Polo Rules

One of the most positive things i took away from florida and the NAH rules is the high sticking rule. It was rigour-sly enforced and i believe it is something we should really enforce in throw ins. Any stick over shoulder height results in a ball turn over. It doesn't matter how 'casual' the game is. Any stick any where on the court should be penalised. If we enforce this across the board ourselves, we will cut out the majority of face hits. We will still get the odd accidental mallet to face, but enforcing this in a serious fashion in casual games will benefit us all. (cross post)

I thought it was only a turnover if you touched the ball.

Read the rules, Bill!

Read the rules Bill and snoops ;)

High Sticking
§7.2.1 – A high sticking penalty will be assessed in the following situations:
§7.2.1.1 – A player attempts to contact an airborne ball with their mallet at a height above the shoulder.
§7.2.1.2 – The mallet is brought into contact with an opposing player’s body above the level of the shoulders.

You know that all high sticking (or mallet-to-body contact) on shot swings is soon going to be legal, right?

As it is in ice hockey? I don't want people getting hurt but I don't want players to be denied the necessary follow-through on certain shots.

Not sure yet, I had an email exchange with Nick and I don't think he's changed his mind: Blast zone, shots are easily predicted, people should wear cages if worried... kind of stuff.

I thought the high sticking calls were a joke in Florida: more often than not it wasn't about player safety and was instead about adding a pointless reset to the game.

High-sticking around other people = potentially dangerous (I would word it as "wild swings" or similar and keep it down to ref's discretion), but often doesn't need to be called.

High sticking when no-one's around = completely fine and potentially awesome in my opinion.

Mallet-to-body should always be a turnover (minimum) as otherwise their is a legal way to harm other players.

Follow through on shots is cool, but players should still be responsible for their swings... I'll change my mind about this if/when people start deliberately risking life and limb by putting their head in the way of a big shot (it's never happened).

In my opinion the ice hockey idea/comparison only makes sense if face cages become mandatory and the "blast zone" is defined.

Potential scenario: Beavers vs CMD at 4-4 on golden goal, Kremin shoots from right-wing, big shot, ball hits the back of the net before his follow through makes contact with Greg through the cut-out in his cage. Disallow goal? Just curious.

I'm not intentionally trolling btw, just wondering how you would enforce it.

Guns.

Potential scenario: Beavers vs CMD at 4-4 on golden goal, Kremin shoots from right-wing, big shot, ball hits the back of the net before his follow through makes contact with Greg through the cut-out in his cage. Disallow goal? Just curious.

Yep, I would call that, which some see as the problem with my version of the high-sticking rule. I would also possibly support the argument that a high-sticking call wouldn't disallow a goal though (you would just be awarded the ball if the game wasn't done).

The alternative is to allow all high-sticking on shots and accept that sometimes a team will win a game just as they (potentially) hospitalise an opponent, or that occasionally a player may deliberately strike another under the the disguise of a normal shot.

Neither situation is ideal.

In my opinion the ice hockey idea/comparison only makes sense if face cages become mandatory and the "blast zone" is defined.

And as the NHL eventually realised, having mandatory face protection solves all these problems.

Visors were only made mandatory for this season, for new players (anyone who was already playing at that level it's up to them, at their own risk).

I'm not saying this will happen in bike polo any time soon, but I think it's the only realistic option, as no penalty will ever stop hits to the face.

i do think that zero tolerance will eventually promote a safer game.

Yep, I would call that, which some see as the problem with my version of the high-sticking rule. I would also possibly support the argument that a high-sticking call wouldn't disallow a goal though (you would just be awarded the ball if the game wasn't done).

The alternative is to allow all high-sticking on shots and accept that sometimes a team will win a game just as they (potentially) hospitalise an opponent, or that occasionally a player may deliberately strike another under the the disguise of a normal shot.

Neither situation is ideal.

I think intentionally hitting a player on the follow through is much easier to do and would be more of a possible advantage than trying to get your face on the end of a shot to stop it counting (if you are that close why not hook before the shot?)...

Agree with jono here about whbpc 2013 rule, this was a joke.

• we get call in our game against cmd because Paulo and Manu tried to catch the ball by safely pointing the mallet in the air, no one can be hurt on that, and we were all wearing face cage, this was just a pointless call.
  
• I get warn during our games against doddy-Robbie because I catch Robbie ultra high swing loading, my mallet was just put in the air to intercept his swing who can have easily kill anybody, and I get the call.
  
• I smashed lefty Phil head from power rangers in front of the ref beacause of a mallet fight and didn't get called.
  
  

What I notice is that they call the easy to see high stick, and they are often the less dangerous one, beacause they are slow. No call on big swing.
All this without saying that people fiinf awesome to try to baseball swing airball juste under their shoulder height, wich is still legal... But right under kruse or dillman shoulder mean exactly my head height.

One of the most positive things i took away from florida and the NAH rules is the high sticking rule. It was rigour-sly enforced

with the exception of any Rorybear shot... lolz

I do think that some of those calls were being made by some slightly inexperienced refs who were fresh outta school, I saw a few who were calling ball turnovers when the team who had been fouled were still in advantage. I reckon it would have been easier on some of them had the goal refs been a bit more involved in some of the calls. The final games were done quite well.

They were also OBSESSED with calling the 90 arm sitch... I mean way to ruin the momentum of a game... Although the Wild Animals game was a complete joy to watch. And Alexis getting Piks in a headlock shouting "keep your arms down". Pure entertainment.

Must also lobby a halftime "sausage dog playing fetch" show. Highlight of the Double-Elim IMO. <3

There is a thread and vote on rule changes for 2014, and the NAH is welcoming non-NA voices and votes.

So please get involved. Talking about it on a London based fixed gear forum won't change much, but voting here will.

https://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2013/11/12/preliminary-voting-2014-rule-modifications-and-additions

http://www.nahardcourt.com/voting/

I don't see the format thing as part of the rules. Does anyone agree?

You need different formats for different purposes, finding the best team, being entertaining, being inclusive, ordering the midtable, they all require different formars.

Thought I'd ask here before I consider posting the same on LoBP.

The options for many of the questions are not a straight choice, theyre more like:

Option 1:

a,b and c, but not d or e

Option 2:

a but not b or c, d but not e

This will make the analysis of the poll results as argumentative as what occurred before the poll.

I don't think they'll force you to use the format, but as Kruse is looking to chop and change a bit through a census, why not include format? Anyway, I agree to a certain extent that the type of tournament can affect the format, but competitions like Worlds, UK champs, NA champs should be in the same format (as far possible). Streamlining both sides of the Atlantic can only be a positive thing for the sport.

The options for many of the questions are not a straight choice, theyre more like:

Option 1:

a,b and c, but not d or e

Option 2:

a but not b or c, d but not e

This will make the analysis of the poll results as argumentative as what occurred before the poll.

https://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/r...-and-additions
http://www.nahardcourt.com/voting/

The internet site "http://www.nahardcourt.com/voting/" which you have requested belongs to the category **"Malicious Sites" **which is regarded as inappropriate for business use, and has therefore been blocked.

Ha!

McAffee webwasher? Ours hasn't blocked it yet.

Maybe they added them just for you?

Dunno. It was just the idea that canvassing opinions on Extremeurbanhammerball could be "malicious" that made me chuckle.

"could be"…?

I don't see the format thing as part of the rules. Does anyone agree?

To some extent it is.

Remember this ruleset is designed for the NAH tour, where they want to ensure tournaments are identical.

Having a standard doesn't mean it can't be broken when appropriate.