Polo Rules

If a player is injured and can't carry on in the short term, the game can be stopped for a long time. At Helles Bells the call was made to postpone the rest of the game when a player was injured, and play it on later. I remember Jono saying we shouldn't have done that, and made them play on.

But at the LII I raised this with Bill when Johanna dislocated her finger, and mentioned the precedent, but he said he would not force them to play on at that point.

So can we make a decision. Should a game be stopped, and postponed until later, or should the team be forced to play on with 1 less player, after the timeout has run out.

Edit: In RR, postpone if possible! If it's not possible to postpone, then play on with 2.

We simply can't afford to wait around 20 minutes while a player has medical treatment, when we could be playing other games.

thoughts?

I am really unhappy with the rules on subs, which is why I wasn't comfortable either a. making them play on with 2 or b. making them take a sub, which they would then have had to play with for the rest of the tournament. In Johanna's case (dislocated finger), it was pretty obvious that she needed about 15 seconds of treatment, and would then have been able to play on - so it seemed very unfair indeed, seeing as we didn't have medical courtside, to make them play with 2 or a sub.

In Swiss, a postponement is not alway possible, so I think we have to play on with 2. I honestly can't see a fairer way than that; if it's RR, then postpone.

TBH, the tournament sub rule is so manifestly unfair, and unhelpful that I am amazed that no amendments have been proposed in the current NAH re-draft.