Tourney: WHBPC 2011: Seattle 08-11.09.2011

MacHine

Full video is up now - seeing it in context makes that rule just look stupider. What is the point of re-starting?

Clarity, convention, the ability to change rulesets properly during a game ("next goal wins", a new untimed stance, etc).

For example: how many times have you heard a player say "were we on golden goal?" (lots).

I think we should stick with our current method personally, if it's not broken, why fix it? We do have to work on clear communication to players during final games though (ref megaphones perhaps).

Well, maybe it is broken, as you mention, players may not know it's golden goal...

It's pretty much the standard in every other sport, and clearly in NA polo as well.

© Robb Slamm

I'm used to the current system, I think it works fine, I normally tell the teams when I Ref that if the game is a draw I will announce golden goal instead of blow the whistle at the end of the countdown.

If players no it is a draw and they have been told before the game that it will roll into golden goal then I think it's fine.

I'm used to the current system, I think it works fine, I normally tell the teams when I Ref that if the game is a draw I will announce golden goal instead of blow the whistle at the end of the countdown.

I agree that the rule seems unnecessary, but it's the NAH rule, and we should possibly have changed to the NAH rule instead of going our own way.

Was there discussion of this rule on LoBP, and did people from here take part?

How about an air powered horn so signal sudden death/golden goal?

Theres no way that players won't hear that.

Was there discussion of this rule on LoBP, and did people from here take part?

The NAH review their rules for each season in a private forum (NAH Officers), there is no international input really (they are aware of our rules), but I can view their process. The new ruleset should be released in a couple of months I believe. Bill will then re-write our rules in response to the NAH changes. Europe will then follow us I imagine, although Geneva/Paris/Munich will have to write rules for the Worlds/Euros and they often become the new standard for Europe.

I much prefer the European way. Never heard of the NA method in polo, although I guess it is consistent to other sports.

Bigger scoreboards and someone (not the ref) flipping the scores would help. Also an onus on the players knowing the score. I've been caught up in a few games where I forgot a goal or two, but being aware is pretty crucial to how you're going to approach the game.

In my opinion, East Van's winning shot was anti-climactic - I'd much prefer to see a goal as a result of sustained pressure and open play, especially a decisive one.

Anti-climatic, unless you're Rory. I bet he's dreamt about that goal every night since.

The NAH review their rules for each season in a private forum (NAH Officers), there is no international input really (they are aware of our rules), but I can view their process. The new ruleset should be released in a couple of months I believe. Bill will then re-write our rules in response to the NAH changes. Europe will then follow us I imagine, although Geneva/Paris/Munich will have to write rules for the Worlds/Euros and they often become the new standard for Europe.

I am trying to get some input, or at least see what the process is, but no luck so far. IMO, we should follow the NA rule-set whatever. It simply doesn't make sense not to, even if it is a bit galling. Gaining some input into the rules is the best possible argument for an EHBPA or even IHBPA, as we just don't have the clout right now without a bigger organisation behind us.

I think in some areas we are a little behind the development of the North Americans, so things like scoop shots and wrist shots were a bit of a mute point over here (for example). I also think they aren't very good at finding loop holes before they become an issue on court (there was lots of talk about how you can game the current rules when up in Edinburgh which should be addressed/thought about before it's a tactic used in a finals game, or similar)?

The NAH ruleset also has to appeal to the whims of many different scenes/styles of play so some "out there" ideas get shouted down really quickly. This is a bad thing and we shouldn't have this kind of problem (at the same scale at least) within London.

It'd be nice if we could align our ruleset with the NAH one (same established rules) but perhaps re-word some areas? We could change some Zs to Ss, use our terminology too, that kind of thing? I also think there may be areas of our game that are not covered by the NAH ruleset, we should add these bits in as we see fit?

WHBPC 2011 Final of Losers' bracket on Vimeo

Awesome game. Some endo-tailwhip bullshit from the dude playing with dustin and seabass. CMD played fucking awesome.

Wow american polo makes euro polo look so creative.

Agreed.

I'm glad it wasn't just me that thought that...
#imo

Anti-climatic, unless you're Rory. I bet he's dreamt about that goal every night since.

To be fair, I would be telling all my non-polo playing friends, colleagues, parents and random passers by that I just single-handedly won the Bike Hockey Championship for all of Canada.

Exactly. Not really anti-climatic.

Bit like Crosby's goal in the Olympics.

Some endo-tailwhip bullshit from the dude playing with dustin and seabass.

That's called a dolphin slap around these parts. you have a MM:SS for that moment? Didn't see it when i edited this thing.

Sorry, meant to say anti-clima*c*tic. It ended the game (obviously) but from a spectator standpoint it came from nowhere and to me is as dissatisfying as a penalty shoot-out.

Still, winners are winners and making a shot from that far out in that situation is pretty awesome. Next year a European team has to win it, though.

It'd be nice if we could align our ruleset with the NAH one (same established rules) but perhaps re-word some areas? We could change some Zs to Ss, use our terminology too, that kind of thing? I also think there may be areas of our game that are not covered by the NAH ruleset, we should add these bits in as we see fit?

I really would like to get some sort of input into the rules, if possible, especially with regard to useless rules (e.g. double tap-outs), and I will endeavour to clean-up whatever rule-set eventually emerges, but I don't wish to see us using a rule-set that deviates in more than details from the NAH. I will (obviously) change all the zs to ss.

+1. There is no future in separate rule sets. If they deviate too much then it makes it that much harder for players to cross the pond and play.

So if NA banned lefties you'd just suck it up and change our rules?