Jump to Navigation

Login / Register

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

Offense Plugging the goal

I looked and didn't see this in the current rules. Is it allowed for an offense player to stick their wheel inside your goal and prevent a goalie? Talk about boring. No bike should be allow past the goal line, right?

Wrong

can opener – adjective
1 when and offensive player puts their bike in a position such that a no defensive player can assume the goalie position. Thus opening a portion of goal that is not defendable (DC). Also referred to as a “barn door” as in, you can’t miss the opening, it’s a barn door!

Yeah I get the feeling that shit is wack. An effective technique, but wack as fuck.

"oh, but it's not against the rules, and it's effective, you should just find a way around it and not get stuck with your pants down..."

All I have to say to that is go fuck yourself.

Remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_2oKWe2Gw

Boring and shitty and unsportsmanlike. The NHL implemented a rule the following day banning the tactic.

Is that really the kind of play we want to see? Fuck daht.

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

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

Mark Davis wrote:

Yeah I get the feeling that shit is wack. An effective technique, but wack as fuck.

"oh, but it's not against the rules, and it's effective, you should just find a way around it and not get stuck with your pants down..."

All I have to say to that is go fuck yourself.

Remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_2oKWe2Gw

Boring and shitty and unsportsmanlike. The NHL implemented a rule the following day banning the tactic.

Is that really the kind of play we want to see? Fuck daht.

that was awesome. i love avery.

Agreed, on both can opener being lame, and that Avery move (though it is funny).

But legislating against a can opener is much harder, without having to define things like a crease.

No part of an attackers bike may be behind the goal line? That doesn't stop someone doing a can opener up to the line.

Yes, correct, we already have what we need mostly, by just saying, no one, offensive or defense, should be inside the goal (past the goal line).

Why not defensive? They don't gain anything from doing it, seems like it would just be a pointless penalty.

Yes, I agree with you. I was just thinking no one should be inside there for a number of reasons.

You should be permitted to defend your goal - I would interpret an offensive player positioning their bike in such a way that they are interfering with a defender attempting to take normal action to block their goal as initiating bike to bike contact, which is a penalty.

clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

But if they are there first, and then the goalie rides into them, surely that's the goalie initiating contact (no right of way rule, etc...)

Best case: its a very boring unsportsmanlike like goal. Worst case: Pileup, clusterfuck, bike-on-bike.

I am fully in agreement. The difficulties arise with writing the language which would define such a maneuver.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

you have 50~ft to defend your goal, if you're depending on one player to do all the work, then you deserve to be scored on.

You're on a slippery slope to threatening to ride your bike full speed into the side of Al Montgomery

clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

A goal is a goal. Cry me a river ya'll

1) There are no positions, and "goalie" isn't defined. "Goalkeeping" (v) is an action by any player.
2) There is no crease, so defining actions would be problematic without it.
3) Being that static picks are legal, creating a rule against the can opener would be contradictory to the idea that you can create an offensive attack based on denying your opponent a specific lane.

I've set up a bunch of can openers, and I can't think of a single time it worked. Almost every time I've done this, it's been a waste of time where I should have been out moving around and helping my team offensively. It's not an invincible technique, and IMO you sacrifice more than you gain. I don't think it's great, but I don't think we need a special rule for it either.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Urban Editor wrote:

1) There are no positions, and "goalie" isn't defined. "Goalkeeping" (v) is an action by any player.
2) There is no crease, so defining actions would be problematic without it.
3) Being that static picks are legal, creating a rule against the can opener would be contradictory to the idea that you can create an offensive attack based on denying your opponent a specific lane.

I've set up a bunch of can openers, and I can't think of a single time it worked. Almost every time I've done this, it's been a waste of time where I should have been out moving around and helping my team offensively. It's not an invincible technique, and IMO you sacrifice more than you gain. I don't think it's great, but I don't think we need a special rule for it either.

This sums it up. A coherent and logical ruleset can not have a rule against this without defining a crease and defining a goalie. Unless you do like is said above and ban the bike crossing the goal line, but even then you're just banning a small fraction of the ways that a player can perform a "can opener". It's still the same effect if they stop right before their front wheel crosses the line and is the same action that you dislike.

Tough one but you can't ban this action without further definition.

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

Nick Kruse wrote:

A coherent and logical ruleset can not have a rule against this without defining a crease and defining a goalie.

I think defining a crease would be enough, without adding extra language to define a goalie.

"No offensive player may ride his/her bike into the crease."

No need to talk about specific defensive roles, the above rule precludes can openers.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

You're right this *would* work in terms of wording. But I see this summoning more controversy about whether an offensive player was in the crease when the shot.

Would we be inventing a new problem to solve an aesthetic issue of play?

E.g. - 1 on 1 break away. Offensive player goes for a surgical tap at a high angle near the goalie's rear wheel. The ball passes the goal line. But wait! The goalie claims he rode through the crease. You don't know because you were watching the goal line.

E.g. - Offensive player tripods on the edge of the crease, and screens defensive player from riding into goal. Is this a different play, or just an acceptable form of the old play? A can opener is just a screen at a specific part of the court. Excluding a screen in the crease doesn't prevent offensive players from stopping defensive players from taking a goal-keeper role. So what's the objective of the rule?

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Your second example is simply a matter of scale, I think. We aren't against screens everywhere (well...), we are just against screens at an unacceptable range from the goal - ones that create an unbalanced advantage. I think you could pick a crease size that would allow for the ones we want and disallow the ones we didn't want. But I do see your point - if two screens attempt to do the same thing just at different places on the court, then what is the real difference? I think the difference is that there is a distance from the goal that advantage created by the screen becomes unreasonably unfair. It's just about deciding where that is.

You could also write this rule to account for your one on one situation. I love the way the NHL rules help me conceptualize our own rules. Read how they explain it: http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480

Now, it wouldn't be exactly the same - especially if we're trying to avoid defining a goalie, but you can see the parallels regarding how we could write it to allow for offensive presence in the crease but not offensive presence in the crease that disables the ability to defend the goal.

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

I don't think your first example would be a problem with an appropriately sized / shaped crease.

With black being the goal, red being the crease, and blue being the space occupied by an in-place goalie.

There's really no room for a 1 on 1 breakaway offensive player to get into the crease without running his bike into the defender, and even if he were able to it would be a pretty ineffective shooting strategy to do so. Think about the angles involved.

As a catch-all, referee discretion language (like in the hockey rules Kruse linked) would adequately cover that situation.

As for the second example of a pick set just outside the crease, I don't think those are a problem worth thinking about. There is no one set angle of entry for a goalie; good players can approach from the front and nose pivot to get into position, and I don't think a strategy is "broken" just because it requires advanced bike handling to defeat it.

And if you've got an offensive player scooting forward and back just outside the crease to try and prevent any angle of entry, then he's certainly not going to be helping his teammate offensively. The "broken" strategy is to crash into the goal to prevent a goalie at half-in position from rolling forward to cover the front door (or vice versa for back door). Having offensive players rolling around in front of goal trying to screen defenders from getting into the crease is not a game-winning strategy.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

If the crease is as drawn here, the people wanting the crease for purposes of getting rid of double/triple goalie strategies won't be happy. I guess I'm imagining the crease larger than this (like the post below).

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

yes, you're right.

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

so... why aren't we writing a crease into the rules?

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

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

this is a subject meant for other threads, and OP was not talking about a crease, just defining the goal line as something that an offensive player should not be crossing to set up plays.

The thread is about plugging the goal. The discussion came around to how a crease would take care of that, I just asked a pertinent question, that's all.

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

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

As much as I like to use the can opener in pickup, I do agree that it's interfering with the defender who's attempting to protect the goal, and therefore should be illegal.

My concern is how would you enforce an offensive player riding into the crease, and how strictly would this be enforced? To pull from hockey, offensive players are now allowed to skate through the crease without being penalized. Years back (~7 or so) the crease rules used to be more strict, but they did away with those rules. If I'm not mistaken, play used to stop if an offensive player went inside the crease. Now the rules are more lenient.

I'd say offensive players can't interfere with the defender in goal, but can enter the crease on rare occasions, such as if the ball is behind the goalie's wheel and a tap would suffice for the goal to count. This is similar to when a goalie makes a stop in hockey, but the puck is loose and the offense whacks at it in a legitimate attempt to score. Of course, the language would have to allow these rare occasions while prohibiting the offense from entering the crease at all times.

There's also different types of creases in hockey. If a crease is created, there should also be a discussion as to which type of crease is best for polo [see attachment].

Last thought- why would it be legal to lift (read: interfere with) a goalie's mallet? Do we consider this less advantageous for the offense than the can opener? In some ways, I'd say yes. As for consistency within the rule set, I find it a bit hypocritical.

  • crease.png

Are people interested in going to a primary vote on this as part of the other possible inclusions in the 2014 ruleset?

I'm open to trying to figure out something to account for this. I am confident that writing a preliminary crease rule to prevent this type of play would be achievable and effective. But a crease creates additional required infrastructure for regional qualifiers and the NA championships. Not necessarily a bad thing, but one more thing a club must be accountable for. We are already looking at adding a required goal line that extends across the court. If we add this too, those are some bigger changes to what a tournament must provide. Not crazy or hard, but they are big changes.

I like the idea of a crease, and we could start by just writing it in to account for the can opener, and avoid the double goalie issue until at least we have an established precedent for the extra court markings, etc... not that I'm trying to squeak something like a double goalie rule in in the future.

I just mean to say that we can treat these two issues separately and should discuss them as separate rule changes. Even though a crease could be written to account for both.

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

What came first: the double goalie, or the blocking play?

I had an interesting dilemma at the Euro Bench where I informed a captain they were making the game into a cluster-fuck game because they kept putting two attackers waaaay ahead of the ball to initiate perma-screens on my team. His response was that they had only resorted to the perma-screens because we kept retreating towards our goal as his players tried to instigate blocks (leading to double-goalies or worse, etc).

I think that just instigating an effective crease rule is going to cement the blocking play (ball carrier at the back) as the new go-to risk-aversion tactic. I think the crease rule has some serious flaws and we should also consider innovative new ways (or not) of tackling any perceived problems with our game.

Personally my favourite games involve loads of ball/player movement and the use of the whole court.... the only way you can guarantee this type of game is with an end-zone drill (or similar), take from that what you will.

Thanks for doing such a great job with this stuff Nick so far, I think you're chairing rule-based decisions excellently.

These are good thoughts, and thanks. I think more and more about hypothetical offsides rules all the time. You practically eliminate airborne passes to cherry pickers, the need for high sticking, screen heavy games, and you would hypothetically give more security to a defensive game focused on forechecks rather than stacking goalies.

You would lessen the risk of the defense attacking the ball and I think defenses would open up more because of this more reasonable associated risk.

But that is absolutely day dreaming at this point.

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

no blocks or screens...done. I know people love them and teams depend on them but we should seriously think about why screening the goal is "wack" and decide whether or not screening a player is "wack". I have defended what I call lane-creating screens in the past but watching screening/blocking games is so mindnumbingly, soulcrushingly boring that I say we ban all screens and blocks. getting the inside lane on a defender for a one-timer should be about finesse not ramming or playing chicken. screening/blocking naturally leads to stacking and clusterfucking!

yo kruse! you starting a screen/block thread? did you and I missed it?

But if you ban blocks and screens, surely that's the same as a right-of-way rule.

Is that something we want?

Completely different in my opinion:

Blocks and screens involve taking two players out of the game momentarily (off the ball) and leads to 2-dimensional and sometimes clusterfuck polo (if all the players retreat towards their goal). I'm glad pinning at the boards is a penalty now (for example) as that was very lame to experience/watch.

Right-of-way is about the difference between horse/grass polo where you cannot "dangerously" challenge the ball carrier versus our mentality of 'look up and live' (because as the ball carrier you're always about to get hit, hard, which is awesome). I don't think anyone is in support of a right-of-way rule anymore?

I'm not necessarily in support of banning blocks/screens, but I think it's important not to confuse too many issues (although I realise the game needs analysing as a whole).

But surely the two are linked.

How do you define someone being blocked, without reference to where they were going, and the blocking being in the way.

In fact even trapping is in a sense a right-of-way rule.

I see what you mean but offside scenarios, or no ball carrier at the back of the court, or no stopping, etc, would all ease perma-blocking.

Nick Kruse wrote:

But a crease creates additional required infrastructure for regional qualifiers and the NA championships. Not necessarily a bad thing, but one more thing a club must be accountable for.

This is not something to be ignored. While it's easy for us to go spray paint a crease on our pickup courts, when playing at "nice" facilities - privately owned street hockey courts, like the ones in Florida for Worlds - the host clubs will likely NOT have the option of marking up the courts.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Water-soluble spray paint is widely available, although it does come off in the rain (as anyone at LO2012 probably experienced).

A good test would be the spray chalk in a can (looks like spray paint) or perhaps tape (sounds like it would get messed up IMO), and see how often markings would need to be reapplied over a day.

Also parking lots and converted tennis courts make putting marks down a serious problem for host bidding.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang