Shots off the front wheel - rule?

Yeah
I abandonned the "put all stick on ground to stop ball" few month ago, cause i didn't believe in it. But seeing you doing it at Greif make me trust in it again, so yesterday i made it few time in polo trainig, really cool and hockey style move.

About the non-ref screaming, in Greif i think that goal ref was not clearly distingue from crowd. For ehbpc 2010, we are working on ugly t-shirts for ref, like in Rugby, black and withes stripes.

We need to have a clear systeme of signal with arms between ref and goalref. And a clear code about wistling.

Oh and ze no handed upside down tailspin goal, why, yez I mastered zees in ze world championships when I was, eh, seven years old.

Yes, voting will commence promptly at 2pm.

i vote 2.30

3 fish and a pancake

Hahaha

Who wants to try a wheely reverse shot

As in an endo?

I am pretty sure that I have seen jono do this a few times.

**a goal is a goal if the ball passes the line, unless it was a shuffle from an attacking player. **

This allows Radball shots. Radball shots should not be allowed. Radball shots should be defined as any time the offensive player hits the ball with her wheel. Period. Nothing about deflections or reflections. A ball coming off an offensive player's wheel is never a goal. It is a radball shot.

If a shot "deflects" off your teammate's mallet shuffle-side is it a goal? No. It's a shuffle.

Oh and ze no handed upside down tailspin goal, why, yez I mastered zees in ze world championships when I was, eh, seven years old.

racist!

Radball shot is WONDERFUL!

agreed, allow it (so long as it starts as a shot)

exactly, your last touch could be 10 yards from goal, then flick it in with your wheel within a yard, it would be very hard to be able to remember what your last touch was. As that would be asking too much of a ref I would rule it a goal.

So youre suggesting that if I hit a shuffle all the way across court slowly, and it goes in, its a goal, because it was too hard to remember my last touch? What about the move that goes "hit shot slowly, then lift tripod goalies mallet"? Is that always a goal, because its too hard to remember the last touch? Even if you thought that was true, the ehbpc rules were very clearly "in the event of any doubt, its NOT a goal". Unless youre Malice :)

Its only a goal if it comes from a clean shot. Anything else is a shuffle. I tend to think that if youre good enough to pull that move off, youre good enough to know which end of the mallet you used, and honest enough to admit it, but if not, its the ref/goal refs job to be watching play and call what they see.

Radball shot is WONDERFUL!

Dude i know. I've got a mean radball shot. But that's not polo.

It can become polo if people want to... every day the rules moving a lil' bit.

About the clear pre-shot before goal scoring with front wheel. If the player make a intentionnal shoot with wheel after "legal"shot, then tha'ts a goal? for most of you it seems that yes.
Does the intention of shooting by front wheel (after lil touch by end of mallet) needs to be illegal for someone?

Look at rules that have been added, such as No ball-jointing up to goal, and shooting. I used to do this, all the time, it was boring. Paris BFF introducing this rule, changed how I play, for the better too.

Trying to stop someone from doing something that is out of laziness or lack of skill is one thing, trying to penalise a player because they have the skills to do something is another thing.

I'm all for wheel-flicks if it started as a shot.

Here's another problem I have with involving your bike in playing the ball.

offensive player has the ball and charging on goal, defensive player can hook the offensive players mallet to prevent a hit on goal. If the offensive player can hit the ball with his wheel to score then what's stopping the defensive player from using his wheel to stop the offensive player from getting a hit on goal? Considering that we're talking about front wheel hits, then this almost guarantees that the offensive player goes down due to purposeful bike-to-bike contact very similiar to a 'T-bone'.

The argument about less rules means to me that if you just disallow the maneuver then you don't have make a rule saying you can score with your wheel only after a 'hit' and then keep one rule about like to like contact and then make an exception to it effectively creating two seperate rules. So IMO three rules are needed to make this play fair.

Remember Jack from Sick Buckets and his concept of bike-to-bike?
If using your wheel more and polo becomes more radball oriented, in a worse case scenario, I predict that you'll see more plays, like, this. (yes, poor example but best images I have of gray-area bike to bike contact)

Yeah, I think it's a good thing to develop new skills... it would be a shame to move the sport too far away from "polo" though, you may as well get some radball players to form a team, I'm sure they'd do well.

Personally I find it a bit weak for the last hit of the ball to be a shot as it's just pandering to existing rules and seems like some kind of halfway-house compromise. Why should the last shot be a shuffle, because it'd be too easy otherwise (which is why the shuffle rule exists)? I'm not sure about that...

so what about goals that are scored with the back wheel by skidding into a rebound after a shot from a teammate? I've seen it done, done it myself, I think lots of us have.

And also, if a ball rebounds of the back wall, and then bounces off someones wheel unintentionally, it's also a goal. I argue that if this is allowed, wheel-flicks should be allowed.

Also, in goal, players often flick the ball away. Should this also be disallowed?

In a sense, that's the point I was getting at. All these exceptions to like-to-like. If we start seriously sorting out what your bike can and can't be used for, A) it can greatly advance the standard rules away from ambiguity, and B) make for a safer game.

I don't think you can do it half-assed and start allowing some stuff without dis-allowing other stuff.

a bike should be involved in play, otherwise it becomes 'mallet polo'

anyway, t-bones are cool, Pipe Gang proved it at the Greifs

a bike should be involved in play, otherwise it becomes 'mallet polo'

um, you're riding a bike

what i'm saying matt, is, if we have myriad rules about how the bike can interact with the ball, it's kinda pointless.

Personally I find it a bit weak for the last hit of the ball to be a shot as it's just pandering to existing rules and seems like some kind of halfway-house compromise.

Exactly. The existing rules essentially say "shot + deflection=goal".

If we decide to disallow a wheel flick goal that starts as a shot, we're going to have to invent a rule to decide that the deflection was intentional, because shots that deflect off wheels are currently legal.

Part of the disallowing balljoints rule was that it wasnt a clean hit from the end of a mallet. Neither is a radball style flick. If youre suggesting we start allowing shots that arent hit from the end of a mallet, thats a definite change to the idea of polo.

;1205138']Remember Jack from Sick Buckets and his concept of bike-to-bike?

Dont forget Max's concept of off-the-ball contact..

very interesting topic I d like to simply add a few things :

"The real probleme of shuffle->wheel-> goal, is more like whe you go behind the goalkeaper and shuffle on his rear wheel to try to have a reflexion on goal..."

I d like to point this example precisely because I often shoot into the goalie's wheels from the back of the goal with the intention of scoring, but I dont shuffle the ball into his wheels - I shoot it; and for me it makes a big difference, because I ve seen some people shuffling it and goal beeing counted because the rebound on the goalie's wheel counts it.

I m saying this because in this case, Marc apparently shuffled the ball into his own wheel before he took the shot, but he didnt shuffle the ball with the direction of the goal; it s not that piece of movement that made the ball pass the line. He made an additional technical move that allowed the ball to cross the line, and if we simplified the situation, we would see that he didnt shuffle the ball in direction of the goal. It s tricky to explain but easy to see. There was something else between Marc so called shuffle (or pass to his wheel) and the wheel shot

so for me it goes down to what Kev said :
**a goal is a goal if the ball passes the line, unless it was a shuffle from an attacking player. **

good night

About the non-ref screaming, in Greif i think that goal ref was not clearly distingue from crowd. For ehbpc 2010, we are working on ugly t-shirts for ref, like in Rugby, black and withes stripes.

We need to have a clear systeme of signal with arms between ref and goalref. And a clear code about wistling.

This is obvious, and something that the centre ref must, without fail, do before the start of the game:

make sure s/he has a designated goal-ref at both ends, and that that individual knows that they are it, and that their decision is the only decision that matters (as in when DT called 'no-goal' for Beards shot, when everyone around him was screaming goal), and that they clearly signal a goal to the centre ref.

I did this for every game I reffed.

It does help to give the goal-refs a distinctive shirt to wear, but it's not totally necessary.

At some point before EHBPC, there needs to be long discussion about what the rules are, and how the refs are supposed to enforce them, which includes all the people that are going to be reffing.

its the ref/goal refs job to be watching play and call what they see.

+1

plus:

And not to call things they didn't see, but someone else told them they saw.