You are reading a single comment by @Bearlegged and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@Bearlegged
To some degree it's a slightly indefinable quality, but I think we're largely of the same view on this.
A lot of "wild swings" are just that. They rely upon a large moment of motion to generate direction and power. I would argue that it is perfectly possible to equal the accuracy and power of such connections with the ball through a combination of more accurate movement of the player and mallet, allied to greater acceleration of movement generated by the player, not merely by swinging the mallet at the greatest extent of its reach.
Your point about long-range, "calculated" shots stands. I believe that the problem with high-malleting is more likely to arise when skill, calculation and awareness is reduced.
In order to reduce the impact of high-malleting, I think polo needs a ruleset that allows for context. As Emyr points out above, the mere absence of contact between a mallet and a player should not be the defining quality of high-malleting.
By way of a parallel situation, consider football - players are allowed to leap and kick the ball around chest/shoulder/head height if they are in space, but if they do it in close proximity to another player, they are likely to be penalised for dangerous play.
Rather than asking refs to try to differentiate between "wild" and "calculated", let's ask them to consider any given incident in terms of context. This is not a question of referreeing based on intent.