Would you allow shuffle goals?

The point still stands, it's a direct comparison to the reason for allowing shuffles.

So in the same vein, why can't BJs be allowed, including BJing to goal and scoop shots... it would help with reffing and reduce the number of rules?

BJs/side-joints = easy to recognize, so not that tough to ref (well, not so much side-joints, hence a lot of the push to get rid of ECMs). They change the play of the game in a more extreme way (imo).* The person in control of the ball ends up with an unfair advantage as it is easier to control the ball/ball becomes possessed rather than in play. That's quite different from shuffling. You're already allowed to shuffle the ball up to goal.

• troll phrase.
  

^ Passive aggressive (and BS).

Re-read what I've posted, Bill. I've tried to be very clear with every point I've made. I've made points only as far as I can take them. I've engaged in what has been said and responded as I think I should, or I believe. When I agree with someone else, I make that clear. When I disagree I make that clear as well. With the exception of some jokes, I have been frank. What I have not done is turn to hyperbole. Maybe that's what you mean by frank?

Ok, you have been fair. I'm still not clear why you think shuffles should be allowed, though.

The point still stands, it's a direct comparison to the reason for allowing shuffles.

I think what needs to be remember is that not everything is analogous. There are positives and negatives to everything, and because you find one area in which one can find similarities, that does not mean they can be treated as the same. That is to say: because other things may make reffing easier, you can't simply say they are the same thing and deserve equal consideration. Allowing foot-downs would make reffing easier, but the question is one of balance. Is the difficulty in reffing foot-downs outweighed by the lameness of the action.

Again, I am not starting a "let shuffles in!" political party. I don't expect to see it happen. But let's talk about it. Talking is harmless.

Mark, your view of BJs is how I view shuffles. I feel that allowing shuffles would change the game in a more extreme way (rightly or wrongly) and that it's not that difficult to ref.

Shuffled goals (in my opinion) make the sport look weak, give you an unfair advantage over a keeper, move the sport away from traditional polo, encourages a one-on-one "dump the ball" approach, makes play within the D incredibly scrappy and invites a whole host of new mallet styles/game plays that could take advantage of the "allowing shuffles" approach (I see these plays as "lame" and not "cool").

I don't understand why all the active voices can't just stop talking and let other people discuss their thoughts. I think I just about understand where Jon and Mark stand on this issue now.

From my perspective as a mere polo spectator, I like the 'no shuffle goals' rule, as I like the additional technical difficulty introduced around the goal. Mind you, I haven't seen a game played with shuffle goals included. I also like that you can't just shoot from a shuffling dribble without switching the mallet around.

I would have thought that the rule comes from somewhere--i.e., when people invented hardcourt bike polo, they must initially have played while allowing shuffle goals, so that the rule arose from their own practice, and they thought it was a sensible restriction then? If so, what has changed? (This is probably old hat to seasoned polo-historians.)

I say No... its called a shuffle not a shot.

Regarding the point that shuffles are hard to ref:

As a ref, I think that shuffles can be difficult to ref, but if I was looking at rule changes to make things easier for ref, the shuffle rule is by no means the first thing I would change.

Currently, I think the tap-outs are the number one rule change.

I don't understand why all the active voices can't just stop talking and let other people discuss their thoughts. I think I just about understand where Jon and Mark stand on this issue now.

I didn't realize only two people can use a forum at once.

Over and out.

Currently, I think the tap-outs are the number one rule change.

In what way Bill?

This:

Double tap.

A waste of time. Whilst you are supervising the d-tap, the game is continuing, and your attention is on the d-tap not the play. Either stop the game & turnover the ball, or issue a warning from the side-lines.

Currently, I think the tap-outs are the number one rule change.

Hell yes. double tap outs have never worked. Calling out players names, often un-amplified, especially on bigger courts, is distracting at best. "disturbing the flow of the game" is just B.S., i think a ref trying to get one players attention disturbs the flow of the game way more.

i voted yes on this poll, too. but it's mainly a vote for an experiment. Have you ever had a whole day of pickup in which shuffles were allowed? might be interesting.

We did a tourney kev, BFF last year, where shuffles/scoops were allowed, It was fun. I still voted no though.

Everyone loves mullets.

agreed.

allowing shuffle goals is a bad idea.

end of.

In all the time I've watched Rugby, a try has been scored by applying downward pressure using by hand between the try-line and dead-ball-line. They wouldn't need Video Refs without the "by hand" technicality.

Likewise, just learn to shoot, hosers.

In all the time I've watched Rugby, a try has been scored by applying downward pressure using by hand between the try-line and dead-ball-line. They wouldn't need Video Refs without the "by hand" technicality.

Likewise, just learn to shoot, hosers.

How long you been watching rugby? Were you there in the formative years of the sport?

Thought not.

Your point was ?

The majority of people who have voted 'Yes to shuffles' have thought about it and know what they are talking about.

The minority of people who have voted 'No to shuffles' have thought about it and know what they are talking about.

#IMO #justsayin #etc

The majority of people who have voted 'Yes to shuffles' have thought about it and know what they are talking about.

The minority of people who have voted 'No to shuffles' have thought about it and know what they are talking about.

#IMO #justsayin #etc

Wow, this is so clever! I had to read it 4 times before I understood it...

Thought it was pretty clear actually.

#IMO

The majority of people who have voted 'Yes to shuffles' have thought about it as they agree with me.

The minority of people who have voted 'No to shuffles' have thought about it as they disagree with me.
#IMO #justrollin #etc

ftfy

Think my fix needs fixing, 2nd bit sounds wrong
#trollfail

Am I on 'the list'?