London Bike Polo League

After talking to some folks on saturday, timeouts should be allowed only when a goal is scored. 1 per team per game and keep it quick. Like 5 minutes or so. And judging by some interweb chat, after a goal has been scored, the scored upon team cannot take the ball past half court until 2/3 of the scoring team has returned to their goal. We already generally abide by this rule anyways but it's something worth writing down.

Certain courts, such as Downham Rd, could cause the ball to bounce off the back of the goal and pass half court. It's my opinion that it's then game on, either team can gain control of the ball. BUT it is up to the home team of any game to announce if that is or is not the case.

;381194']Certain courts, such as Downham Rd, could cause the ball to bounce off the back of the goal and pass half court. It's my opinion that it's then game on, either team can gain control of the ball. BUT it is up to the home team of any game to announce if that is or is not the case.

I'd disagree, i think that if the ball passed beyond the half way line it should be either collected or passed to the now attacking team (the team that has just conceded the goal)...then the game continues.

in the case of a collection the ball has to go back into their own half... so there is no advantage to either team via a goal bounce off.

+1 with Shins. Otherwise, Mike, under your proposal a team could hypothetically win 5-0 without the losing team touching the ball.

agreed with raytard but as mike's post suggests he's spoken to "some folks" and they have come to a conclusion.

who are we to have an opinion?

Hmmm. I can't think of any sport that doesn't have, either a reset (i.e. hockey), or the ball being left in the possession of the team that was scored on (i.e. basketball). I don't see the advantage to allowing possession to be returned to the attacking team because of a lucky bounce?

yes, it should be enforced that the ball is left with the conceding team.

+1 gabes, ray, aidan, tom etc... definitely with the conceding team. When have we played otherwise? Is this yet another rule to be introduced?

i think it's another of the rules that, between mates, fell under the umbrella of "don't be a dick". But for a league/tourney it needs to be clarified.

Also, just a side... is it up for the home team to introduce home rules? or just court rules? this to me is a game rule, not a court rule.

NS Court rule #1: Only No Sympathy can win.

Also, just a side... is it up for the home team to introduce home rules? or just court rules? this to me is a game rule, not a court rule.

it is a game rule.

+1 ray, tom, aidan, gabes etc... definitely with the conceding team. When have we played otherwise? Is this yet another rule to be introduced?

can you edited this so...oh forget it fixed.

Oh yeah, sorry, Ray is right. Ray was right first. But fuck repping him, those things were pointless anyway.

Sarah... you will get actual neg reps...

... when daves not around! ;p

agreed with raytard but as mike's post suggests he's spoken to "some folks" and they have come to a conclusion.

who are we to have an opinion?

FFS Aiden, It's my fucking opinion. My word is not law.

Yea, there's been some opinions suggested to me, questions asked to me. I'm just posting my idea of a consolidated opinion based on talking to a few folks. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I don't get the chance to travel south of the river much to talk to you lot. Hell, I've only just played a proper game in London this past saturday for the first time in at least a month. So the tiny bit of chit chat I've had is very limited but nobody else seems to ever just take hold of it and put things out there in statement form. Usually what I put out there is publicly well received, what goes on in private is anybody's guess though. Sometimes it's not so well received and there's more discussion about it. We've still not come to a complete decision about forfeits and goal differences...

How about trying to make a positive contribution.

I only think the bounce back thing would just help the game speed along. Of course the gentlemanly thing to do would be give the ball back and I don't think it's as much of a game issue as a court one. In Peckham there's no chance of this happening. In Downham Rd. there's a very likely chance it could happen.

If the ball has come back half court on it's own accord and the scoring team has had time to return to their goals, then where has the scored upon team been all this time? A bit of hustle and they'd have the ball already in the other half of the court.*

*My opinion.

;381844'] Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I don't get the chance to travel south of the river much to talk to you lot.

Aww, don't be mean about South London, we're actively trying to encourage more play down there. Anyway, we South Londoners all play about 75% of our polo North of the river!

Yeah... well i was thinking along the lines of a massive fail/pile up ouccurance where the defending team may hit the floor get scored on... ball bounces past half way... team has to tap out... they get fucked up again.

oh... what is the rule for foot down after a goal...

IMO: I think if the goal is scored and a defender has foot down during that goal they should not have to tap out... same principle of letting the game flow.

Aww, don't be mean about South London, we're actively trying to encourage more play down there. Anyway, we South Londoners all play about 75% of our polo North of the river!

and dont we know it!;)

I don't think we've ever played that you have to tap out if you foot down and a goal is scored. A goal scored pretty much resets the whole game. That's why I want to get the 'after the goal is scored' procedure as fair and correct and continuous as possible.

your initial comment suggests you have already decided on a rule. for example:

;381194']timeouts should be allowed only when a goal is scored.

This lead me to believe that you and these folks you refer to have decided on a rule...without consulting others*. forgive me for jumping to such a preposterous conclusion.

in my eyes what i'm doing is positive.

*everyone

your initial comment suggests you have already decided on a rule. for example:

This lead me to believe that you and these folks you refer to have decided on a rule...without consulting others*. forgive me for jumping to such a preposterous conclusion.

in my eyes what i'm doing is positive.

*everyone

Yea mate, I guess my posts do generally get taken as de facto but I still consider the league as owned by the players. What I post up is my opinion based on the people who have had discussions with me about a topic. And it is just that, my opinion.

Snide remarks are never positive. Just like pushing and shouting at someone is never positive...

i really don't think bounce or not that the ball should fall to the team that has scored. This should have nothing to do with courts and everything to do with possession. Once you have scored possession is the opposing teams, until they lose it of their own accord. Bouncing off of a wall etc, would not be their accord.

Ok so from here it looks like after a goal is scored, no matter what, the possession goes to the scored against team.

But as for the time out thing, there don't seem to be any opinions here. Does that mean that timeouts should be allowed only when a goal is scored? 1 per team per game and keep it quick, like 5 minutes or so?

i agree, timeouts for bike fixing etc should only be allowed directly after a goal is scored and once per game.

Obviously timeouts for bad crashes/injuries can be called whenever, as was the case in paris when both Brendan and Andy decided to headbutt the floor (the fools!)