Comments on rules / refs I sent to NA Hardcourt

In the example above, apologies I can't remember the specific occasion, would I be correct in assuming that it was a dead ball and that neither team was in possession when Matt and yourself chased it down?

From memory, I would say the ball was loose.

Being pedantic, if the ball was loose and you collided whilst both of you were trying to get to the ball (Irrespective of whether one of you got there marginally before after the other) I fail to see how a bike to bike rule would help.

Surely the basis of the rule you put above is dictated by the attacker/defender relationship. If the ball was loose then you were both attackers?

I'm not trying to be defeatist but I still can't see a situation where we need an additional bike to bike rule on top of the t-bone rule?

Fair enough.

Just to be clear, are you accepting that there's no need for a bike to bike rule, based on this conversation or will you want to revisit this later?
For the record, I'm not necessarily right in my opinion, there may be a circumstance that necessitates the creation of a rule. But, to date I haven't seen evidence which provides the need for it. If you think I'm wrong then please tell me, just back it up with your reasoning.

If you are sated in this particular part of the discussion I'd like to revisit the tabled point which was raised by slag.

Just to be clear, are you accepting that there's no need for a bike to bike rule, based on this conversation or will you want to revisit this later?
For the record, I'm not necessarily right in my opinion, there may be a circumstance that necessitates the creation of a rule. But, to date I haven't seen evidence which provides the need for it. If you think I'm wrong then please tell me, just back it up with your reasoning.

Em, I think we have to agree to disagree. We can both see the same the evidence, but we have drawn different conclusions.

I still consider myself new to the game and want to learn from everyones experience.

Experienced players (especially those discussing rules on here) are being watched.
Lead by example and play polo.

Bad habits are easily picked up by others.

I want to play fair. It's not always easy but I am prepared to look at my play and reassess what I do. And I will happily discuss all of my faults with all of you so I can be at my best.

DBAD is always No.1

Toddy, yours in one of the styles of game play that I'd cite as respectable and a perfect example to newer players.

Fast without being dangerous, aggressive without deviating from the rules. You're a technical player who adapts to given situations and courts. I've never seen you off the bike calling someone out as I have with many other players. You know if/when you've done something wrong without needing a ref to call you on it.

DBAD will never be an enforceable rule but when paired with DBAP it's a useful guideline.

just taking the bike on bike contact here.

I think the ability to allow the players to take their own responsibility comes when players know the rules and the ref enforces them with an authoritive light touch. 5 other players will all have a view on the incident and it will be dealt with, the Ref can step in with any penalties if tempers flair.

This works in the London polo community because it is tight and people play against each other on a regular basis.
But I can see Bills point for clarification, Seattle bike polo community might have a more aggressive bike on bike style than Paris, Cambridge might develop a style of play where barging is acceptable providing hands are on the bars etc etc

So it's not a further rule but a clarification on how this rule is judged so European/world tourneys can be refd with a greater consistency
Bill could put detail to these rules based on how it's played in London

Ditto to Todd.

It's also worth noting that it would be REALLY shite if London started to get a bad rep at international/regional tourneys so it'd be best to keep an ear to the ground on a wider scale too.
(I guess that's the reason for this thread, I think I'm stating the obvious, ah well.)

So it's not a further rule but a clarification on how this rule is judged so European/world tourneys can be refd with a greater consistency
Actually it is a new rule, Bill proposed that we ban bike to bike, I countered that it is neither possible nor required.

All cities/communities will have their own interpretation of the rules but one of the things I love so much about polo is that all cities are playing a game by (mostly) the same rules.
Creating a rule book for London which covers every possible eventuality makes us less accessible to the international hardcourt communities.

And it will make us pussies when we go and play in other countries/cities.

The bike on bike crashes are the bits that got the biggest reaction at East Fest, the danger increases the risk and highlights the skill levels.

West polo was no way near aggressive enough until we started playing with Souths and east. it's got better for it

ah I read it as a central rule book was going to be put in place to make standard the reffing in tourneys

Creating a rule book for London which covers every possible eventuality makes us less accessible to the international hardcourt communities.

I definitely do not want 1 rule-book for London and another for everywhere else. I would be surprised if anyone in London wanted that. I was trying to stick an oar into the NA HC discussions, as Kev mentioned that they have started (or are about to start) trying to regularise stuff.

That's why I said to Kev that they should change to our rules on restarts. In the end, I accept that it is more than likely that the rest of the world will not change to our restart rule, so we may well have to change to the half-court rule at some point.

We need to do something like that for Europe. I don't think it's good when you go to a tournament and the rules are different to the last one you played in.

"The bike on bike crashes are..."
I agree with the majority of spectators on this, it's the bike on bike and the hustle of a game which makes it interesting for most people to watch. As players we may be able to appreciate a well thought out play between team mates but it's the potential for carnage which makes this into an adrenalin sport. One comment that I've heard repeated by a number of different people is that they're bored of watching l'equipe vs toros, which are incredible games on a technical level but dull as dishwater when you're 25 minutes in and only 3 goals have been scored.

"I read it as a central rule book was going to be put in place..."
Ideally this is what will eventually happen but polo is still progressing in too many different directions to sit down and remove elements of the game. Banning of certain moves or removing whole elements of the game will not aid the progression, though it will alter it's course.
Again, talk to the people from London who went to the Worlds in September last year. They virtually all came back talking about how much rougher the game is in the US. If we remove bike to bike in London that is only going to increase the gap across the pond. I am not saying the US have it right but I do think it unwise make the decisions outlined above at this moment in time.

I think we'll end up playing half-court at some point.

Bill, I agree with half of what you're saying. It is important to be involved in those discussions but only with a the tried and tested methods of our current rules.

The restart is a perfect example, our reset works, so does half court. Personally I prefer ours but do not see the rest of the world adopting it so I think it's sensible that London adapts to half court so that we are aligned. You had a point based on our actual rules which you made well and in a considered manner.

The ban bike to bike rule you suggest is not something that we've even tried let alone agreed on in out own community. As such, I do not think you should have brought it into these recommendations to Kev.
I appreciate that you were providing information as an individual but it would be too easy for our North American counterparts to assume, through no fault of their own, that we already play by these rules. It would be even more likely that it would be accepted as truth if they were aware of your position as LHBPA chair.
Unfortunately with your position these things have to be taken into consideration as the LHBPA has already received enough opposition for lack of transparency, acting on your own or not this could still be seen as a reflection on the association.

I love game theory.

Bill, it is completely correct and fits fine. Game theory covers every single decision we make in the sense that we weigh up consequences and decide if the reward is worth the risk. Do we cross the road? Well, we need to get to the other side but what if we get run over? Etc.

Strategies for dealing with situations break down into exploitable and unexploitable. In a polo player context:

When you play then you can adopt one of two approaches:

exploitable - never sticking a mallet under a wheel, trying not to play over aggressively, basically anyone that goes out of their way to not 'cheat'

unexploitable - cheat because you hardly ever get called up on it and if you do then all you have to do is tap out. Besides you broke up the attack already and the ball's on its way to you up the sideline.

Obviously people move in and out of these strategies midway through an evening or even a game. The way polo currently works though, if you never cheat then you are exploitable. Sad isn't it.

I think we'll end up playing half-court at some point.

I agree, and I think it's in our interests to do so. The post-goal reset is such a fundamental aspect of the game, and when it comes to international events where half-court is becoming the standard, we want to be playing under the same condition as we have practiced.

Watching l'equipe in Karlsruhe, immediately after scoring they we in formation to herd their opponents - they practice half-court so have had the chance to develop and experiment in appropriate defensive tactics. Most of the time when we turn up the half-court takes us all a bit by surprise. It's no wonder we can't knock 'em off their perch.*

Not that Cosmic have had the opportunity yet.

Oh shit I got sucked in.

unexploitable = Professional Foul

I wouldn't say its sad, when i first saw Gabes hold the ball against his disk wheel it didn't make me think he was cheating. but I liked the way ball jointing could be made safer from stick hooking.
its a development that came up through pushing the boundaries

Again, talk to the people from London who went to the Worlds in September last year. They virtually all came back talking about how much rougher the game is in the US.

My experience at the Worlds was that it was rougher, but not so much due to bike-on-bike (Hunter Bros aside) but body on body; there was a lot more checking going on, that I assume comes from hockey. The attitude of some players seemed to be that it was okay to knock someone off their bike if it was in the course of play.

"The bike on bike crashes are..."
I agree with the majority of spectators on this, it's the bike on bike and the hustle of a game which makes it interesting for most people to watch. As players we may be able to appreciate a well thought out play between team mates but it's the potential for carnage which makes this into an adrenalin sport. One comment that I've heard repeated by a number of different people is that they're bored of watching l'equipe vs toros, which are incredible games on a technical level but dull as dishwater when you're 25 minutes in and only 3 goals have been scored.

"I read it as a central rule book was going to be put in place..."
Ideally this is what will eventually happen but polo is still progressing in too many different directions to sit down and remove elements of the game. Banning of certain moves or removing whole elements of the game will not aid the progression, though it will alter it's course.
Again, talk to the people from London who went to the Worlds in September last year. They virtually all came back talking about how much rougher the game is in the US. If we remove bike to bike in London that is only going to increase the gap across the pond. I am not saying the US have it right but I do think it unwise make the decisions outlined above at this moment in time.

top bit - i love the way you have team styles, its the quickest way for the game to develop. there is space for great technical and fast aggresive play. of course the best team is the one that hits the right balance

second bit, agree on the banning, i should imagine that would be opposed throughout the community

unexploitable = Professional Foul

I wouldn't say its sad, when i first saw Gabes hold the ball against his disk wheel it didn't make me think he was cheating. but I liked the way ball jointing could be made safer from stick hooking.
its a development that came up through pushing the boundaries

This isn't what I meant - that ball joint is in itself an exploitable strategy. When you use it, you decide the reward outweighs the risk of having your mallet tapped and losing the ball. However, using your mallet arm elbow to jam someone's handlebars when they are sprinting alongside you is an unexploitable strategy because you take out a man, nobody will call it, there are no repurcussions and most people you play against are unwilling to do that.

i read unexploitable as cheating for gain, which ball jointing like that could be (not sure if its legal or not)

In the context of bike on bike contact would leaning into a rider/challange to protect yourself from being pushed off exploitatable of unexploitable?
i'd sat its the later but you are doing it to protect yourself as apposed take out the other player

I play recipriocity rule, i let the player i am against set the bar height and match him

#toddhurtsgirls