge advantages with that shape if any kinda shot counts

Now I want to try it. Great job, guys.

I have tried it. It's hard to overcome the fact that it weighs probably 5 times as much as a regular mallet.

Certainly something that could be overcome, though.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

honest question because i've never tried polo with one, but have tried hurling...

it seems like aside from the weight (~2lbs) the flat, fan shape would prevent hard swings. if the weight could be brought down enough to operate with one hand gracefully, the wide, thin surface area wouldn't provide enough concentrated weight for hard longer shots. what was your experience, or thoughts?

i could see it being advantageous right in front of the goal to like shoo the ball in--but in that case it would also be advantageous for the person playing goal to be using one, thus negating the assumed offensive advantage--but for an all around stick that's good for handling on the ground, scooping, long shots, shuffling etc it still seems like the current design would be better, even if we count anything across the line. that's also assuming the current mallet rules would even have to be changed if we CAATL.

I was just messing around on the sideline for a few minutes, but I really don't think the shape adds many advantages except in blocking / hitting aerial balls. I didn't find any useful moves in terms of dribbling that couldn't be made using a polo mallet, especially given the added weight. In 20 or 30 shots I don't think I hit one straight; the head tended to rotate during the swing to non-perpendicular striking angles. But, or course, that could just be for lack of practice... look at anyone using a polo mallet for the first time and you'll probably see the same thing.

Polo is still mostly a game played on the ground, and in a ground-based game the hurley will offer no advantages at all. Sure if a ball comes bouncing my way 2 or 3 feet off the ground, I'll be much better able to grand slam the bitch with a hurley than a polo mallet, but I don't think that's exactly a game-changing scenario.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Yeah i said shape, not weight. not hard to imagine a ski pole / UHMW version.

If it does we can always adjust the rules. Just because it's designed for one specific shot (which it's not, it's designed to be useful for the sport as a whole--a balance of handling, shooting, scooping, weight etc) doesn't mean that the same design isn't still the best design, even if all shots count. It'd be like arguing that all bikes should now count since any shot counts.

Let's stretch out the logic here... If all shots count are we going to allow people to pick up the ball and throw it in? Probably not. Are we going to train falcons to intercept the ball on behalf of us and fly the ball into the goal? Probably not. If someone does--and it's determined that it's detrimental--then we can say "no falcons."

Just because someone may come up with some way to game the system doesn't mean it's not worth experimenting with--not that that was your point, I know you said you don't mind trying it.

edit: Also, my understanding of horse polo is that you can score if it goes across the line, below a certain height, coming off any part of the mallet... they hardly regulate mallets at all... but players have figured out that the largest percentage of their successful shots still come from head on so they've designed accordingly (even though they could technically scoop pass, or scoop score). There are going to be tradeoffs in design, just like there are now, worrying that people are suddenly going to use hurling sticks if we try this seems a bit irrational. Will some people test it out? Yeah, because why not? Does that mean the World's is going to be dominated by teams using them? I doubt it.

fuck those falcon guys, I hate those cheaters.

Falcons = future, deal with it. Instead of crying about it why don't you train better falcons?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Practice.

Sidenote: For the tournament last weekend, I explicitly allowed picking up and throwing the ball into the goal. To my knowledge there were zero attempts to throw the ball.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? I wouldn't have even brought a mallet onto the court. We're playing a game of pickup with that rule the next time that we see each other.

Also kicking the ball was allowed (assuming you didn't touch the ground). Nobody took advantage of that either.

We play "handball bicycle" with Greg Callmedaddy since 2011 madison. We called that mega ball. To score you still have to "punch" the ball in nets and every time you ride more than 3 meters you have to make the ball pass into your own triangle and launch it to catch it back, like dribbling in basket ball. You can punch players as you don't have sticks anymore.
MEGABALL for ever.

nico.p wrote:

Sidenote: For the tournament last weekend, I explicitly allowed picking up and throwing the ball into the goal. To my knowledge there were zero attempts to throw the ball.

wrong. zachburn did throw one of our goals in our second game.
also i saw plenty of kicking by those cleveland boys. no goals, but to save control.

Nick RVA wrote:

You ever try and explain to a spectator why a ball in the net didn't count as a goal??? That shit is confusing to them and bores them and makes them think That shit is confusing!!! Then they typically leave and scratch polo off their list as something they have seen enough of and it didn't capture their interest.

Sounds like anybody's first time to a roller derby bout, times 1000. yet our roller derby team almost fills up the old sonics arena on a regular basis. why? i don't know.. There's thousands of people sitting there confused, not knowing what's going on half of the time. and they still go. there's no reason to change rules from allowing easier (debatable) or different things counting as goals for the spectator sake. icing and off sides is confusing in hockey (to some people). but when somebody hits a big slap shot in from way out, there's not much confusion there.

on the other hand, my two cents is, Big hot bowls of top shelf ripper town is the evolution of the sport. Its like a wild horse that's wanting to be broke, and nobody wants to step up and be like Lane Frost. and allowing shuffles, and scoops n' all this bullshit we're talking about on this thread to count is like saying fuck taming the wild beast, im gonna go buy me a mini pony instead. sheeit

I'm with Langdon

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you aren't sinning, Jesus died for nothing.

I got 99 bitches, one ain't a problem.

schmangdon wrote:

Big hot bowls of top shelf ripper town is the evolution of the sport. Its like a wild horse that's wanting to be broke, and nobody wants to step up and be like Lane Frost. and allowing shuffles, and scoops n' all this bullshit we're talking about on this thread to count is like saying fuck taming the wild beast, im gonna go buy me a mini pony instead. sheeit

LANE. MOTHER FUCKING. FROST.

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

JUST SAY NO TO SCOOPS, SHUFFLES, AND SHAFTS!!!!

Let's see what NWA has to say about that...

http://youtu.be/KHaOul8gVVc?t=41s

JUST SAY NO TO ASSERTIONS WITHOUT ARGUMENTATION, DOGMA, AND LAZINESS IN DEFENDING YOUR VIEWS!!!!

This should be a rule. Because as we all know, there are not enough rules in bike polo.

@ Nico: thnx I luv NWA but Im tryina have a serious discussion bout the rules

@Pete: Im just statin how I feel. I dont think Im gonna change anyone's mind about scoops, shafts, or shuffles one way or the other. If u wanna criticize lack of reasoning, go on a philosophy forum or something...

@Langdon: Beautiful

I don't know why wrist shots are being called lazy or boring. Like all things, they come with trade offs and risks. It's not like they're easy and all reward with no risk. That alone justify it's inclusion.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

They're not wrist shots. They're scoops.

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

But if i wrist the ball and the ball doesn't leave the ground (low and fast wristers can happen), it's not a scoop.

If it's called a wrist shot in hockey, it just as well can be called a wrist shot in polo.

I'm not the type to quote wikipedia often, but here we go:

Quote:

A wrist shot is a type of hockey shot that involves using arm muscles (especially those in the wrist and forearm) to propel a puck forward from the concave side of the blade of a hockey stick.

Now let's replace some hockey terms with polo terms and see if it sounds correct still:

Quote:

A wrist shot is a type of bike polo shot that involves using arm muscles (especially those in the wrist and forearm) to propel a ball forward from the concave side of the head of a polo mallet.

Welp, that sounds exactly like what's going on, doesn't it? They both involve having the ball/puck making extended contact with the mallet/stick, they both allow lifting and careful placement, they both require no windup, etc. The similarities are all there.

But how are we supposed to passive aggressively undermine the credibility of the wrist shot if we can't use subtly condescending terms to describe it?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Oh, so hockey players have a hole in their stick which partially cups the puck when they do wrist shots? You're right, totally proper analogy.

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

To the specifics of your previous objection, even if they did have a hole, it would still be a wrist shot by the definition.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

er... the blade is concave, which when used for a snapshot or wrist or a flick make it easier to life off the ice.

Concave blade is not the same as hole in piece of pipe. A hockey player can wrist shot at 60 MPH. Thus, it's tight. Lobbing scoops into goals is like, the opposite of tight. I played at the pit once, I know what I'm talking about.

Wrist shot is a hockey term. If what we're doing isn't close to what they do in hockey but rather close to what they do in lacrosse or rather not close to either of those things, then giving it a term that likens it to something interesting and skillful when it is, in fact, not, is not honest really. It's just a way to get people on board with the fact that it's cool because you guys obviously think it's cool and obviously don't get why.

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

it's not directly the same thing, but it is analogous.

Nick Kruse wrote:

Wrist shot is a hockey term. We only borrow terms from hockey when it's convenient and gets across a point we want to make. If you want to use hockey terms it has to be approved by everyone in the midwest, or we're going to complain about it. every wrist shot is exactly the same, and those of you who use the open end to do a shot thats very similar to whats done in hockey don't get to call it a wrist shot.

Yeah exactly except I live in Philly now, not the Midwest!

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

If it can't result in a goal, it's not a shot. Scooping the ball into the net is not permitted, so it's not a shot. Been that way for a long time and our game is doing pretty damn well. Adam Red Menace coined the term 'wrist shot' cuz he is a big time hockey nerd, and he was trying to justify the act as part of his broad campaign to revamp Polo into bike hockey. Call it whatever you want, but it's still not a goal. Well, maybe on the east coast it is.

Alex Dash wrote:

If it can't result in a goal, it's not a shot. Scooping the ball into the net is not permitted, so it's not a shot. Been that way for a long time and our game is doing pretty damn well.

Define "long time". Obviously under the "original rules" or Hardcourt a wrist shot would be considered a goal, as it comes off the small end.

Somewhere along the way it was decided that wrist shots were no longer allowed.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

you turned that one around on him real quick, didn't ya?

I've been playing since 2007, and traveling North America extensively since 2008. It hasn't been legal in that time frame. I understand scoops have been legal in various small tourneys on the east coast. Im saying in big time tourneys, such as qualifiers, or NA's or Worlds, or pretty much anywhere outside the east coast they have been in illegal. Even in pickup. This thread, and all the other ones Mr. Kruse recently posted are about what to put in the NAH ruleset. Yes, Polo has had various regional differences (scoops are a good example). If you wanna scoop shots like kitty litter, go right ahead. Throw a tourney where they count. But as for the Major League NAH tourney rule book, they have never been legal, and that is what we are discussing here.

People were scooping in 2008?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Alex, you're right. There never have been any NAH qualifiers (a whopping 3 seasons of NAH, I might add) where wrist shots counted. That's why we're trying to have an open conversation about this.

In the several years that wrist shots have been utilized (again, not at large tournaments, as you say) it has been shown through a series of unsanctioned events that by-an-by that the addition of the wrist shot to a shooters arsenal did not make enough of a difference to keep make or break a team.

These have not all been small tournaments. Yes, many have taken place on the east coast. In my opinion, it has been an excellent test-bed to try it on a larger scale (if people are open minded toward it).

The largest of those tournaments was the Eastside Championships last year. While we didn't keep as thorough stats as the most recent bench minor tournament you all hosted, myself and many others would agree that while wrist shots were legal and utilized, they did not change the overall game to the extent that people seem to be resistant too. This was by no means a lack of individual player skill either.

They never have been legal, yet. We are interested in the open discussion here as to see if the people would be willing to give it a shot at a larger scale without turning up their noses first.

Thanks for the on topic and respectful response. I'm all for trying things out, and discussing things here, albeit most of the time with a grain of salt. I've tried it, and didn't like it. I chalk this one up to a regional difference in regard to Polo. It's clearly a very divisive topic provoking all kinds of passionate responses.

I respect that as an opinion. I totally get the idea that some regions have an aversion to it currently (i'd point out that those regions may or may not have tried it as much). I also get that people will get very passionate about their responses.

My point in all of this is that just because some people don't like it, we're justifying nobody being able to use it competitively? Nobody has stated that people have to use them to be competitive, because facts remain that you don't have to use them to win. Another option in the shooters bag of tricks is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if other rules (such as removal of first-to-five) come in to the fold.

If there's a good argument against wrist shots (or "scoops," I don't care what it's called), saying that we haven't allowed them and things are fine, isn't one of them.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

They're too easy. That would be the main argument.

By what metric? Specifically.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

dang I had this big ol formula i drew up on google docs with my graphing calculator, about how actually winding up and taking a real shot only had a successful trajectory into a target a small percentage of times, but the same mallet same ball same shooter same distance same target who scooped the ball was successful at such a high percentage that it was clear scooping was TOO EASY but shit i lost the link to that formula. Hang on ima go find it.

In other words, it's just your opinion.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Opinion of mine and many others, and it is the rule. Go ahead try it yourself. Shoot at a net and scoop at a net. See the results. You probly will scoop a lot of em straight in, and will miss a large number of your shots. I personally like the challenge of shooting and dislike the easy way in provided by a scoop. That was the basis for the rule. As someone who has been involved with the various rules committees since 2009, since the rules inception, that was basically, in a nutshell, the reasoning behind it.

Argumentum ad populum.

Am I trying on an empty net? Is there someone chasing me down? What environment am I supposed to have to demonstrate that the technique is legitimate? What results would be compelling to you? If the answer is none, don't bother asking as if it would matter to you.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

so the experiment is to see the results of shooting at a net and scooping/wrist shotting at a net, by yourself, with no goaltender, no pressure, and infinite time to setup the wrist while noodling around and see which one's easier?

that's supposed to be equal to the same circumstances as having high pressure, five other people on the court, with a goaltender (or two) and then having to position the mallet correctly to scoop the ball? Those scenarios are equal?

That's a real eye-opener into the NAH thought process.

I believe in most circumstances, scooping is easier. Guaranteed goal? No. But significantly easier and more accurate than shooting it. If it wasn't, then why would you guys be so in favor of scooping it then?

i'm in favor of experimenting and the scientific process. if it turns out easier in such a way where it degrades the game (we can come up with the KPI later), then cool, i'm OK with disallowing it. to not try because six or eight people from a first year sports organization decided it was "too easy," after the sports grown by orders of magnitude since then, is kind of ridiculous, and again--not to be dramatic--is reminiscent of a bunch of old timers sitting around behind closed doors grumbling about preserving the old guard.

why are you against it? are you afraid you won't be able to develop the skills to defend against such an "easy" attack? see how it goes both ways and how idiotic it sounds in either direction?

Like I've said before in this thread (and many others over the years), Im against it cuz I feel it is too easy to score with. Every year it has been voted down because every year the vote was unanimous or nearly so in favor of letting the rule stand. I'm not saying "dont try it". That's what non NAH tourneys are for.

Alex Dash wrote:

I believe in most circumstances, scooping is easier... If it wasn't, then why would you guys be so in favor of scooping it then?

I'm glad you asked!

I'm in favor of allowing wrist shots because it offers a different tactical option when it comes to shooting on goal. This addition to the shooter's arsenal expands the existing shooting dynamic in which sometimes you want to shoot a hard slap shot, and sometimes you want to do a precision tap, and sometimes you want to try to chip the ball, and so on. The wrist shot would simply be another option; no better or worse than the other types of shot in general, but perhaps more applicable to specific game scenarios.

Just as a shooter will opt for a slap shot from long range, or a tap from close in, perhaps the wrist shot will find its place in polo shooting strategy as well. It will certainly not replace either of the other shots since it is inferior to the slap shot at long range (wrist shot too slow moving and easily blocked from distance) and worse than a precision tap from in close (takes longer to set up, not suitable for one-time shots, so on).

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

you're just parroting some timeworn axiom with no evidence... not even current anecdotal evidence. "the way it's always been," is something old senators say.

i'm not trying to change your opinion, just letting you know it's stupid.

The argument against wrist shots is that they're lazy, boring and easy. Some people agree, some don't, it's subjective.

As of right now there are four posts in this thread with greater than x10. Three are people who don't want wrist shots in NAH tournaments and one is a picture of Michael Jackson eating popcorn.

But you can't ignore that the Micheal Jackson eating popcorn was posted by someone in favor of allowing wrist shots.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

it's subjective (arguable) at this point but people who cling on to an idea without evidence (no matter what it is) and continually refuse to participate in some kind of "study," are simply clinging to some sort of dogma.

i'd be curious as to, out of the scientific poll of two comments with 10x, how many of those people have actually played any high level games (or even more than five or six non-high level games) where these were allowed and examples of the supposed dramatic impact they had which will apparently turn this game on its head.

at least when other sports leagues ban certain things it's generally after seasons, or years, of repeated and recorded behavior at high levels that have been witnessed to change the balance of the game or cause injury.

it's not as simple as "some people like strawberry or some people like vanilla, derp derp opinions."

I've played in at least 20 games that allowed them. I don't claim to be a "high level" player, but I've played with and against people who are. I had fun, I will continue to play games where they're allowed because I like variety.

I simply prefer the game without them because I think they're boring. No argument or statistic is going to change that. Maybe I'll change my opinion some day, but if I do it'll be based on game play, not a forum post.

The closest thing we have to hard evidence is the poll Pete did awhile back, and it indicates that the majority is against wrist shots at qualifiers. This majority doesn't post nearly as often and I'd speculate it's because every side of the argument has been re-hashed over and over and it's not gone anywhere. It probably also has something to do with the massive volume of posts by a small group of highly opinionated people.

I think I've said what I have to say. Last word's open to whoever wants it.

...and while we're down here, Cody's post was not against allowing wrist shots.

"I myself am not against wrist shots entirely, but I don't think shafts, shuffles, or wheel shots should count. I think if it comes off the "business end" of the mallet, its a goal."

His post is pro-wrist shot, but against "anything goes" (shuffles, wheel shots, etc).

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Secondary Alex wrote:

...and while we're down here, Cody's post was not against allowing wrist shots.

"I myself am not against wrist shots entirely, but I don't think shafts, shuffles, or wheel shots should count. I think if it comes off the "business end" of the mallet, its a goal."

His post is pro-wrist shot, but against "anything goes" (shuffles, wheel shots, etc).

yeah great, more ways for cody to score on everyone. you folks in favor of the scoop really just want to make it harder on yourselves don't ya... All the good players are already adapted to using them they just don't. because scoops not that tight and and they can score just as easy the old fashion way. sure maybe once in a while people will use them, but will almost be jokingly. I think we tried counting scoops as legit goals for about a week last year, just to see wtf was up and try it out. most of the time they were used it seamed like somebody would do it just because they could. not because it was the smart choice or not because it was any easier or harder but just because, and it was "legal" now. and after the few weird attempts and few GOOD goals that came of them that week or so they went right back to what they were before. joke shots. There not necessary to making an entertaining /high scoring game. NAH starts allowing them everyone's going to get a big ass wide mouth mallet and start throwing the ball all around and all up in my face. I can't sit here and be cool with that. So save them for your friendlies and leave them out of the NAH.

I assert that a precision tap of the ball through the five hole is easier than a scoop/wrist shot, and equally if not more effective in many situations.

Tap shots are lazy, boring, and easy.

Ban shots under 20 mph.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

All shots must have a backswing higher than the players shoulder.

Oh I really like this, but rather banning shots from within 15 feet of the goal. I actually think that would be really rad. A hemi-circle from which you're not allowed to shoot inside.

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

Handball, anyone?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Look at all of those spectators! Those dudes are ugly, it takes SO LITTLE SKILL to carry a ball without bouncing it, and there is so much less of a chance to see people eat shit... They must have kidnapped all of those people and made them come watch. We should try that.

if i ever had any doubts about how stupid we look to other people while we're playing polo, they're gone... completely. one hundred percent.

Go to Youtube and search for "Combat Juggling" or "Major League Combat."

They even got on ESPN, and have sponsors.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Only if we can call it the "danger zone."

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Secondary Alex wrote:

Ban shots under 20 mph.

MORE LASERS IN BIKE POLO!

L4Z3Rzzz 4 LYF3!!!!!111ichi

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Nothing really left to say, and I'd only be repeating myself.

My bet is that this conversation, again, is worthless because it's not like it's getting any real consideration. Those who don't want WS (or any other shot) in the game benefit from inaction, and there's no pressure on those who would vote to explore the topic with any interest and see if it *needs* to be banned from play.

I don't care if you call it a wrist shot, scoop, or any other term. The name isn't important at all. I'd be in favor of *it* even without a conspiracy of rhetoric about Menace wordsmithing and stealing a term from hockey to win over polo players who are into hockey.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Aint a conspiracy if it's true, but yer right 'what' it is called is irrelevant.

thanks for the input, leykis. you from la, you'll get it, huh, drive time?

Ha. Not a Leykis listener, but I get it. I'm more of a Dan Patrick guy myself.

with current equipment a scoop shot in a one on one situation IS the easiest goal to score. it is an offensive move with no real defensive answer (compare a hockey goalie to a polo goalie). sure you can wheelie block, endo block, glove save, shaft save, etc...but with the size of our goals an accurate scooper has almost no chance of missing...think of the daylight between the top of the wheels and the topbar. not just top corners but the entire top of the goal and that's not even counting the triangle where you're trying to block with shaft only maybe a lucky leg twitch. scoop shots are like penalty shots in soccer...if the goalie guesses correctly there is a chance to make a save otherwise wack ass penalty goal.

really...dump and chase scoop games sound tight? scoop shots on huge goals sound tight? IMO people want to not have to actually "beat" the defense on equal footing. I think a lot of my resistance to scooping comes from the fact that we play a "sport" that's already inherently lopsided for the offense anyway (3v3 in any other sport means 3 defenders and 3 offenders but in polo it's 3 offenders and 2 defenders plus one defender having to cover goal via shot screening if not actually sitting in goal). 4v4 and I'd be more accepting of the idea because then what nick rva said about "pressure" actually applies.

WHATEVS! I've been a defensive player in other sports so I'm probably just hatin'. I do know that if soccer was to have goals so tall that no goalie could touch the topbar their would be chip shots from everywhere and a lot less split pass to onetimers. what would removing all of a hockey goalies pads and giving them a polo shaft do to their game?

jason f-off wrote:

really...dump and chase scoop games sound tight?

Whether scoops are legal shots or not has little influence on cherry-picking. You'd have to ban scoop *passes* to get rid of dump and chase.

As for your first paragraph, I'll let Cody say what I was going to say, but better:

cody wrote:

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.

http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2012/11/18/wrist-shots-real-talk...

well, to be fair, there's also no defensive answer to a 1v0 (open net) situation either... except tighten up your defense. in both my scenario and yours it seems like it's symptomatic of another defensive failure along the way rather than a failure in what kind of shot you can use.

i get and agree (as I always have since they've been made years ago) about your other points about goal proportions and blockable area, but it's all just conjecture. think about this, though. even with ground shots, with 6' goals a goalie is still covering about the same amount of scorable area.

Let's look at this.

36" x 72" goal.

700c bike with like 23-40 tires--has the ability to block about 18" of ground space (less if you're on 26") per wheel, times two, so 36" total. Plus a 5" mallet, making it about 41" covered out of 72". So total ground cover of about 57% while stationary.

If you do the math on a bike / mallet with the above specs and a player that's 175-200lbs you get a surface coverage area of >52%, about a 5% difference, again, that's on a completely stationary object sitting in goal.

What this comparison tells me is that you have nearly the same chance of hitting the ball in on the ground, as you would lifting it into the goal on a stationary obstacle so the math for those two things is pretty equal and there's no great disparity between available ground space to score and off the ground space to score.

At first look it seems like there are still those two pockets that are unblockable, the bigger one on top of the front wheel and the smaller one on the rear wheel (depending on how you position), but our experience here in NYC is that when you have people who're using those shots your defense evolves. Nate, AB, Zach, CR, and I (and some others) can and do wheelie block / slap away air shots, scoops... it happens and some are better than others at it... can we all block all scoops shots all the time? No, but we can't do that with ground shots either.

Why I'm anti-wrist/scoop shots:
1. I'm afraid it would cater to or promote high sticking. Say I'm behind the net I'm defending. I scoop it high and deep to try and score a goal. Why wouldn't my teammate—in hopes of catching up in case it's wide to tap it in—give chase alongside a defender who likely wants to knock it down?

2. My bicycle has a triangle in it through which a ball can easily travel. When somebody rips a shot through it, I tip my hat. Helluva shot, lucky or not (though I'm starting to see how a few guys can aim their shots to the top shelf). If somebody scoops the ball through my triangle from six feet out, I feel cheated. My defensive strategy is supposed to be to unclip and flail my leg at the ball? I'll likely dab and the last thing bike polo needs is strategies that lend themselves to dabbing/crashing.

3. The combination of scooping and then shooting—in my opinion—is far more entertaining and skillful. I've had the great fortune of watching Nick McLean play a bunch. This season, he developed an impressive wraparound move from behind the net.

He scoops the ball around his front wheel so he's in front of the net on a right-handed goalie's weak side, then he rips a shot. (I'm sure others have/can do this, but I've seen him do it fluidly in fast-paced tourney games.) Say he were to just continue the scoop and direct the ball into the net. Still skillful, but less so. Dropping the ball at the end of the scoop so that it's in position to get pummeled is so rad.

As for the make-the-refs'-job-easier and spectators-get-confused/bored arguments: The refs' job in every sport shouldn't be easy. That's why they're there to do a job. And I've never had trouble explaining the business end vs. broadside touches to people.

Last but not least now that the horse is dead... again...

There is a lot of slippery slope in this thread.

If scoops shots are allowed...
"...i'm afraid it'll be less safe."
"...i'm afraid it'll be easier to score."
"...i'm afraid it won't be as fun."
"...i'm afraid nobody will ever figure out how to defend against it."

it's the same arguments as...

"we can't legalize marijuana because in a year everyone will be on cocaine."
"if we let gay people get married, then people will want to marry their dogs."
"if we let women vote, we'll all be wearing dresses in five years."

and that's all i've got.

A fair summary. It is a preference.

Extensive scooping could lead to a more la crosse style game. It has the potential to be such a big difference in tactics that the issue deserves to be put to rest. Otherwise we may end up with incompatible gameplay between clubs that use it or not.

No scoop goals.

you're right, joel. i have no beef with preferences...

that's why ultimately when someone who's played that way for a decent amount of times/games and comes out and says "yo, it just find it boring," i have no issue with. i like a lot of shit people thing is stupid or weird... but i don't pretend it's super tight by trying to couch my preferential opinion in some sort of empirically justifiable way to dismiss them.

i'm like 'hey, i only like black girls, latinas, sno-cones, steak, mountain bikes, rap music, morrissey, eggs, and new orleans. i know there's evidence that some of those things are bad for my health and probably not the tightest uses of my time, but i don't care, i like what i like... doggy.'

So what do we do? A couple months from now we'll have a vote and it will win one way or the other but only by a little and then however NAH makes decisions about "the shot" through the representative democracy is going to leave a large bit of the constituency unhappy.

Might as well split the league and start playing two different games.

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

I was just about to write "now THAT is some serious hyperbole" but then I remembered the designated Hitter rule...

yes. to all of the allegory.

edit: but let's just push pause on the two party system and just try something new. i mean it's not like the consequences are that bad if it doesn't work. it's not like you can get pregnant. my arguments are applicable to many scenarios. A2M.

I dunno if a couple months is enough time, but I'd encourage all regions to give wrist shots an honest try before making a decision. Pickup is OK but inter-city play is the best measure.

Scoop and non-scoop formats have coexisted around here for awhile. I'd encourage everyone to make a decision based on their own experience.

edit: Two different games isn't such a bad thing, IMO.

Nick Kruse wrote:

So what do we do? A couple months from now we'll have a vote and it will win one way or the other but only by a little and then however NAH makes decisions about "the shot" through the representative democracy is going to leave a large bit of the constituency unhappy.

Might as well split the league and start playing two different games.

been saying that for two years! bike polo and bike hockey. they can take all the silly little creases and goalies and restructuring and über serious qualifiers and start the international association of bike hockey.
and everyone else can get drunk and play polo.

Can we actually have a vote? Like a big one in which club reps ask their club members to vote. This would only require of you/the NAH rules body to put together the options for which we can vote.

It seems possible, right? I imagine the options will be something like this for the future of the shot vote:
1. Change nothing. Business end and shafts are shots. No shuffles and no scoops will count as goals.
2. Count everything. If the entire ball crosses the entire goal line, it's a goal. Doesn't how matter how it got to crossing the line.
3. Get rid of shaft shots and count only business end shots. No shuffles, no shafts and no scoops will count as goals.

That covers all constituencies, right?

notsochristian wrote:

Can we actually have a vote? Like a big one in which club reps ask their club members to vote. This would only require of you/the NAH rules body to put together the options for which we can vote.

It seems possible, right? I imagine the options will be something like this for the future of the shot vote:
1. Change nothing. Business end and shafts are shots. No shuffles and no scoops will count as goals.
2. Count everything. If the entire ball crosses the entire goal line, it's a goal. Doesn't how matter how it got to crossing the line.
3. Get rid of shaft shots and count only business end shots. No shuffles, no shafts and no scoops will count as goals.

That covers all constituencies, right?

except the big one, wrist shots are business end shots. no shafts, no shuffles.

scoops aren't shots...not by our definition of a shot.

scoops and balljoint goals! it's off the business end! a balljoint goal is just a "wrist shot" on the ground, right? right?

no true scotsman / circular argument.

I think Krist is arguing that allowing scoops should be an option in the vote.

Revised options (in order of increasing allowances)
1 - Disallow shafts; the only remaining way to score is an "elastic" shot off of the business end (no scoops/shafts/shuffles/"ground scoop")
2 - Change nothing; (no scoops/shuffles/"ground scoops")
3 - Allow scoops. Shuffles are still not allowed
4 - Anything goes

Votes will be happening on all rule issues. Read the main sticky, Seattle boy!!

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

My bad, man. You're doing a better job than I thought you could do with a big boy job!

Alright, so it's just a matter of figuring out our voting options.

That's some serious hyperbole.

I'm Clever.

I agree it's a preference thing...I'd prefer no balljointing, period AND no scoop passes, period AND no scoop shots, period but I know others like it and even think its tight.

we should do a poll on when players that have been hit in the face and upper body how did it occur...scoop follow through, batting down a scoop, swinging at a scoop, swinging at a deflected ball, shot follow through ala forehand, backhand, seatbelt, etc..I personally have been hit in the face and then facecage by more slingshot 180 scoops than anything else on the list above. there isn't even a close second in my experience. also it'd be interesting to poll to see how many t-bones/crashes have occurred due to airborne play vs backwards hopping.

I'm not trying to change anything here...just curious.

"what do we do?"

Nick, you started this cage match. We will be grateful when you bring it to a reasonable close. It's a very tough job with no right answers. We all recognize that compromise is req'd and there will be winners and losers. Let's get through this round and see where we go from here.

i for one am uneasy that such a staunch conservative anti wristshot advocate is heading up the rule committee.

schmangdon wrote:

Big hot bowls of top shelf ripper town is the evolution of the sport. Its like a wild horse that's wanting to be broke, and nobody wants to step up and be like Lane Frost. and allowing shuffles, and scoops n' all this bullshit we're talking about on this thread to count is like saying fuck taming the wild beast, im gonna go buy me a mini pony instead. sheeit

raddison wrote:
schmangdon wrote:

Big hot bowls of top shelf ripper town is the evolution of the sport. Its like a wild horse that's wanting to be broke, and nobody wants to step up and be like Lane Frost. and allowing shuffles, and scoops n' all this bullshit we're talking about on this thread to count is like saying fuck taming the wild beast, im gonna go buy me a mini pony instead. sheeit

schmangdon wrote:

Big hot bowls of top shelf ripper town is the evolution of the sport. Its like a wild horse that's wanting to be broke, and nobody wants to step up and be like Lane Frost. and allowing shuffles, and scoops n' all this bullshit we're talking about on this thread to count is like saying fuck taming the wild beast, im gonna go buy me a mini pony instead. sheeit

schmangdon wrote:

Big hot bowls of top shelf ripper town is the evolution of the sport. Its like a wild horse that's wanting to be broke, and nobody wants to step up and be like Lane Frost. and allowing shuffles, and scoops n' all this bullshit we're talking about on this thread to count is like saying fuck taming the wild beast, im gonna go buy me a mini pony instead. sheeit

This thread needs some fucking fillibuster

schmangdon wrote:

Big hot bowls of top shelf ripper town is the evolution of the sport. Its like a wild horse that's wanting to be broke, and nobody wants to step up and be like Lane Frost. and allowing shuffles, and scoops n' all this bullshit we're talking about on this thread to count is like saying fuck taming the wild beast, im gonna go buy me a mini pony instead. sheeit

haha at first I thought that said College Rules and I was gonna go fap

where the corporate lobbyists at?

i got $1000 coming NAH's way for the banning of shaft shots

raddison wrote:

where the corporate lobbyists at?

i got $1000 coming NAH's way for the banning of shaft shots

Rad Caps- the first special interest group in hardcourt bike polo. that we know of..

except for the actual cap...riotti.

When the hole size went to 2.25" scoop/wrist/lame shots got too easy. If the hole size was max 2" at least it would be more difficult.

I'm a no.

just read some stuff you posted four years ago, then two years ago, then about a year ago. in your opinion it was "too easy" back then--all of the back thens... before anything "went" anywhere in regards to the regulation of mallets, even with the 2.25 rules. you can't really say your opinion would be anything but a 'no' regardless of the trending mallet size opening.

THE INTERNET NEVAR FORGETZ!

And folks in New York wanted wrist shots back then too. Yes I thought it was easy in 2008 but with 2.25" it is even more so.

in your original post that i replied to a couple above, you're implying that if it the mallet opening were less than 2.25 you'd be ok with scoops (without you explicitly saying it, hence imply), when your previous attitude / posts can be interpreted otherwise--because they use absolutes.

in other words, it seems like you're going to find it "boring" no matter the diameter and you're just looking for a reason to pooh-pooh the idea...

i.e., you're a size queen.

edit: i've only been in ny a year, so... it's not like the "NYC" tag has given me some undue predilection to the wrist shot. i just have have an issue with people banning things with no evidence, which should be universal, no matter where you're from.

What makes you think he has no evidence.

what makes you think, jeffj, that i don't think he has evidence? please direct to me to the post where said that, or even implied that.

like i've said in multiple other posts, i'd welcome any falsifiable data that (we can all look over) ol' rory--or anyone--can provide, rather than some six or either person committee's decision. if it doesn't exist, why can't we try it for a season? we've tried a load of other shit... why not this?

again, i'm not inherently for the scoop/wrist/easy/rory, i'm inherently for the scientific process and figuring out what the common definition of "too easy" means.

but, in the interim... stay staunch, vbc...

edit: i did say "evidence," when i should've specified falsifiable evidence. you beat me semantically professor jeff. kinda. but the question still remains...

I don't know much about bike polo history, but weren't shuffles and wrist shots banned for a reason? doesn't this feel like going back to a more primitive stage of the sport?

Why do you want to try someting that's probably been tried before and presumably didn't work?

jjjaaaa....como sales solo de noche?

they were banned because a few people decided it was "too easy."

i'm of the opinion caps should be mandatory to solve a lot of rule issues. for me, bike polo is all about control with a mallet-shaped object, not trapping the ball in holes, and sweet shots.

hurricanejosh wrote:

caps should be mandatory

x2

oh and my reason opposed to shuffle shots:
in hockey anything of the stick is good. but they 1. have a goalie. 2. that goalie is generally very agile. 3. goalie has special privileges.
in polo we have no defined goalie, and they don't have a set of specific privileges. and even if we did, they wouldn't be nearly as agile as a hockey goalie.
all shots, wrist or lame old rippers, or tap in all take a slight amount of adjustment to do. you have to focus to make the shot. it requires skill. not a scramble to try to tap it in. with the limited range of movement even the best polo player has in the goal, a lot of these are just sloppy, lucky.

Have you tried to score a 30 yard shuffle?

this isn't about a 30yrd shuffle. thats not likely, like 30 yard shots aren't super common. i'm talking about when you're behind the net and the balls on the edge and you can reach over and tap it with a shuffle, but would take skill handling to get a shot off. or forcing a shot through a mallet by pushing the ball with a broad side through the "goalies" mallet, more or less bulldozing, taking their mallet out too.

shuffles are just lazy. i like polo flashy, from technical handling, to crazy wristers, to gnarly rippers. things people want to see. i think slapping dicks in front of a goal with pile ups and bullshit is boring polo.

not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking, just explaining why i don't feel everything should be counted.

So it's not the shuffle itself, just when and how you use it?

You can apply exactly the same argument to a shot. Leaning over the goal and tapping it in with the capped end would be just as lame.

Forcing shuffles through, by pushing, just wouldn't work, at least not if you've got a half decent goalie.

But, you can do some very skillful shuffles, one of the greatest goals I've seen, was a 120ft reverse shuffle, that went the length of the court.

Nobody is ever going to raise a controversy on a lucky or sloppy slapshot that goes in. Is this topic really hinged upon the *skill* involved, and legitimacy of any of these techniques?

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

can anyone give some kind of explanation why shaft goals were allowed and included as legitimate in v.2013?

maybe i missed the thread, quite possible. egg on my face if i did.

serious question.

Because of the Midwest Open.

*trollolol*

Ref committee is a tuff thankless job. Kinda like being a tournament organizer, but without all the partying and winning. Looking back I'm sure they'd do it differently next time. As for shaft shots, Im sure they have a good explanation, and won't mind if it gets reversed next season. I mean, basically the rulebook was almost perfect with that one exception, in my opinion.

I agree, but I'm glad that they wanted to try something out.

I think it's good to try new rules, worst case it's just one season.

I'm not too bothered either way about shaft goals, there were a few at the Euros, it wasn't really a big deal.

There was no thread. There was a ref committee put together, it was rushed, and followed by a vote of 6-8 people or something.

I think the idea is that it's easier to ref in situations where you really can't tell, and I think some people wanted to sort of open the door for a future in which all things were allowed. I think they thought it was a good place to start the wheels turning in that direction.

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

ah, gotcha. which people were on the ref committee?

I don't want anyone to get railed on for trying to help out last year. Let's just move forward. You could ask me in private if you're really interested.

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

All of us are speaking publicly.

Anyone having a say in this should also be on record. If your words have value then put your name on them.

I very much appreciate Nick's willingness to openly and honestly lead this round of rules mods. This seems like progress.

No more anonymous closed-door NAH bullshit. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

while i do understand and believe your sentiment that no good deed goes unpunished, it would be helpful to know. especially since this is some kind of "representative democracy" and in an above post you're telling us we'll be asked to vote on this through representatives.

i have nothing personal against anyone who was on the rules committee. i'm sure people would just like to know with whom they can trust a vote in the future if, in fact, that's the system we're going for.

I don't know that there are any minutes recorded from this committee's discussions, but the votes *were* made public for the 2013 rule set (prior to ESQ). You can see which reps were voting, and how they voted on each topic. They put it in a google doc.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1dIg00XF2r7IcqLfXQb8hyDPZ6QgjwRApbYrjzlT...

Specific votes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhSm-abGocfwdDlBZ3pSM1d5OUJ...

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

tight. never saw the spreadsheet until now, only the pie charts. thanks.

Your interpretation of the process is a little off. Last year, Kremin was elected as a Midwest rep and verbalized interest in getting a rules process going. He then assembled a rules committee, which I was a part of. This rules committee had discussions a couple times about rule disputes for the 2013 set. Then, there was a poll put together in which the elected NAH regional representatives voted yes or no on the changes that were nominated by the rules committee. Then, there was a rule set written by someone who wasn't part of the rules committee and this was the initial version 3 that people found insufficient.

Then, I decided to draft a version I thought was better and NAH decided to fix the previous process by putting my version into action mid season.

There are many places that this process was inefficient and unfair to the body of players. Hence the shit I'm on here, right now. Schultz has given me control here. There is no nebulous NAH committee, it's just me and all the people who want to help me on this public forum.

So, to summarize, the way I see this going is that sometime around very early October, I will release public polls in which everyone will get to vote on each issue listed in the main sticky. The idea is to give people now until then to talk and think and then the next stage will begin. So this will be a direct vote, not one you will do through your rep. This will hopefully let me know what the majority of people want. I will then draft the rule changes to comply with the majority opinion. I will then submit the ruleset to NAH for approval. My guess is the representatives will then vote to approve it or not, given the information from the polls and discussions gathered here.

So who was on this assembled committee last year is irrelevant in terms of where we are headed. It's just me and you, baby. And I am going to write this thing how the majority of people want it written.

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

Sorry, that was too long. I just don't think I've previously explained my plan all the way.

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

Sure you can blame my interpretation. Or you can blame the actual process and how its been organized.

I can stand here screaming, "FIVE, FIVE, BOOK, FIVE, NINE, ORANGE, PANDA" and then blame you for not understanding that I asked you to fill up my car with gas and cook me dinner when I so clearly asked you to do so.

Forgive me please for the confusion. In one breath NAH (who you apparently speak for in this case) is asking us to talk to our reps when it comes to various issues--which is why I asked for the rep info, because I thought that was the process--and then in another breath is asking us to vote directly.

fuck me, right?

What is even your point? I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm just explaining how its going to be.

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

you said "[my] interpretation" was off, i was longwindedly saying that the encoding and mixed messages we're receiving from HQ could be the issue because you're telling us one thing, and we've been told to do another.

aaaand the popular vote doesn't really mean shit. weed's not legal in a lot of places because of the popular vote, nor is same sex marriage in a lot of places, nor were there women voters blah blah blah. at the risk of being all godwiny, plenty of things have passed the popular vote test but turned out all 'whoops' worthy. don't defer to the popular vote as if it's some satiation of the request to try it out/evidence.

a three cunted hooker at fleet week is bound to be popular... but it is really the 'best' decision?

Wanna be my one man cabinet and then you can just tell me what to write?? I'm down.

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

. double pozzzzzt.

come on, kev... me and kruse are double posting, something's wrong... is LOBP hosted on a potato in Fremont? time to up your colo game man. :-*

It's true it's gotten achingly slow of recent, i hope to do something about this soon.

Just out of interest, will these votes be NA only, or open to the rest of the world. Hopefully I'll be NA by the time this happens, but I know a lot of other people in Europe will be interested. Certainly this summer there has been an effort (mainly by me), to use the NAH rules in Europe, in the interest of a unified ruleset. I'd like to see the NAH as the guardians of the world rules (but in exchange take input from the rest of the world)

As usual, i don't have a strong opinion. But i think it's gotta be all or nothing.

Shafts, wrist shots, shuffles, all legal.

Or, back to 2012's "business end" only.

Im ok with either

- biz end only

- biz end plus scoop/wrist shot

- everything counts

If anything but biz end counts then ID at 2.25 seriously needs to be reconsidered, as Rory has already brought up. I feel 2.25 ID needs to be looked at again regardless but it doesn't seem most are concerned with it at this point. If scoop/wrist shots are allowed I think that would change.

Also, no ball joint at any point in a match is something I feel would have to be implemented if any more than biz end is allowed.

the dark end (aka Bobb Todd, Marzipan, B.R. Fuck Face)

I'm still confused as to why a scoop and wrist shot are not better defined.
If you really want to allow wrist shots, you need to actually define them.

-What is the difference between a scoop and a wrist?

The high sticking rule probably comes into play, but I see a scoop as anything with the stick lifted above a couple feet on the ground. Using gravity or centripetal force to balance the ball in the mallet.

Whereas a properly executed wrist shot requires setup, spin, and speed. And can also be executed very low to the ground.

I just don't understand how someone can call a real wrist shot and a lobbing a scoop the same thing.

I don't think anyone is arguing the distinction that you're highlighting; no one is saying "allow wrist shots but not scoops"

The distinction between the terms is mostly just a fight over vocabulary. Generally, people who want scoops/wrists allowed call them wrist shots and those who don't call them scoops. Wrist shot is a loaded term that gives the action more of a skillful feeling while scoop shot is used to depreciate any skill involved giving the action a lazy/easy feeling.

I think the distinction you're trying to make is really that of a shot vs a lobbed pass as you mention in your last sentence. To me, they are both the same action and should be allowed or disallowed together.

A thought: You can top a ball with a business end shot and you can shoot a laser with the same business end; do you feel the need to distinguish between those two?

One way to distinguish is in reference to the height of the goal: wrist shots never go above the crossbar. Scoops do. Wrist shot goals counted at MenacESPI. Scoops did not.

I'm not necessarily advocating this distinction, but others have.

This is the same distinction we use, and i think that Kev is spot on with this.

Eh, I think the actual rule was that wrist shots counted if they were made from the attacking zone. There was no mention of crossbar height that I could recall. IMHO it's easier to make a call about whether a scoop/wrist was made from the attacking half vs whether it went above the crossbar. Were wrist shots to be counted in NAH rules, I'd totally support adding this sort of language to the rule.

MenacESPI Rules wrote:

At ESPI 2012 NYC, wrist shots WILL count as goals with the following caveat: they must be taken from inside the attacking zone. A wrist shot taken from the defensive zone that goes into the net will be equivalent to a shuffle.

http://redmenace.su/ESPI2012/rules.html

thanks for the correction. i guess i was thinking of another Menace ruleset, perhaps BM 2010.

I'll call 'em wrist shots when you guys can do them without putting the ball in a hole inside of your mallet.

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

Nick Kruse wrote:

I'll call 'em wrist shots when you guys can do them without putting the ball in a hole inside of your mallet.

i'll call you a bike polo player when you teach a horse to ride a bike.

How 'bout a bear and a monkey?

:( This is sad, man.

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

So hitting them off the broad side... like in horse polo?

There's no such thing as a shaft shot, no one thinks oh hey i'm going to put this one timer in off the shaft of my mallet. It's not a secret weapon move that's going to change how the sport is played. It's just shit luck that you scored and should count so that the game can carry on without spectators wondering why it's not a goal and the ref doesn't have to take back a goal that may or may not decide a victory. It rarely happens and when it does its actually kinda cool. Ting!!!! back of the net.
Shuffles shouldn't count, that's a day one fundamental rule.
I would give the wrister rule a shot. It's gotta be below the the cross bar height at any point in it's trajectory to avoid the lob goal from 100 feet away.

I guess I should stop practicing shaft shots then...

FALSE.

Kruse did one on Sunday. Break away sprint to open goal, flipped his mallet and held it by its head, and tapped the ball in with the grip.

SHAPHT SHAWTZ!

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

That is a grip goal, totally different.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

We had back to back shaft goals last week at pickup as crazy is it sounds!

Out of the air, off the ground, over the defenders back wheel and in last night. Count it.

Since we're giving our opinions...

Eh, I'm torn. I want to say allow everything in the goal, but to me, right now, wrist shots from the end of an open piece of pipe just seem gimmicky. I know they take practice and I guess skill, but so do a lot of things.

But if the majority of active players who have been playing for more than a few seasons want wrist shots, go for it.

raddison wrote:
schmangdon wrote:

Big hot bowls of top shelf ripper town is the evolution of the sport. Its like a wild horse that's wanting to be broke, and nobody wants to step up and be like Lane Frost. and allowing shuffles, and scoops n' all this bullshit we're talking about on this thread to count is like saying fuck taming the wild beast, im gonna go buy me a mini pony instead. sheeit

I rode this whole topic in the train today, was long.

So first I don't know if you'll take european players opinion, but here is mine.

Only shots with the business end can score. No stickshots to avoid highsticking and dangerous play (also we are not playing baseball), no wrist shots and scoop shots because too easy to score, no shuffles because it's an historic rule easy to explain to people I agree.

CALL ME DADDY

potato hosting.

what's a shot? what's a wristshot? what's the difference between a wristshot and a scoop? we don't think you understand! explain it to us!

the motherfucker can't even understand the subtle nuances in our english, yet five (x6) of you are trusting that he's able to deduce the logic in the thread and make a reasonable decision with the thread he's "rode" today!

i'm sorry, this is called NAH for a reason. you can see yourself out.

(p.s. my housemate is french so i have no ill will toward "YOU PEOPLE")

if you don't get it go soak your head.

llIIlllIIIllIlIIllIllIIlIllllIIlIlI wrote:

the motherfucker can't even understand the subtle nuances in our english,

Said the guy who isn't using capitalization properly. Sheesh, I understood what Will is saying here, even if it's imperfect.

And I get that Kruse will be writing a rule set for North American Hardcourt, but what's wrong with getting a global perspective on these issues? Why shouldn't NAH set the standard that other countries can mimic?

Ugh, this is all a digression from the thread.

Sorry, I stopped reading when you started a sentence with a conjunction.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

This thread:

#1 you didn't get the joke. which is fine, story of my life. i blame me.

#2 that's your mega-comeback? my lack of capitalization? It [is] obvious you tried hard to get your spelling / grammar / style ducks in a row after criticizing min3... but you didn't. You should feel stUPiD. YouFo rGot to ConTraCt "Will is." eVen thouGH you don't have to, you did IT in every other case so you SHOUlD'Ve proLLLLY done it here too to maintaiN the STYLE of youR WritinG.

but no offense or anything, i feel like we're already best friends and you'd let me fuck your old lady... let's just keep that vibe going, new best friend.

How many tournaments played with the "everything counts" till now? Can we get an exaustive list with short feedbacks?

The only tournament that I've participated in where "everything counts" was the tournament we (Pittsburgh) held earlier this month. Personally, I don't think a whole lot changed. There were a few games where full court scoops became an annoyance, but that would be easily solved by only allowing offensive end scoops.

I'm also interested to see if any other tournaments have tried "anything counts." My guess is that number is really low. I'd be surprised if it was over 5.

Also, Yes a lot of people who aren't for "all that cross count" tried it before. Me for example, but i don't want too. For several reason:
-First i like the way we have to score now,
-Even if i want to try it, it suppose to find a night where you have 6 people in the same mood as you, and who want to try it long enough to really feel if that's worth it or not. Wich is hard.

Maybe that we could also say that the dabbing rule is stupid and hard to enforce sometimes, and that we should only allows players to play when they have both feet on pedal, but no need to goes to tap out point to get in back. Pretty sure we could find people who prefere to play this way, and asking other to try it before saying that's a bad idea etc...

And argument about how it's complicated to explain why its a goal or not to the crowd are not efficient in my mind. In every sport you have a way to make it count or not, and i think in Polo that's really not hard to explain and understand.

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

Also, Yes a lot of people who aren't for "all that cross count" tried it before.

I'm not really convinced of this. Replies to your post asking for feedback from tournaments with "anything goes" are pretty scarce. It might be that it's too new, but my guess is that there haven't been many tournaments that allowed anything.

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

Maybe that we could also say that the dabbing rule is stupid and hard to enforce sometimes, and that we should only allows players to play when they have both feet on pedal, but no need to goes to tap out point to get in back. Pretty sure we could find people who prefere to play this way, and asking other to try it before saying that's a bad idea etc...

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
No one is arguing that we shouldn't have a dabbing rule. I'm not really sure that we could find competitive polo players in favor of playing without dabs.

To your third paragraph, I agree that the hard to explain argument isn't very strong. I think it's valid, but it's a pretty weak argument. The argument gets a little stronger when you have to say things like "not all business end shots count. Shots must be elastic collisions between the head and ball"

Sorry I meant never tried it before.

I'll stick to 2013-legal-shots, even if wrist shots/scoops are made legal, until I see someone use it effectively. I don't think wrist shots are that advantageous in most situations when compared to a solid shot with the business end. They're typically slower than a normal shot, and therefore easier to defend, unless you've got that knuckle-puck.

I don't see much changing if scoops count. The only situation I can think of where one could be of use is:
1. On a breakaway (righty against righty)
2. Used more as a shot on goal, similar to a defenseman's slap shot in hockey where the shot is used to get the puck in front of the net, so that another player can bury it in the net.

If it's possible to put down pressure on a ball (aka ball-joint before you shoot), the wrist shot would have more power and could be used more frequently with success. But ball-joints in the offensive zone are illegal, so again I'll stick to the business end.

Have you ever tried the knuckle puck? Shit doesn't work at all like it does in the movies!

it's strange...balljoints aren't legal on the offensive end if...you're pedalling a long time while doing it...but balljoints that aren't accompanied by pedalling or don't result in a shot or do end in a self-pass or end in a pass to a teammate aren't called by refs. I would even say that most players/refs don't even see this as ball jointing. I could be jus nit-picking. there's just something wack about using a hole to put the ball in to control it. I blame soccer and basketball...no ball jointing, period! carry in basket ball if you even think of using your hand like a scoop/balljoint.

I call this all the time.

If a player dives into a corner at speed and grabs + passes the ball in one movement by pinning/throwing it on the ground, they should not be called for balljointing. In my experience, this has never been called a penalty. Refs that I've questioned before games say "if you don't pedal, or if you have the ball pinned for less than 2 seconds I won't call it." Reminds me of traveling in basketball.

Then those refs are wrong, according to the ruleset:

§4.3.1 – A ball-joint is when downward pressure is put on a ball with a mallet head.

I'd agree with a change to the rule, saying what you are suggesting, and maybe it should be considered for the next version, but right now, if I'm reffing, I'll call it as it is.

They're not wrong. It's not a balljoint in the way that carrying the ball pinned on the ground is, and that is what we are trying to penalize with this rule. Of course this is entirely open to the refs interpretation. Refs that don't call this do so because they can identify what the rule in question is trying to prevent, and say to themselves "this isn't it". There has to be some flexibility in enforcing the rules, because the game is too complex to lump everything under X number of categories.

Anyway this is just food for thought for the future just like the rest of this stuff. I still think that most people will not associate this move with balljointing though. It's more of a scoop that stays on the ground, and technically "according to the ruleset" scoops aren't illegal in the offensive zone.

What do you guys think about rewriting the rule to say that you can balljoint for a short period of time, say ~2 or 3 seconds, anywhere on the court. This would totally prevent the issue at hand. Plus, we could get stupid 10 second balljoints completely out of the game. Two birds, one stone!!

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

I'd be happy with that rule.

Nick Kruse wrote:

What do you guys think about rewriting the rule to say that you can balljoint for a short period of time, say ~2 or 3 seconds, anywhere on the court. This would totally prevent the issue at hand. Plus, we could get stupid 10 second balljoints completely out of the game. Two birds, one stone!!

I'd say 2s, the ref can do two sideways hatchet chops (check out the sweet ass picture I attached demonstrating the maneuver) then blow the whistle. This is (in theory!) pretty easy to do. I think that 3s would allow you to travel pretty damn far up the court, especially if you get momentum before engaging in mallet-ball-fellatio.

I also think this is one of the penalties that refs should err on the side of calling. That is to say, if a play is in the gray area (e.g. a 1.954423s BJ), call it.

  • violation counting 2.jpg

I would also be happy with the rule written this way, and agree with Pete. Two seconds, hand chops. The grab and throw I'm describing will have already been passed before the first chop is through anyway.

I agree with you, we know what this rule is trying to prevent, and it's not the situation you've described.

But... the rule itself it very clear, no downward pressure on the ball is allowed. There is no way a referee can legitimately interpret that to be "some downward pressure is allowed in this situation where it isn't the ball joint we are trying to penalise".

What's happening there is refs are saying "I don't like this rule" and just ignoring it, in situations they don't like. That leads to inconsistent reffing. It's exactly the same situation as the current high sticking rule.

So what needs to change is the rule, it needs to be written in a way that it bans the situation we don't want, and allows the situation we do.

Or we could just change the wording in the definition of balljoint. < 2 seconds of downward pressure isn't a BJ - you're just teasing the ball at that point.

Agreed

I will start a thread tonight so as to be consistent.

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

John H wrote:

§4.3.1 – A ball-joint is when downward pressure is put on a ball with a mallet head.

This rule, as currently worded, would make illegal the vast majority of contact the mallet head has with the ball. When you hit the ball, you are almost always coming down on it (in part). That's applying downward pressure.

However, you are correct that the refs would have been in the wrong, even using the old definition regarding the open end, trapping the ball, etc.

So I am a brand spankin noob. Feel free to discount my opinion because of that, but allow me to say that coming from outside the sport, having wrist shots not be a valid method of scoring seems pretty asinine.

I read this entire thread and didn't see any convincing arguments about their use. It seems like having another option to shoot would provide for a more nuanced and skilled game, and I don't see how anyone could be against that.

Thank you for the outsiders opinion. It is certainly something worth taking into account.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

scoop shot shill!

About=against**

I'm curious...as a novice which seems like it takes more skill? scooping a ball over someone's tire using the open end or shooting top shelf into a corner with a capped mallet? as a rookie does ball jointing and ball joint passing seem like nuanced play as well? do you think banning shaft shots would be asinine?

jason f-off wrote:

I'm curious...as a novice which seems like it takes more skill? scooping a ball over someone's tire using the open end or shooting top shelf into a corner with a capped mallet?

As someone who isn't a "new player" (argue the definition of novice how you like), I'd consider the former to be more "skillful" because I've yet to see anyone who can do the latter with purpose and consistency.

Whenever I see someone hit the upper 90 with a slap shot, my first thought is "Damn, nice shot". My second thought is "...bet he can't do that again." The upper 90 slap shot is 1 part power, 1 part execution, and 2 parts hope - and that's for the best shooters out there. For the rest of us, the formula leans a lot harder on "hope".

Plenty of people can purposely direct a wrist shot with that kind of accuracy, no hope or luck needed.

Now if the question is which is harder, then the answer is obviously the top shelf slapshot. But until people start demonstrating the ability to pull off that shot predictably in game situations, it remains more a fortuitous accident than a demonstration of control and intent.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

I agree mostly but will say that at BM in LA, Scooter hit some serious top shelfers that almost convinced me of intent. Langdon too. I want to believe that shit is true and will be more true 2 years from now.

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

Scooter and Langdon have talked with me about their approach to giving the ball an aerial launch. I won't reveal their secrets. Nevertheless, they definitely make an effort to do it when the timing is right. McLean is another cat I think does that too.

Not every shot is hard.
Not every scoop is easy.

There's never going to be a controversy over an easy shot. Nobody is ever going to say that a point scored by a tiny tap in was just sooooo easy that it shouldn't count. Meanwhile, plenty of scoops require more skill than the easiest shots.

My point is this: To compare the most difficult slapshot to the easiest wristshot is merely dictating terms. If such a comparison is valid one way, it should be both ways.

We already reward points for lucky, and easy shots, but we won't reward points for difficult or skillful wristshots.

"Skill" and "difficulty" aren't what this topic hinges upon--only preference.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

I would say my true motivation for being against scoop shots is that I really just think they suck the soul away from the game. I've been in pick up games that have devolved into repeated lobs at a goalie. I've been in one on one situations where I am guaranteed a goal by using a scoop shot. I've practiced them and screwed around with them plenty.

We could talk about skill or difficulty all day and in the end it's not the point. The point is that I think I've seen enough 15 MPH scoop shots to know that I will never be impressed by one and I will never think that one will look righteous in a way that opens up my love for the game. A lot of why I'm attracted to this game is because of the aesthetic. I think bike polo is god damn beautiful. And every time I'm in a game where people are scooping shots at the goal, I feel myself slowly receding and losing interest in playing. There are surely lots of things in life that are skillful that I absolutely detest trying to find interest in.

It's not because of some calculable difference in the level of skill -- it is because it degrades the ways in which I find the game beautiful. A scoop shot will never, ever have the same effect on me as when I see someone burn a goalie one on one with just the right move or like when I see a ripper so hot that it kicks dust off the back of the net. Even if I've had a few beers tonight, that is the best way I can describe it.

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

So is your one-on-one passion or belief worth forgoing an actual objective test.

You've made this a lot about your observations... it's not about what *you've* seen. It's about tests and trials as a population.

Your mental gymnastics are failing.

If you want us to break down your reply line by line and start quoting your replies (and the other folks) and the contradictions... then tight... I've got hella time.

I'm glad you admitted that it's just about your opinion, you're growing up.

Yeah I mean, like I said, for me this is not about objective tests. So like, you can sit on your high horse of consistency and remark about how I change my opinion or find new ways to describe how I think but like, whatever man. You ever read Foucault? Do not ask me to remain the same.

Look at this for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LnCnVHiyUE

Why do people attack that guy in an angry manner when he bounces the stupid ball on his head? It's not EASY to do, just like a scoop shot is not EASY to do. So it's obviously not a "level of difficulty" thing. They are angry with him because he is not playing soccer in the way that they find to be enriching to the game. This is as close of an analogy as I can find to how I feel.

I just think about a time in the future of bike polo where I will watch a final game in the final match of North Americans and the final goal that goes in to end the game is a lobbed scoop from 15 feet out that bounces through a goalies triangle and dribbles across the line. And that is the day where I will seriously walk away from this game for it will be too different from the game I grew addicted to. You could call this an unlikely hypothetical but with a legalized scoop shot it is a realistic possibility and it's the kind of realistic possibility that will send me and maybe many like me away. I don't mean that like a threat or some shit, I'm really just trying to be honest.

I'd pick up kayaking or something.

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

i laughed (in a good way). you win (this particular sub-sub-sub-sub battle--the war remains).

ha.

still funny.

Nick Kruse wrote:

So like, you can sit on your high horse of consistency and remark about how I change my opinion or find new ways to describe how I think but like, whatever man. You ever read Foucault? Do not ask me to remain the same.

Heh.

Nick Kruse wrote:

I just think about a time in the future of bike polo where I will watch a final game in the final match of North Americans and the final goal that goes in to end the game is a lobbed scoop from 15 feet out that bounces through a goalies triangle and dribbles across the line.

I know you didn't do it and aren't responsible for it... but should one desire it wouldn't be too hard to draw a parallel between the scenario you paint and the the shaft goal that won the MWs.

Fuck, I should have already quit. Anyone got a kayak for sale? :(

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

Nick, this is totally fair.

If your distaste for this (or any other proposed action) is a part of your ideal aesthetic of the game, and what has charmed you by the sport, I can't fault you (who could?) for stating your opinion is that it would harm it. I believe you also understand that some might have similar feelings about the beauty and creativity that can come from the addition of scoops/wristshots, and so their persistent desire is based on an ideal aesthetic no less.

What's painfully clear (perhaps the only thing here), is that this question/topic isn't going to go away no matter any outcome. We can expect it to persist.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

I would love to hear the rebuttal to this one.

There are hella (yeah, it's a scientifically significant form of measure) shots that are "easy" that everyone counts.

Please, Rory, Jason, fuckin' whomever enlighten us why those count if we're worried about eeeeeeease of the shot.

Enlighten me, I'm an idiot.

jason f-off wrote:

I'm curious...as a novice which seems like it takes more skill? scooping a ball over someone's tire using the open end or shooting top shelf into a corner with a capped mallet? as a rookie does ball jointing and ball joint passing seem like nuanced play as well? do you think banning shaft shots would be asinine?

I think both types of shots require a high degree of hand eye coordination, and need some set up to get off properly. Having a variety of shots allows you to utilize different tactics in different situations.

What I might ask you, and several others in this thread, is this: are the rules intended to make the game more difficult, or to facilitate smooth gameplay and enhance player safety?

it sucks...none of us are objective because we all have an idea of what we want polo to look like. so it sucks but I don't want polo to be super easy. I think rules should safeguard players first but safeguarding the game should be a very close second. I think scoops, bjs, screens, stacks and steering arm checks weaken the game...I can't not see it that way because that's how I see it. playing or watching...the tightest shit never involves any of the above. I'm always shocked when any of the above elicits oohs and aahs from the crowd!? I think rules do play a part in keeping the game from becoming a watered down version of itself. training wheels, beveled scoop mallets, beveled bj mallets, etc...they ruin the skill level of the game IMHO...

That's horse shit.

There are plenty of people who're trying to be objective and setup tests. There are apparently even more people who aren't and are happy to be subjective and apply unsubstantiated adjectives.

You and whomever else can keep thinking it's simply a matter of opinions as an easy dismissal mechanism, but it's not.

I'm not trying to thwart objective testing...I just don't think objective testing should be done at qualifiers. lets try it at reffed friendlies...there should be more of those than qualifiers and the sampling of players would be more inclusive.

since it's easier to scoop pass over/through me than it is to ground pass around/through me...then the same applies to shooting. that's why I think it's easier. it's also easier to bj than shot-pass and easier to top-shelf via scooping than ripping. soft touches on the ground are completely blockable even by players who can't do endo-blocks.

keep me honest...dismissiveness was not my intent and I'm glad you called me out on it. looking forward to empirical scoop data...but I can't lie and say I hope it goes against my biases.

Fair enough, I get what you're saying about time-and-place testing as a legitimate concern for this.

Let's look at it this way:

A lot of "friendlies" are, to use an old .ca saying "small potatoes," and more for fun and screwing around. While data can be collected it's not as meaningful and it gives people who are against scoops that out. "Well, we were all just screwing around at a screw around tournament, how can you think the data is significant?" That's just a though on how it might play out, and I believe it's justified based on some of the arguments I've seen here.

While "friendlies" do deliver a large sampling of players, with that comes a large sampling / disparity of skill levels. It stands to reason, based on Pareto 80/20, that at any given friendly tournament there's only going to be a tiny fraction of "skilled" teams.

Those "skilled" teams will, in theory, be able to score wrist/scoops at a higher frequency than the other 80% of the teams there. This means that the data has a large potential to come out skewed in a way that makes it seem "too easy," simply because it was "skilled" and practiced teams running a move on teams who weren't.

First round (or regional) qualifiers can also suffer from this to a degree since they're open at this point and the real test would come at NAs and Worlds. The thing is, as it's currently setup how do we collect data from only high level players, of generally equal skill, so we can objectively judge this?

One way would be to give people six or eight month's notice so people have time to practice then try it for a season with data being collected (again, we can decide on the KPIs before) and the ultimate culmination being the final games of regionals and then NAs.

Another way would be to give the same notice--eight months to a year--to 12-16 "skilled" teams from around the world, hold an invite tournament where anything goes (or just scoops/wrists) and offer the winning team $1000+ cash to each winning player.

Ideally, since there's a decent purse on the line, one would think that those teams would practice tactics that would get them that purse. We'd observe and weigh the ratio of shots and judge the ease from there. If 80% of the shots that are scored are wrists (because they're harder to defend etc) then sure... it would make sense to get rid of them.

--
EDIT:
In other words... it would seem like, since each team in both the scenarios had ample notice and time to practice shooting AND defending all different kinds of shots, that if one particular shot was scored at a high-ass ratio (again, we can decide on what the right ratio may be) then we could logically deem it "too easy."

Since there's cash or a title on the line, even with all the standup ethics we possess, there are going to be teams that will find some kind of loophole. If the magic formula is a scoop from 3.5' away at 44deg then I would imagine that someone will expose that flaw... the same way the turtle goalie thing happened...
---

I know there's flaws in that as well, but this is just off the dome "riffing" off what you brought up.

Ps.

"since it's easier to scoop pass over/through me than it is to ground pass around/through me...then the same applies to shooting."

One consideration is that you've had considerably more practice defending on the ground than defending scoops so it would stand to reason that it's easier for you to defend. Whereas if you focused on defending (recognizing the choreography etc) scoops etc you may be able to defend to virtually the same efficacy as the ground. I'm not saying I'm right, but just something to think about and to put into context.

also, if wrist shots are too hard to defend against for you, get better at playing.

Business end only. No wrist flips. Own goals count.

Ive just been voting up the comments where someone says regular shots only, I hope thats enough for my opinion to be counted.

Get rad

I mean, I love the progression of the game, I love the move towards the more Legit end of the spectrum...but I love the game as it was created and as it's currently played. Talked with one of the best players I know recently and polo is unlike anything else out there, it doesn't need much, if any, modification.

er... isn't the game is quite bit different today than how it was created... in part because people were willing to try new things?

not to be a dick to all of us unique little snowflake polo players out here in the world, but there are dozens of other non-mainstream sports and "lifestyle activities" that enjoy larger followings than hardcourt bike polo does. we aren't unique as we think we are.

and this goes for anything related to BP, not just scoops et al... and not directed at you specifically... but thinking we're so unique and special that we need to preserve "sacred" aspects because of nostalgia is pretty backward thinking.

it just reminds me of all the punk kids at Gilman St. in the late 90s that never wanted to let us have hardcore/SXE shows there because it would "ruin the tradition," or "cause too many problems." By and large all the people who were vehemently against changing anything turned out mostly to be people who'd created an identity based on their hobby-turned-lifestyle (being punk/listening to music) and any disturbance to their ideal situation was perceived as a threat or personal attack on their reality/lifestyle... which they felt like they needed to cling onto all aspects of, no matter how illogical.

...or maybe i've just been watching too many re-runs of frasier. damn you dr. crane... DAMN YOU!

Yeah, except that I'm not clingy, I'm happy with the game the way it is and I think trading cones for nets is an upgrade. I know that everyone's unique, just like me. But let me say it again, I'm happy with the game just the way it is.

In an era of hitting each other over the head with opinion, my two cents is, no changes necessary.

Way I see it, whether or not to allow wrist shots is a question of 'do we want to make it easier to score?' If it's already commonplace to score five goals in twelve minutes at competition level, the answer for me is 'no'

Cross that bridge when we come to it, cause we're not there yet.

Why dont the rules just stay as is? If there seems to be a NEED to include wrist/scoops in order to further the development of the game, we review it then? I'm pretty green, but have not seen the need, nor seen any of our stronger players ever lament that the lack of wrist shot hurts the flow of the game. Are we trying to fix something that isn't really all that broken to begin with?

this is our concern, dude.

Fair enough. I feel as though Ive very seldom been put in an instance where people have used wrist shots for anything but clearing the ball out of their end. Perhaps we're lucky in that no one here really gravitates towards that style of play and, as far as impacting my playing experience, it's been a none issue.

Yeah but you're in Winnipeg, the epicenter of all things just and holy. Come to America where things suck and people are greedy opportunists and then we will see how lucky you think we are!!!

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

Hahaha. I forgot to mention that when people have a good shooting opportunity goalies politely excuse themselves and get out of the way as to not obstruct the net. Therefore it really doesn't matter to us weather or not that person shoots, scoops or shuffles. We're just so gosh darn happy to see the ball go in and everyone having fair and equal amounts of fun that we couldn't be happier no matter how they score.

That's what I thought, fascist.

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

I personally dont think it should matter how it got into the goal. The ball crossed the line into the goal.....ah that should be a goal. People keep on talking about wrist and scoop shoot, yes they suck and its hard and sometime impossible to defend...ok. how about we change the rule about the mallet head and require both ends to be capped. That would eliminate that, make it fair, and open up the whole goal without anyone bitching about it. oh and shuffles....so what, thats just more shots on goal. A ball shot on goal is defended the same way, whether its a shuffle or a standard shot. As far as the freak shots(shaft, wheel,bounces, headbutts, punches, jedi), what ever it crossed your goal. I know of a few very successful sports that have basically that idea, what ever crosses the goal is a point.
Im also, fine keeping it the way it is. I just think that there is to much bitching about the subject. The logical thing to me, is to make it all legal so everyone can stop bitching about it and find something else to bitch about, like double goalie.

just saying

double caps, shuffles count. all problems solved.