Polo Rules

I made a post on LOBP about some weird situations during EHBPC and the advantages calls:
https://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2014/07/07/weird-delayed-penalties-situation-nah-ruleset-43

1)
Classical move from the ref: being too quick on the wistle:
Team A have the Ball, Team B make a foul that the ref see but Team A still get the ball in a good position. Ref call the foul and stop the game, breaking the advantage.
-In this situation, almost every time, Team A complain because they lost the advantage. Ref apologies and only reset the game. During this time, Team B, can get back in a good defensive position, making Team A goes from a situation who should have been a advantage to a shitty situation where Team is ready to defend.
-Answer:
These days it seems normal that ref cancel the advantage and only apologies...
BUT
Why not giving back the advantage to Team A, even if the ref had stop the game?
This way Team A don't get completly fuck by ref mistake. In the actual situation, they lost their advantage and Team B get the time to reset in a good position, with my solution, they can at least get the advantage, even if Team B had time to get back in good position.
When Benji from Utopists was reffing our game against Instinct in Padova he did such a thing. After a mallet under the wheel he blows the wistle, and we still get the advantage. Regarding the foul and the situation, it seems it was a good choice.
2)
What happen if the ball goes out during an advantage situation? Should we care of who put the ball out if it was not on purpose?
We get penalized during a game in wich a player, Doddi, was ball handling like pro during minutes. So he get an advantage situation wich lasted long, and when we finally success to touch the ball, it goes out of bounds. As it was one of us who push the ball out, they kept the ball again and still get the advantage, this shit lasted for ever. Is that logical or should we say an advantage situation is broken when the ball goes out?
3)
What should do a player to stop the advantage, only touching the ball with the end of is mallet or really get a small control of it?
If we say that just touching or shooting the ball away is not enough, does that mean that a player can score during an advantage for the other team by shooting from is own side? It seems that in Ice hockey this can be true.
According to the ruleset, a possession for the last player who touched the ball, so is that the same when an advantage situation occcurs? does a small touch count as possesion?
Alternative question: If a touch by the end is a control, what happens if you touch it while highsticking. This happens in Padova EHBPC 2014. A team get the advantage, tried to score, the ball after the shot deflected high in the air on some bike, the keeper try to control it way above his own head and touched it. The ref blow the wistle for stopping the game, thinking that this foul and the lost of the ball stopped the advantage. Right after the blow the ball went straight to nets, making the high stick move a own goal move. As the wistle where blow before, ref didn't counted in. I think he just gave the ball back to the team who had the advantage, making the high sticking counting as a possession... This was messy as shit to deal with.
4)
When a player make a foul during an advantage for the other team, the ruleset say that the team should take 30 sec if I get it right. Isn't that too much for some really small fouls?

Instead of a crease, why not just a bigger goal?

That would be lame, you could still turtle a bigger goal anyway... How much bigger?

No...

Bigger goal would suck, it'd mean even more long shots.

I could see Josh voting for it.

That would be lame, you could still turtle a bigger goal anyway... How much bigger?

No...

Bigger like eight to ten foot wide. Turtling would be a lot less effective as you wouldn't be able to basically cover the whole goal.

Bigger goal would suck, it'd mean even more long shots.

One player in goal can still stop the long hopeful shots.

Try it, goalkeeping a nine foot goal is good practice and then try double keeping on it.

#suckitandsee

Triple keeper long shot game.
If you play three out then as soon as possession is lost people will bang out hopefull long shots, some people are good enough to get these on target mostly already, a bigger goal would just make it easier, forcing people to keep a man right back for most of the game, a crease is a much better idea and more likely to encourage the flowing polo people want to see. It is also easier to implement as all it needs is a bit of chalk or paint rather than the fabrication of all new giant goals everywhere.

There no point having theoretical games in your head, try it at throwin's. Then try a crease and see which works better?

I've tried a crease and it worked really well.

It's also better euphemisms.

YOUR a crease... #etc #eg

Advantage rule is bullshit, end of.
During an advantage you should be given one opportunity (20 seconds?) to have an attempt on goal without threat of a counter attack. If the team chooses to fuck around in this 20 seconds, advantage over, if they have a shot or possession is turned over, so is the ball. The current rule slows the play and makes the game too stop/start.
In football, if an advantage is played they don't have an unlimited time frame to attack, because it’s ridiculous.

Was supposed to quote something there but forgot.

It's only a start-stop game if players constantly foul. Putting a time limit on the advantage might make the game flow much better, but with such a small court, the team with advantage could lose the ball and the offending team could easily break and score. Calling a player over for a chat once the advantage is lost with a warning after let's say 2 advantage given that he'll get a 30 second (if warranted) for the next foul should do the job. Football is a different game altogether, the advantage rule in bike polo is based on ice hockey.

I can't get the feeling out of my head that we have strangled the life out of this game, before its even into adolescence.

You weren't in Padova. The game is doing well enough considering we have players who observe the rules only when they have the ref's attention.

I can't get the feeling out of my head that we have strangled the life out of this game, before its even into adolescence.

I didn't realise that the 'game' was only relevant in 'padova'. We are talking about the rules not the euros. I feel most of all, that rules flawed or not should get more than a 9 month / yearly outing. Let the game settle into itself, rather than constantly amend every year. I'm so bored of rules discussions. I understand the game pretty well, but to the outsider it was hard to understand before we added 9 reams of paper to the rules every year.

A 70 team continental championship is a pretty good indicator of the standard and style of play each scene brings.

The newer "advanced" rules are necessary for the top-half teams, whereas some of the teams who never stood a chance of playing for more than 1 day don't even seem to know the difference between hacking/slashing and hooking.

. I'm so bored of rules discussions.

Says the man posting in the rules thread.

#Trollpost

The current ruleset is very good and has made the game more enjoyable to play and watch. Feedack from the euros: The biggest problem is players not knowing the rules and poor reffing, not the rules themselves.

When players don't understand (or haven't read) the rules, the game becomes very stop/start, especially in a competitive environment like the Euros. When ref isn't up to the job the game becomes ugly. On the final day in the latter stages of the double elim - when teams understood the rules and knew that the ref will blow the wistle - games became very clean and amazing to watch, spectators were applauding moves and plays.

Problems
Players:
1) Several players didn't know that off ball checking is a penalty.
2) Subsequently players didn't know that incidental contact on a screen is OK. This lead to confusion.
3) Goal mouth clusterfuck. Lots of dubious 'incidental' body-body and bike-bike contact. This happened far too often.

Reffing:
1) Refs with a poor understanding of the rules. (one or two)
2) Refs not enforcing the rules. (more common)

There is a simple solution for both of these. Have a head ref, have a refs briefing and have the head ref brief the players about penalty rules before the start of the tournament/for each group.

I would also like to see some official NAH demonstration videos about the contact rules. Clear, short clips about what is legal and what should be called.

jesus. one post in 9000000000. and i'm trolling?

I think one of the main problems of current reffing and as a consequence also one of the main problems of the game is the often near religious belief in the holy grail of the ruleset. just because something is written on a piece of paper doesn't mean ít is good.
In my opinion, many rules could be made redundant with proper refs with balls, that we already have, and a paragraph on dangerous play.
In addition to that, you can always call dangerous play on a play that is within the ruleset but unnecessaryly hard or whatever.

I love you adam but I disagree

rugby has a penalty for dissent.... Agree with hyper allah on poor reffing and the need for players to know the rules better. refs definitely need more support. Videos of infractions is a must for clarity and definitely player ref briefings before tournaments with said videos. The whole thing is difficult because throw ins are like kick arounds and the only real place to see if the rules work is at a tournament. Thats my two pennies worth. haha

All the euro reps should be made into refs, like a union like...