Polo Rules

the goal ref will be the busiest man/woman in the game :D
I´m soooo excited to be in London tomorrow!

So the rewrite would be:

1. If the majority of players are right handed, no left handed player can joust.
   
   

No, because they can use their right hand, or joust on the off-side.

What's the appropriate penalty for the second player ('goalie') not leaving the D within 2 seconds?

What is the call if an incoming (goalbound) shot hits the player as they leave the D when deemed to have fouled ie. been in the D longer than 2 seconds?

A smack upside the head.

I guess it would be similar to if the ball hits a footdowned player, it's unfortunate but carry on?

A smack upside the head.

I guess it would be similar to if the ball hits a footdowned player, it's unfortunate but carry on?

Incorrect. If the player is, in the view of the referee, deliberately obstructing play, there's a whole range of penalties available, depending on where the ball finishes up, and what the game situation is.

True, I wasn't thinking deliberate obstruction, but as an unlawful 2nd keeper you are being pretty deliberate. A warning then 30 second penalty? A ball turn over would be pretty useless as the attacking team will most likely be around the goal area and in possession, unless advantage is used particularly well.

This is one of the things I want direction on from Erin / Jono

Incorrect. If the player is, in the view of the referee, deliberately obstructing play, there's a whole range of penalties available, depending on where the ball finishes up, and what the game situation is.

PENALTY , PENALTY , PENALTY

DO IT

You tried this?^ Did it work well?

Although probably will probably lead to too many stop/starts for what will be a reasonable common infraction.

PENALTY , PENALTY , PENALTY

DO IT

Yeah, this was tried @ WHBPC. Only heard a few views on it.

^stupid. but fun.

What's the appropriate penalty for the second player ('goalie') not leaving the D within 2 seconds?

What is the call if an incoming (goalbound) shot hits the player as they leave the D when deemed to have fouled ie. been in the D longer than 2 seconds?

I guess it would be similar to if the ball hits a footdowned player, it's unfortunate but carry on?

Depends on the advantage lost. A delayed penalty may be enough.

If repeated, then I'd start giving powerplays in any case.

If a goal is stopped, I would give a penalty shot, but I don't think they are allowed under these rules, so a 30 second or 2 minute penalty.

Exactly the same would apply to a zombie footdown. If the attacking team shots against a player who is down, I would give a 2 minute penalty, so they can score.

True, I wasn't thinking deliberate obstruction, but as an unlawful 2nd keeper you are being pretty deliberate. A warning then 30 second penalty?

Deliberate is irrelevant, either they obstructed or they didn't. No warnings.

That goalie rule is the best rule so far!!

Is there no distinction between footdowning and attempting to get out of play straight away and hanging around to obstruct a goal?

You tried this?^ Did it work well?

Yes, it was in the worlds rules.

It was saved, and by the sounds of it, most of the time it will be saved.

So if penalty shots become a standard (I hope they do), I would usually include a powerplay with it (which is cancelled if the penalty is scored).

The logic being, if the advantage lost is an almost certain goal, you want to do as much as possible, in a short a time as possible to have that goal restored.

Is there no distinction between footdowning and attempting to get out of play straight away and hanging around to obstruct a goal?

No, if you block the goal illegally, it doesn't matter when it happened, or what your intention was, the disadvantage is the same.

Obviously if you can see the player was clearly intending to block it, or repeats it, as a ref you could see fit to punish the player additionly (so maybe 2 minutes instead of 30 seconds, or game misconduct instead of 2 minutes), but then that's about stopping it happening again, not restoring advantage. Most of the time you should only be focussed on restoring advantage.

I see the argument, but you do get people on the floor in a tangle in front of goal, sometimes from both teams, a ball hitting the downed defender instead of going in seems like something that would get put down to back luck rather than something where an advantage needs to be restored.

While I'm fairly ignorant about polo, and the spirit of the rule is perfectly clear, shouldn't this rule ...

1. No double goalies
   
2. A double goalie penalty will be assessed when a team has two stationary players within the crease around the goal (hashed area).
   
   

... read something like:

1. No multiple goalies
   
2. A multiple goalie penalty will be assessed when a team has two or more stationary players within the crease around the goal (hashed area).
   
   

Maybe I'm thinking about stuff happening further away from the goal mouth. If you're on the line pretty much, then it would seem harsh if the goal was definitely going in to just carry on with no advantage restored.

I'm hoping the hashed area is smaller than the Basketball-Ds marked at Powerhouse.

Good point Oliver, I'll amend.

Bill: second goalies are to be instructed to move, or issue a delayed penalty. Balls hitting second goalies is fine, but as with everything you should restore advantage as you see fit. If players keep double goalie-ing then take them out of the game.

Hooking the keeper is legit

I'll never understand why such a dick move continues to be accepted, has always grated with me for some reason.

Penalty shots are pure legit, fun and not stupids.
Thanks for having whistle one rayan.

Hooking and hacking are something different, so hopefully the refs will keep an eye on that when someone does it to a goalie.