Polo Rules

ok (for what it's worth) my input...

1. I'm for limiting goals to head / shoulder height. Couple of reasons: firstly, like Mike says, it would suck loosing a goal that you have no chance in hell of saving as it's 30 foot off the ground. Secondly i think it may be easier to ref with a limited height.

2. end of mallet only

3. ball to body ok, body to ball not ok. Catching, slapping, kicking etc are definate no-no's and should be treated as a footdown.

Whereas in all the sports that use posts and a net, the decisions relating to whether a goal has been scored are always 100% correct?

It was 1966. Let it go...nobody else here is old enough to remember anyway :)

I think with cones theres always going to be a margin of interpretation. Its about whether we want to dispute goals over the location of an imaginary crossbar as well as the location of imaginary extended posts, which is why I tend to prefer infinity.

If we're going to agree on,say, shoulder height, should we have an agreed standard shoulder? Or can I get a dwarf on a bike, put them in goal and use them as a reference? I'm not against an agreed maximum height, as long as we're prepared for the inevitable arguments that come with judging that..

Incidentally, I think actual goalposts is a really interesting idea..Im not sure theyre practical for every pickup/league game though so I think we need to agree on some rules for the cones...

Those goals were counted, I believe, Hops (they weren't too high - one went off my shoulder as I hid my teeth from the ball, the other either went just above my shoulder, or behind my torso). All the other goals that could have won you the game were expertly stopped by me.

One was, one wasn't, one was way high, i couldn't judge it so no goal. The other just missed about halfway down your back, well in.

Coo. I was a bit distracted by your not-at-all sub-par heckling ;)

you suk

Whilst we’re talking about rules, can we discuss this one:

After being scored against, a team cannot cross the half-way line until the other team have tapped out.

The whole point of making a team tap out at their own goal after scoring is to get them back in their defensive area, so both teams are on their own side. The team scored against have time to pick up and start with the ball.

If the team that have been scored against then have to wait at the half-way line, there’s no incentive for the team who scored to tap out quickly.

With this new rule, (I’ve seen this at throw in games recently) players can take their time, make the other team wait at the half-way line … sometimes plays have to be restarted because someone hasn’t tapped out yet, it just kills the speed of the game.

Scrap this rule; it’s an unnecessary addition. If you score, you have to get back to your goals quickly, tap out, and get back in the game. Simple.

Didn't we just have this discussion? (Just re-read the other thread. Kinda, it was more about possession going to the scored-on team after a goal - not allowing balls that bounce back to the other side of the court to become possession of the team that just scored).

Remember the good ol' days when there were no discussions of rules and we just played polo?

[/glazed-eyed stare into middle distance]

Remember the good ol' days when there were no discussions of rules and we just played polo?

[/glazed-eyed stare into middle distance]

yeah...i remember.

Didn't we just have this discussion? (Just re-read the other thread. Kinda, it was more about possession going to the scored-on team after a goal - not allowing balls that bounce back to the other side of the court to become possession of the team that just scored).

Exactly, you start making more rules to counter the possibilities that the original rule creates. Scrap it! Score, tap out, get back in the game.

errr this isnt really a rule this is called 'playing' your on, your in, i know the intention of the ball carriers face, tis set, were on.
]i don't remember having to remember this.

errr this isnt really a rule this is called 'playing' your on, your in, i know the intention of the ball carriers face, tis set, were on.
]i don't remember having to remember this.

Quoted for prosperity. ;)

It was 1966. Let it go...nobody else here is old enough to remember anyway :)

I think with cones theres always going to be a margin of interpretation. Its about whether we want to dispute goals over the location of an imaginary crossbar as well as the location of imaginary extended posts, which is why I tend to prefer infinity.

If we're going to agree on,say, shoulder height, should we have an agreed standard shoulder? Or can I get a dwarf on a bike, put them in goal and use them as a reference? I'm not against an agreed maximum height, as long as we're prepared for the inevitable arguments that come with judging that..

Incidentally, I think actual goalposts is a really interesting idea..Im not sure theyre practical for every pickup/league game though so I think we need to agree on some rules for the cones...

alot of sports that have cross bars introduced them so to stop the gollies being injured by hard balls to the head, then the sizes changed as protective equipment improved or was worn and the difficulty of scoring became more of a concern.

errr this isnt really a rule this is called 'playing' your on, your in, i know the intention of the ball carriers face, tis set, were on.
]i don't remember having to remember this.

Alcohol.

For goals, what the north americans do is either play 700c wheel height or, if the cones are a good size, top of the cones. This is far better, i think, than playing something like infinity (which is ridiculous) or head or shoulder height. After all, whose head or shoulder are we talking about? And we probably want to encourage low shots, as we don't want high mallets swinging all over the place.

So i strongly encourage wheel height or cone height.

Also, for the record, i think that the north american (and parisian) rule of giving the offense halfcourt is much better than allowing the defense to attack full court after the defense has tapped out. The half court rule makes things very clear. The offense can cross halfcourt after the defense taps out, and then defense cannot attack until the offense crosses halfcourt.

Alcohol.

alot.

We're currently looking at a full set of LHBPA rules for use in the Euro's next year. Should have a definitive set of rules for league and competiton games set up within the next couple of weeks.

I'll be taking all these opinions and those on other threads into account so keep em coming.

errr this isnt really a rule this is called 'playing' your on, your in, i know the intention of the ball carriers face, tis set, were on.
]i don't remember having to remember this.

Competition: rearrange these words to make a well known English sentence.

1. I'm going to say something slightly different here. This rule, for the league, for this season has already been decided. You can't change it now as that would mean either changing the scores from at least 3 previous matches, or hindering future games. Whether we agree or disagree is moot, it's already been decided.
   So I say the rule for this league, this season is goals to infinity. Treat it like experimenting and if it needs fixing, fix it for next season/tournaments.
   
   

As for body to ball, I say if your hands are on your handlebars/mallet and your arse is in your saddle you can use your body to block goals. I say you can use your feet for blocking, but I believe I'm in the minority.
On top of this you must allow people to instinctively use their hands to block their face,etc. That's just common sense. But you can't catch the ball or add momentum. This covers riding around with it in your pocket.

And Im with Otters, WTF is Skoota saying above!?!?!?

There has been rule changes since the league started...timeouts for instance.

We're currently looking at a full set of LHBPA rules for use in the Euro's next year [...] I'll be taking all these opinions and those on other threads into account so keep em coming.

Competition: rearrange these words to make a well known English sentence.

Errr. Isn't this the rule: the carrier's ball is really a face. Remember this, your intention - 'tis called playing on. I know, we're having to remember this set.
I don't.
You're in.

Nice, Tomasito! That makes more sense too.

Let's see it all through with what we've got and improve for the next league.

With this new rule, (I’ve seen this at throw in games recently) players can take their time, make the other team wait at the half-way line … sometimes plays have to be restarted because someone hasn’t tapped out yet, it just kills the speed of the game.

i was kind of mentioning this ^ in my own way.
essentially if you have the ball under control and your 'set' ready to play, then play, don't fuck about telling people they have to wait til you cross the line.. either all the players have tapped and are ready or they aren't...

sorry i still think i said it better before.

Does anybody have a copy of the Euros rules in full somewhere? We'd like to use these for the Amsterdam qualis and I can't find them in the threads.

If possible please email to tomcbwilliams 'at' gmail 'dot' com.

Thanks a lot to anyone who can help!