Polo Rules

( if i remember in 2009 you get an assistant and no door cause the court were plastic road thing easy to jump off. so it was easier to enforce.)

You think my idea of make a player stay at tap out point before opponents cross line is a bad idea? I mean there is a lot of situation where 30 second didnt apply (incidental mallet under wheel ) but where ball turn over didn't give a real advantage back, don't you think?

2009 was the first Euros, held here in London. No timekeepers or score-keepers.

I don't think it's a bad idea (FWIW, I like it, although it does sound a lot like double tap-outs, which were got rid of because they were difficult to monitor), I guess I think we don't use what we have, so adding something else make refs more likely to enforce rules.

Would refs use this more? I don't think they would. (I should mention that I haven't reffed since LO last year, but I doubt that much has changed). The prevailing culture in bike polo is that refs don't want to get shouted at by the 'big' players or piss anyone off. In my opinion, this ia why rules aren't enforced, not because refs can't figure out what to do with a binned player.

I don't think im afraid to make call, but im afraid to use 30 seconds for the reason i mentionned above: sometime irrelevant and really often hard to enforce. As ref i feel more confuse to don't have in my arsenal a helpful weapon than to having to much of them.

In you listing jono I see clearly the gap, because you talk about timed penalty for situation were i never saw them apply.
Mostly right now we see 30 seconds apply when players make ugly moves, not to balance back a situation. If we fallow your idea then we are missing a lot of 30 seconds penalty in every tourney we goes. Even when the ref is a good one, they didn't wistle for the cases you mention.

Im not sure about the reason ref aren't calling stuff. Yes for sure a lot of people are afraid too.
But you can see that more and more ref are giving ball turnovers, and i think that's because they are easy to enforce. I remember when we only have double tap out, we didn't use them so much because they where in game calls, really hard to enforce (how to name a player you don't know etc).
Giving the power to ref to stop time and game and give ball turnover was a huge step forward. As the delayed penalty is also.

Also my proposal is different than double tap out.
We get rid of double tap out because they were impossible to enforce:
-How to call a player during game
-How to make a player who have to go across the court without interfere with others.
For me double tap-out was a perfect exemple of a penalty we get rid of because of material issues. My proposal is really simple to enforce, didnt' requiere any extra material or specific court etc.
What's the flaw you see in this jono? more than putting somebody out in one corner who can be in his own camp in one time and in opponent one the next game?

In a perfect world where we have every time a hockey court structure and enough assistants to enforce it, i would not complain so much, because 30 's would be used in the situations you mentionned in your post. But we aren't, and that's why i feel something missing.
i fell that this rule was written more to get apply in this ideal worlds than in the one we are playing in. And when i reffed in the past, i naturally apply the micro timed penalty i talked before, because it feel so simple and natural. And players, guilty or not, were happy with it because it looked like a balanced call.

Yeah, I wasn't serious about faceoffs for your scenario, sorry, should have kept it serious.

Double Tapouts were removed because they weren't consistent, in some situations it was a huge penalty, almost as bad as a 30 second, in others it was no penalty at all.

I have a feeling that your suggestion wouldn't really penalise a team, if they do it well, they will be level with the play, so it's almost a 3 vs 3 situation anyway (unless I've misunderstood it). I wouldn't see myself using it (but I've not tried it, and am willing to)

I have no problem with 30 second penalties, and have called them in the past. Every court has a door somewhere, or worst case keep them on court by the refs position. It's easy enough to check the clock at the start, and check it again 30 seconds later. NAH rules mandate a timekeeper, so that makes it even easier.

But, overall, I don't really see the need for a penalty between turnover (restore possesion), 30 seconds (restore advantage), 2 minutes (restore goal chance)

What's the flaw you see in this jono?

It's possibly worth trying (test it out at a a few more tournaments and report back), but it sounds bad to me for the following reasons:

• Another type of call will confuse refs.
  
• Another rule will annoy/confuse players.
  
• Another type of call will mean timed penalites are not used.
  
• 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.
  
• Restarts after turnovers/fouls would become more complicated/slow.
  
• Game becomes harder to understand/spectate for noobs/spectators.
  
  
  

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.

There are people with a similar opinion as you (people have been asking for a reset where one team has conceded 2/3rds of the court for example), your idea is better than that (as the advantage is always about players between the ball and goal and is never about your progression up the court).

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.

I just downloaded the NAH ruleset PDF, with a view to posting it to the London Bike Polo site (the rule-set that was on there was about 4 years out of date).

*§2.4 – Mallets
§2.4.1 – Shaft
§2.4.1.1 – The shaft is made of metal or carbon fibre.
*

I don't think carbon-fibre is a safe material for bike polo. Brittle, so when it breaks (which it is likely to), it will shatter into splinters. Am I being overly safety-minded? Also, who uses carbon-fibre shafts?

I'm guessing people do, otherwise it wouldn't be in there.

I've tried carbon fibre. And yes, it broke very quickly. But I think that's more to do with the way it was manufactured, than the material.

Also:

*§2.5 – Helmets
§2.5.1 – While on the court, all players wear a helmet that meets safety standards for cycling.
*

Err, depending on how you define "safety standard for cycling", that rules out all the hurling helmets, and probably the ice-hockey helmets too. And probably my Bern as well.

Which version of the NAH rules are you reading? I think there were at least two minor revisions in a short space of time after the original "Kruse" ruleset was published.

Which version of the NAH rules are you reading? I think there were at least two minor revisions in a short space of time after the original "Kruse" ruleset was published.

The PDF I downloaded from the NAH referee site. At least, I think it is. I'll check.

Yeah, I think you are looking at the wrong ones Bill.

http://www.nahardcourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/nah_ruleset_v3_3.pdf

I also wouldn't upload it on the London site, just link to that (so any changes get picked up automatically)

Yeah, I think you are looking at the wrong ones Bill.

http://www.nahardcourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/nah_ruleset_v3_3.pdf

I also wouldn't upload it on the London site, just link to that (so any changes get picked up automatically)

Oh right, yeah the helmet rule is more generous. The silly mallet rule is still in there, though.

I'm guessing people do, otherwise it wouldn't be in there.

I've tried carbon fibre. And yes, it broke very quickly. But I think that's more to do with the way it was manufactured, than the material.

Carbon-fibre is notorious for sudden failures in structural integrity and also for splintering.

Oh, don't forget the people who use golf clubs, Phil, Josh Cohen, etc... They just tape it, no problems if it shatters.

My potassium mallet is still cool though? I hope it doesn't rain.

Carbon-fibre is notorious for sudden failures in structural integrity and also for splintering.

It's used for pro level hockey sticks. Think they weave it with kevlar to get around the shattering aspect - point being, as John said, it's the construction that matters.

Yeah, that's what I was alluding to, hockey sticks, tennis rackets, etc... Carbon ski poles are terrible.

It's used for pro level hockey sticks. Think they weave it with kevlar to get around the shattering aspect - point being, as John said, it's the construction that matters.

Yeah, that's what I was alluding to, hockey sticks, tennis rackets, etc... Carbon ski poles are terrible.

Ah, I see. I guess I'm thinking more of the horrendous broken carbon-f handle-bar incidents... splinters in the inner thigh etc...

Oh, don't forget the people who use golf clubs, Phil, Josh Cohen, etc... They just tape it, no problems if it shatters.

If you are talking about westy Phil, he's recently been playing with carbon (apparently labelled as carbon with a steel core), lasted longer than I expected, didn't shatter into shards.

He broke that last Monday, clean snap though no splinters or shards.

Yeah I've broken a few carbon poles, taped and untaped. They've always snapped cleanly

Apparently picture posting doesn't work...imagine a broken mallet

http://www.nahardcourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/nah_ruleset_v3_3.pdf

I also wouldn't upload it on the London site, just link to that (so any changes get picked up automatically)

Done. I nicked this text from the LHBPA site as well, for people that just want the basics:

*The basic ruleset

Teams are made up of 3 players.
To score you have to use the end of your mallet (hitting with the side is called a shuffle).
Don’t put your foot down (if you do, you must tap out at the side of the court).
Any contact must be ‘like to like’ (mallet to mallet, bike to bike, body to body).
First to five points wins (or whoever has the most goals when the time runs out).*

Like-to-like needs amending, or removing.

Maybe: "Bike polo is a contact sport (but contact should be made shoulder-to-shoulder)"?

Like-to-like needs amending, or removing.

Maybe: "Bike polo is a contact sport (but contact should be made shoulder-to-shoulder)"?

Yes.

Still inaccurate, best to split over 3 statements:
*
Player-on-player contact is allowed, (but not on the steering arm below the elbow, no cockpit reaching etc etc whatever the rules say)
Mallet-on-Mallet contact is OK, but no vigorous slashing.
Intentional Bike-on-Bike contact is not allowed, but shit happens.

Notes for refs:
Watch for players applying force to other players' bars using their legs, arse or hips, it's dangerous and sneaky.
High mallets are dangerous, call it.
etc etc.
*