Official NA Hardcourt Bike Polo Rules

I commented on that thread, but I'll comment here just in case any Europeans are being influenced by this load of wank.

1) Are you also going to require freewheel riders to have a front and a back brake, each with different mechanisms, to ensure safety? If not, then rethink your justification.

2) Not only fucking weak, but fucking stupid. Just because you require me to have a hand brake on my bike doesn't mean I will use it. It is a style thing more than a safety thing, and you are trying to pass of your stylistic preferences as safety.

3) "Ban the action, not the bike."

+1 agree with all of that

I commented on that thread, but I'll comment here just in case any Europeans are being influenced by this load of wank.

1) Are you also going to require freewheel riders to have a front and a back brake, each with different mechanisms, to ensure safety? If not, then rethink your justification.

I agree with this. If you are going to make fixies have a brake, then freewheelers need 2.

Plus, I can BMX toejam. That's two independent brakes. Count 'em.

Surely there is a very fine line between a ball joint and a scoop pass?

a ball joint pins the ball against the ground, scoops don't.

If you are in the offensive half and the ball is stuck on the wall (or in the corner if the edges aren't rounded) I presume 'pulling' it off the wall counts as a ball joint and will cause a turnover?

(i dont have a user on lobp)

Josh, I would say that you need to travel with the bike to be a BJ, if you just get the ball from the wall, I dont think the ref will call anything.

I have put your question in LOBP, will report back

thanks rik

Brake rule is a joke.

Plus, I can BMX toejam. That's two independent brakes. Count 'em.

Why didn't you toe-jam when your chain snapped at Mitch?

#justsayin'

Brake cables snap more often than chains.

#justsayin'

Like chains, if you actually maintain your bike, they don't.

Indeed, but why penalise one and not the other is the point im making. If you're going to tell the brakless they need a brake in case their chain breaks then Freewheelers should have a backup too, the logical solution would be to make everyone ride fixed 2 brakes just in case, which is fucking stupid.

Its a dumb rule.

I think it's ill thought out, I think it makes sense to want everyone to have a braking device for each wheel, so all freewheels should be double brake, and fixed riders front brake, but in practice, that's not realistic, people should also be able to choose the setup that suits them, I was just mocking chukker, I can't resist it.

I think any experienced rider, fixed, brakeless, is relatively safe, it's noobs that pose a risk, but these days, you don't see many noobs riding brakeless.

Like chains, if you actually maintain your bike, they don't.

This is the key. And when my chain came off the other day it was almost certainly my fault for having a loose chain. This would never happen at a tourney because I check my whole bike before each game in a tourney.

Why didn't you toe-jam when your chain snapped at Mitch?

#justsayin'

I was waiting for this. I maintain that I was peddling as fast as I could (trying to beat Mat Cosmic to the ball) and that my chain flew off so close to the wall that I did not have time to even use a handbrake.

I think any experienced rider, fixed, brakeless, is relatively safe, it's noobs that pose a risk, but these days, you don't see many noobs riding brakeless.

I agree.

Thing is the NA rules are mainly for tournaments, no? surely if players are actually getting anywhere in major tournaments, then they are probably experienced enough to control their bikes without being dictated to about their chosen setup

Yep, valid point. I think the fact that refs will check bikes for safety and court-worthiness is a good thing, but the brake rule is perhaps a tad draconian.

For sure, a check for general court worthiness makes sense and probably should have been in there from the beginning.

Thing is the NA rules are mainly for tournaments, no? surely if players are actually getting anywhere in major tournaments, then they are probably experienced enough to control their bikes without being dictated to about their chosen setup

I wanted to make that point too, Tom, on LOBP. But I've posted enough on that thread. If you want to make it there, I'm sure it would be a good addition to the discussion!

Heh, I may do later, I tend to steer clear of the NA forums as the shitslinging gets really tedious really fast.

I can't believe we are going to have FGNB debate in this part of the forum.

All I have to add is a quote from our spiritual leader:

Does a bike with a braking mechanism on 1 wheel only stop quicker than one with a mechanism on both?

You do the maths.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2006/news/08-04

Bill, tell me if it's none of my business, i'm just curious, do your riders have to have a brake?

Whatever Bill, the question here is whether it's something that should be legislated against by a ruling body, not about the effectiveness of the braking system.

Surely if people want to use a less effective braking system, its up to them.

But, if they are using a braking system that is less effective (FGNB or freewheel rear/front only), then they could be dangerous in comparison to double brake.