Polo Rules

We played a small tourney in Nantes this weekend with the NAH ruleset (we had it printed and with a nice rigid cover - and even I read it!).

Quality of reffing was pretty good, esp when Hugo was doing it.

My personal opinion is:

• at this stage, with the new rules not yet understood/respected, it creates a lot of whistling and game interruptions, which makes for a less interesting sport to watch. Maybe with time this won't happen so often, but right now it interfered too much with the flow

• the high sticking rule is total bullshit. I've said it before and I'll say it again, no-one ever got hurt a player lifting his mallet to catch the occasional flying ball. Absolute waste of time. Hard reverse backshots are way more dangerous, I'll keep my face cage for that, thanks.

• the interference rule works and is easy to understand

• hacking was kinda fun, I miss it.

• hooking has to be kept part of polo. It adds excitement to the game : one of my favorite things to see is when a player does a fast breakaway, thinks he can have a shot on an open goal or on a lone goalie, and just as he is about to shoot, SNAP a defender rushing from behind hooks his mallet and changes the course of the game. Why on earth would we want to ban this??

• No arm extension, arms next to the body : why not, but short players can circumvent this by lifting the forearm or shoulders of opponents with their shoulders, just as we ride next to them and are way below by nature. Woods took a pretty nasty fall today, as I did exactly that to him. I felt bad, but it wasn't called.

• Interfering with goalie: not clear if bike to bike contact counts as interference? Woods did the classic "front wheel opener" to me, by forcing his front wheel against mine and leaving a small gap for his teammate to score between my bike and the post. The goal wasn't counted, I was half happy it didn't count, half unhappy as I always thought it was a clever offense move.

voila.

Nice yorgo!

I guess when people understand them better they will stop breaking the rules. Maybe impose tougher penalty's to encourage play within the rule's.

• hooking has to be kept part of polo. It adds excitement to the game : one of my favorite things to see is when a player does a fast breakaway, thinks he can have a shot on an open goal or on a lone goalie, and just as he is about to shoot, SNAP a defender rushing from behind hooks his mallet and changes the course of the game. Why on earth would we want to ban this??
  
  
  
  

I agree, 'beautiful' hooks can be quite cool (although I'd stop way short of describing them as one of my favourite things) but they happen what, once every ten games?

Contrast that with tens of crappy mallet-to-mallet swipes which break the flow and usually several blatant slashes in every single game (worse as tournaments progress towards the finals IMO).

I think of it like football/basketball - if you want the ball you need to get the ball. It's cheap, ugly and too easy to swipe at players' legs or arms, so they made a rule to prevent it.

legs would definitely be wheels in comparison

unsubscribes

I agree, 'beautiful' hooks can be quite cool (although I'd stop way short of describing them as one of my favourite things) but they happen what, once every ten games?

Contrast that with tens of crappy mallet-to-mallet swipes which break the flow and usually several blatant slashes in every single game (worse as tournaments progress towards the finals IMO).

I think of it like football/basketball - if you want the ball you need to get the ball. It's cheap, ugly and too easy to swipe at players' legs or arms, so they made a rule to prevent it.

By definition if something happens often in a game it stops being "beautiful".

Hacks are already against the rules, it's not the rules that need changing to get rid of them, it's up to refs to start calling it.

Hacks are already against the rules, it's not the rules that need changing to get rid of them, it's up to refs to start calling it.

+1. I never see hacks called.

I reckon if they were called often, even the half hacks, in the early games when everyone is testing the waters then it would be stamped out by the second day and shouldn't rest it's head so much in the finals, and even if it does it'll be called as it's been called all weekend.

it's up to refs to start calling it.

Wrong. This is what's fucking with the game at the moment. Players use the ref not calling something as an excuse to throw dick moves. Just stop being dicks! It's lazy, non-constructive and ultimately damaging to this hobby of ours.

I reckon if they were called often, even the half hacks, in the early games when everyone is testing the waters then it would be stamped out by the second day and shouldn't rest it's head so much in the finals, and even if it does it'll be called as it's been called all weekend.

This.

Wrong. This is what's fucking with the game at the moment. Players use the ref not calling something as an excuse to throw dick moves. Just stop being dicks! It's lazy, non-constructive and ultimately damaging to this hobby of ours.

In your opinion what is the point of having refs then?

In your opinion what is the point of having refs then?

Louis you're being a bit of a troll today

It's all the fault of the moderators for not coming down hard on trolling.

Didn't we do this conversation last week?

Wrong. This is what's fucking with the game at the moment. Players use the ref not calling something as an excuse to throw dick moves. Just stop being dicks! It's lazy, non-constructive and ultimately damaging to this hobby of ours.

This!

In your opinion what is the point of having refs then?
because some people are cheats?

In your opinion what is the point of having refs then?
Just because there's no ref, does that mean players don't need to abide by the rules? Of course not, that's why throw-ins don't descend into a clusterfuck of hacks, shuffles, t-bones and t-shirt grabs (™ Dodi, 2013).

ETA: This kind of misses the point, which is that Nesbit is right. DBAD.

Refs need a quick penalty they can issue for such fouls whilst keeping the game moving - how about a three yellow/one red card system that is visible from the sidelines...?

Both teams are 'allowed' to incur up to three yellow cards within the 10 minutes for minor offences such as hacking (list to be agreed). Once a team is awarded it's fourth yellow within the game - this becomes a red card and the last player to commit the third offence takes an immediate 30 second penalty for the team.

All yellow cards are then wiped clean for that team after the penalty is taken and the team can go back to collecting more... ;-)

All that would be required is a 3 x yellow card + 1 x red card device that flaps over the boards where the ref is stationed (like a typical scoreboard/Blankety Blank).

The ref can call the foul/name the player without interrupting/whistleblowing/halting the game and/or allowing advantage to be played and both teams can see their fouls accumulating, hopefully acting as a stronger deterrent the longer the game continues.

Or just have a ball turnover…

Things are complicated enough as they are

Or if need be, implement the 30s penalty straight away.

How about everytime you commit a foul, you have to remove an item of clothing?

Ripe for abuse by unscrupulous refs - imagine how many fouls Fin would get called against him.

#dreamboat

Obviously people should stop being dicks but unfortunately we've lost some of our Victorian gentlemanly spirit. I'm certainly never a dick.

How about everytime you commit a foul, you have to remove an item of clothing?

kevin nik and ryan dirtiest (and most naked) team in polo.

Just because there's no ref, does that mean players don't need to abide by the rules? Of course not, that's why throw-ins don't descend into a clusterfuck of hacks, shuffles, t-bones and t-shirt grabs (™ Dodi, 2013).

ETA: This kind of misses the point, which is that Nesbit is right. DBAD.

Today at throwin's there were multiple hacks, two clearances by players footed down, all manor of high sticking and that was just Apollo.

It doesn't decend any further because it's harmless fun type cheating rather than dicking... But the only difference is the prizes at the end...

Let's see a tourny with prizes and no refs and let's see how that works out?

I believe people should be dicks MORE.

The main problem with reffing is the idea that everything is an accident and that everyone is playing with the best intentions.

Whilst this is often true for throw-ins, it's rarely true in a competitive game. We should put more pressure on refs to make calls (of any kind) and not give them the safety net of "well, they probably didn't mean it" – which whilst perhaps being true, isn't conducive to the correct team always having the advantage (and perhaps winning the game).

Hacking, mallets-under-wheels, raised arms, steering arm checks (below the elbow), bike-on-bike contact, shoves, holding, etc... all rarely called and certainly not penalty box calls (as many of them should be).

+1

The main problem with reffing is the idea that everything is an accident and that everyone is playing with the best intentions.

Whilst this is often true for throw-ins, it's rarely true in a competitive game. We should put more pressure on refs to make calls (of any kind) and not give them the safety net of "well, they probably didn't mean it" – which whilst perhaps being true...

You've nailed it with the first bit.
With regards to the "safety net" bit, it is NOT TRUE. The rules (NAH v4.1) are clear on this. The first clause of the penalties section is:

§6.1 – Severity of Infraction
§6.1.1 – It is the responsibility of the referee to assess the severity of any infraction listed in §7 – §10 and issue a penalty that rectifies the disadvantage created by the fouling team. (My emphasis)

If a team has been put at a disadvantage, this should be rectified.

There is no requirement to assess whether or not the fouling team meant it or not, with a very limited number of exceptions:

There are two rules that require the referee to assess intent:

• §4.8 – Shifted Goal Position (and sub-clauses thereof)
  

• §7.1.1.3 – A player intentionally scoops or throws the ball out of play
  In addition to these two instances, there is also:

• §8.3.1.2 – Incidental bike–on–bike contact is contact that doesn’t affect play and is not dangerous. (My emphasis)
  This last one doesn't really come into the intent category, as the qualifying criteria is whether or not it affects play, i.e. creates a disadvantage for one or both teams.

That's it. Any ref using the "well, they probably didn't mean it" cop-out is not fit to be reffing.
Any suggestion that players should be more flagrant and intentional in their foul play strikes me as a very dangerous route to go down.