Polo Rules

you need to train your wife mate.

shuffling into your own net. I could only find a reference to it from league one where it was decided a goal, but no reference to it in our league rules. It is a little confusing and has come up in throw ins and L games. If the keeper shuffles the ball into his own net regardless of where it came from before that, (i.e. there own player, the opposing player, shot or shuffle) is it a goal? I always thought it was and thought it was written down. If we were playing with nets for example and it is not considered a goal it could be used to hide the ball from an attacker by placing it in the net, hence surely it should be a goal.

Also, the ball travelling through the back of the goal has to be brought out of the D 'or passed' i will be using this to full advantage, because as it is written it states that i can take it through the back of the goal straight to my team mate who can shoot. Eh? And that if the defending team take it through the goal, you can shoot it straight away also. Seems weak but it is written.

https://www.lfgss.com/post390863-32.html

http://www.londonbikepololeague.com/rules/

A shuffle in own net by the keeper is a goal.

In London a shuffle into your own net has ALWAYS been a goal

+1

well thats what i thought, but it wasn't called last night and in a throw ins on saturday, jono said no also.

A shuffle in own net by the keeper is a goal.

....& i should know as I've scored plenty ;-)

many were called in league games last season and i am not aware of any rule change

another reason why newbs (people who don't know the rules) should not be reffing.

another reason why newbs (people who don't know the rules) should not be reffing.

This isn't exclusive to newbs.

anyone who dosnt know the rules is a newb.

another reason why newbs (people who don't know the rules) should not be reffing.

this was an asshole thing to write. should have written another reason why someone / everyone should have a print out of the rules to hand. Apols

"here, read this!"
"here hold my beer while i try to have a good time"

Goal refs/ goalie/player... should be able to tell you what end of the mallet it hit or what happened....thats just called watching the game. bit of honesty people... then the rules can be pulled out.

Obviously a shuffle through your own goal is a goal.

Is an offensive shuffle that is deflected in by a defenders bike a goal? I think the answer is no.

If it's deflected in by a defenders mallet (for the sake of arguement the shuffle side) does it become a goal?

(If a defender hits the ball into the goal, it's a goal I am not arguing with that)

^that comes down to whether the defender added momentum to/changed the direction of the ball

Is an offensive shuffle that is deflected in by a defenders bike a goal? I think the answer is no.

anwser yes, goal

Answer no, no goal.

I never realised this:
**8.3 – If a ball passes through from the back of the goal and is possessed by a player from the defending team the ball is back in play and can be scored immediately.
**
In my opinion that is a ridiculous rule. Even with possession defined as a control of the ball, you can still crowd the goal and have all sorts of messiness when the ball comes back through a goal? Seems silly to me. Lots of potential for confusing situations: Was the ball possessed? Who added momentum to the ball? Did it cross the line completely or get pushed back by a defender before crossing, etc?

I have always had this in mind:
8.2 – If a ball passes through from the back of the goal and is possessed by a player from the attacking team the ball must either leave the D or be passed to another player before a goal can be scored

I use the idea of "dead" and "live" balls/players/play to ref and so feel the ball should become "live" again by going out of the D (for example) before any type of goal can be scored. It's also more in line with International tournaments/rules when there are no nets (and is easier to ref).

Either that or the defending players "possession" touch needs more clarity, lots of room for bullshit interpretations otherwise. Why is it important that the defending player can put a "dead" ball in their own goal? Why are they penalised for trying to play the ball in this situation? Tradition? Seems silly.

Goals must originate as shots by attacking players (where deflections are allowed), or a defending player can put the ball in their own goal by whatever means:
4.1 – A goal must originate as a “shot,” defined as striking the ball with the end of the players mallet. Before passing the line, the ball can deflect on any element on the court, except on the ‘shuffle’ side of any attacking team member’s mallet.

Deflections off attacking player's mallets are shuffle shots = no goal.

Is an offensive shuffle that is deflected in by a defenders bike a goal? I think the answer is no.

anwser yes, goal

Answer no, no goal.

Rik: NO goal as initial attempt was a shuffle. If it was deflected in from a shot, then Yes, goal.

^ Yep

Deflections off attacker's mallets are not goals, they are shuffle shots, even if their was no intention. The "touch" of the shuffle side of an attacker's mallet (deflection or not) makes the shot null and void.

(You are being penalised for getting your mallet in the way of the shot and it's easier to ref than that old "momentum" bull.)

This is a real grey area, I think. I believe the intent is that the rule 4.1 above is superseded by the rule that any time you hit your own ball into a goal it is an own goal.

However, if an offender shuffles into a defender's wheel and then into the goal, this remains a grey area.

No grey area for me. No shot, no goal.

A shuffle that deflects off either the defenders bike or stationary mallet is no goal, a shot that takes a deflection is a goal.
An own goal is scored when the ball crosses the ball line after a defender has added momentum by either striking the ball with any part of their mallet or bike.

Agreed, rule 4.1 also states that defenders need to "shoot" the ball into their own goal for it to be a valid own goal as all shots must originate from the end of a mallet, etc.

Allowing shuffle goals or removing own goals would make things clearer/easier, I might try a re-write along the lines of live and dead balls, it'd be easier to ref/understand than all this "originates" "possession" and "deflection" stuff.

Tried a re-write, gave up.