Polo Rules

Thanks for your feedbacks.

See some good points in them, mostly if you don't think there is a need to create back an advantage position, or if for you 30 seconds can do this job, then i get why you don't see the need of this kind of penalty.

John H you said 30 second is for restoring advantage. Im pretty sure you will have trouble to remember one 30 seconds made for that (or maybe some happens in london league). It seems that when 30 sec' is used that's for calm down a bully player in a lot of cases. And i agree that 30 sec' can be used this way, but again i feel that they have another taste than givin' back advantage, and still pain to enforce.

@jono
Sorry for being point by point with this answer. But that's one of the first time i really get some direct critics about my idea (and not about the 30's), so i take time to answer them this way.

"-Another type of call will confuse refs."
Maybe. but that's not hard to enforce and not hard to understand, pretty sure that a ref who can get that won't be a good ref anyway.

"-Another rule will annoy/confuse players."
Kind of the same. And this penalty come to me naturally in game when i was reffin' for prequalies in Lyon. As french in my language it was pretty simple to explain to the player, who weren't suprised at all even if that's penalty isn't in the rulebook now. You can see that in the example in posted before. So there is a good chance that this call can be understand by players: "you. Stay here before they cross. Game on.".

-Another type of call will mean timed penalites are not used.
Thats kind of a 4 seconds timed penalty if you want. And sometimes you don't have to used the classical 30 s timed penalty, so no big deal. Timed penalty aren't usefull every time you need more than ball turnover.

-"Players held at the side of the court means the ref needs to know the location of players pre-foul (or has to have a more detailed understanding of the advantage to be restored), I don't think our refs have this information."
In my first try the player guilty was the one i kept to the tap out point. My proposal about keeping too players was maybe a bad idea because of what you say. that's just a draft in my mind. But this is a good point. Im pretty sure we can't find a way to make the advantage situation back every time.
What i feel is, gosh, this mallet under wheel broke a good situation for A team. Giving the ball back to A just put B in a better situation than before the foul, i need to give A back a lil' more than just the ball, and less than 30 seconds.

-"Restarts after turnovers/fouls would become more complicated/slow."
Again look at my exemple. First try with players who didn't know the rules, the restart took the same amount of time than a classical one.

-"Game becomes harder to understand/spectate for noobs/spectators."
Yeah, but we could get rid of a lot of thing who make our game harder to understand. and when you look at other sports as spectators, you sometimes miss some points about reffin but get the big picture.

"I reckon you'd have more mileage with your idea if you called it a "mini timed penalty" (or similar) and state that the process is the same as with a timed ejection from the court, except the player is held at half court for a couple seconds.
"

I will get this name so, thanks.

" a reset where one team has conceded 2/3rds of the cour"
agree with you, this proposal is typycal hockey copy/past where the face off can be in the 2/3 camp of the guilty team. But that's not efficient in polo, as a lot of team already concend 2/3 of the camp in their usual defensive mood.