Polo Rules

If the game is affected, call a real penalty.

A warning is not a punishment, and should never be used that way. Otherwise it'll just spiral, and people will get the idea "i'll just get warned, no big deal".

There is a MIGHT in my statement accompanied with PETTY, so please do not reword what I said. I never said a warning is a punishment and not everyone is thick and ignores the ref. Warning = caution = if you repeat that you're off = red card in football. Maybe it's time for players to respect the ref more - placing the onus on the players themselves rather than on the ref? Re: gamesmenship v. sportsmenship? One of the prime reason IMO people hate to ref is because most players dont give a hoot about what the ref says.

In my dolphin slap example, i meant situations where it's just luck that the other player was not slapped--perhaps they hopped or steered out of the way, or perhaps a reckless endo where the player was clearly out of control just happened to land short. The ref should be able to recognize the difference... anyway i don't think warnings are important, i was just trying to give an example of one of the times i'd consider warning someone. i find yelling at players on the court is generally not useful.

I disagree with you kev, you are trying to judge/call based on players intention, you sure there is anyone who can be 100% sure about this? Even professional refs in mainstream sports can't eliminate cheating through sportsmenship, what's the chance that we make a wrong call? Time for ref badges and certification? Also, why you should penalise a player when it's lady luck which avoided slapping a player?

The whole issue came up because the rules were changed too close to the tournament. Rules should always be given time to bed-in and not at a short notice.

I said it and I will say it again, I am happy the rules were not used at the UK qualifying tournament.

Beagle, I think you are agreeing with Kev and you don't realise it.

^ troll i.e. TS proxy ;)

I've skipped forward somewhat as I don't feeling like reading all this right now.
Reffing is hard. I'd class myself as an experienced player who knows the rules but when it comes to reffing, you have to be 100% into that.

The SB Ponies game was reffed by young Alex from paris i seem to remember.
That's like saying ref your own game. No disrespect to Alex but I don't think he's ready to ref such a game.
I also saw other questionable refs and thought wtf are they reffing for?!

It's always nice to help out. But top refs should only step up.
Saying teams that had played need to be goal refs and not the main ref was good.
If refs are gonna take the lead from different countries they need to be told and have that announced before the tourney.

(like passing a health and safety award)

During tough games calls have to be made. Once David had taken advantage of 'that' tapout rule everyone was talking about it and how you could get away with various things. If you don't have to tap I could really play bad and do crazy stuff to assist a victory.
Throwing back wheels needs to be nipped in the bud early. The Euros was a massive display of this and I wonder what kind of message we're setting for future tournaments. Front brake culture.
The thing is it's effective but can also be so dangerous.

If players repeatedly get told to tap everytime they foul, slash, throw wheel etc they'll soon realize they're taking themselves out of the game. Some players will not care about fouling if it means assisting a goal. They should be taken off the court for such cases with 30 sec / 1 min penalties.
Just get refs that can call this shit. That's the bottom line. Only the ref can enforce the rules. players will always bend them and see how far they can push it.

Saying teams that had played need to be goal refs and not the main ref was good.

This. To be a goal ref still needs concentration but pretty much anyyone with some sort of attention span can be a goal ref.

The Europeans have a different way of reffing than us, they enforce 'self reffing' which I saw at the epiphany tournament earlier this year. This is a really good method in low key tournaments such as epiphany but for the big tournaments I think it should be very serious reffing etc

That said last week I felt personally I was pushing it as far as I could and I was experimenting with what I could get away with. I only really got called on one challenge against Sophie which was Dick from me. I kinda realised that Europeans are used to it. And none of them really are complaining about this it seems. I think once a tournament has a couple of experienced refs that are willing to ref the majority of games (like towards the end of euros) the rest of us should focus on our play. And beating the big European/American teams.

How is self-reffing a good method when you've admitted you like to experiment with what you can get away with?

Only getting called on one challenge does not mean the other challenges were clean.

I'd argue most Europeans are not used to it (unless I talked to a widely different group of people to yourself).

If we only have good refs for the final games, then you will fail to set a precedent early enough in the tournament in my opinion.

Yes we should all focus on beating the big European/American teams, but this is a separate point to the discussion of the rules.

Just get refs that can call this shit. That's the bottom line.

Agreed.

There used to be good refs who were willing and able to ref all day.

Oh the ironing.

The Europeans have a different way of reffing than us, they enforce 'self reffing'...

Contradiction in terms?

Todd's comment seems very hard to argue against, except from a pragmatic point. If we leave reffing to the people who are motivated, it'll go back to the days when one or two people reffed a whole tournament. Which is unsustainable unless we factor in reffing fees to tournament budgets.

I really appreciate the NS idea of compulsory reffing as a team. I get the impression that the UK has the most rules-engaged scene around. In Brum we ref most throw-in games (sometimes not to tournament standard, but still...) I'm surprised you don't do that in London.

I can totally get on board with the idea that latter games should attract/necessitate a more experienced ref though.

Bill should ref everything, all the time, I'd like him to ref me pissing, incase I hit the rim.

Bill should ref everything, all the time, I'd like him to ref me pissing, incase I hit the rim.

Banned from all competitive pissing for 6 months.

I thought about an idea last night and i had spoken a bit with clement, manu and other from GVP yesterday, would like to have some opinion about it before (maybe) enforcing it for the WHBPC.

Considering to give more power to the goal ref, let's call them assistant ref.

The idea is to create a trio of ref (main ref, ref assistant 1, ref assistant 2) who will be in charge of a (to be determined) shift, let's say 2-3 hours.

This "squad" will work together and manage their role as their convenience (main ref role turn or fixed role for the whole time).

Basically the, the ass. ref. have the same power as the main ref. but without whistle, they can call a penalty (one distinct gesture, like one arm up to the sky), a delayed penalty (clear gesture to find, maybe one arm up and one more horizontal) and obviously call goal (flag) and no goal (arm crossed).

The main ref can get a clear view of what's going on without even seeing it, they just have to trust their two other ref.

I don't like that much the "winning team goes goal ref", even if it's a good idea, in practice you can lose time (winning team just goes away...) and im feeling that a real dedicated goal ref is way more effective than an happy-exausted player.

PS. EHBPC 2012 was a mess in term of goal ref, i saw many games where the main ref asking after a few goal "who is the goal ref in this side"?...

Anyway, i think giving more power and more responsibility to the goal ref could help a lot:

• the goal ref (assistant ref) job is way more interesting
  
• the main ref job is more convenient and more effective
  
• basically the whole court is well covered by ref, almost no more dead angle
  
• the call has more power because it comes from 2 or 3 people, not only one ref who take all the responsibility.
  
• in very difficult decision the main ref would call the involved assistant ref to talk with, not the player involved.
  
  

We will put that on paper to see what it's mean.

I really like this idea. In Barcelona, I was reffing a game and I didn't see something vital - a player dabbed in front of their own goal, and this dabbing (he had the ball) would have meant the other team got the ball in front of open net (all the players near the net had gone down too). It was hard for me to see what was going on, and he called a time out just as he was putting his foot down. I didn't see it and only heard 'time out' being called, so I stopped time. But Steffan had seen what he was planning and came running over to say that he was strategically calling a time out so not to get scored on.

It was really good to have that help and to be able to call a penalty against the sneaky player...

In hindsight I probably should have guessed what he was playing at, but at the time I thought he'd been fouled by the other player. Anyway, it was unclear from far away, but Steffan at the goalline could see what was going on.

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

Agreed, the only problem is communicating effectively between refs...someone always has to leave their post to confer. I liked the radios the courts had in Paris, though I imagine this would be costly if everyone had one.

Helmet walky talky for refs !!

And Madonna headpieces please.

Timeout vogues please.

As long as the goal refs don't have the ability to stop the game then you should be fine. We already have problems with one ref knowing when the appropriate time to blow their whistle is! (I can imagine games where the goal ref stops the game, the ref doesn't realise, one team score and everyone has a big argument for example.)

Any ref should already rely on his two goal refs to help work out a situation that the main ref didn't get a good angle on... I used to talk to the goal refs before big games (Euros 2011) and state that they would be the second set of eyes if needed so they had to pay attention to the game and try to ignore the crowd/players opinions as much as possible.

So many times I see refs talk to the players after stopping the game which is laughable: call what you see and if in doubt talk to your goal refs, no-one else's opinion matters one bit. Goal ref arm gestures are fine, but the ref should still have the final call on everything to avoid confusion.

Sure, the goal ref can't stop the game (no whistle) but they can make the main ref do it.

I know that some ref already talk with the GR before and during game, and it's works fine this way but my guess is that making it pretty clear that "You are part in the arbitration too" will make the whole arbitration more effective.

It must be a fact, not an assumption.

It's why i think the term "goal ref" is a bit weak, "yeah sure i can see if the ball cross the line anyway!", it should be more related to the whole side of the court, not only the goal.

Obviously, the hard part in goal refing is not calling a ball crossing the line or not, it is calling if the action before that was legit.
Being considered by the players and the crowd as a real Ref would help to call penalty i think.

Maybe call them "half side ref", or "2nd and 3rd" ref, or simply "assistant ref".
Don't know

I think it's a great idea. As long as the main ref is the only one making audible calls, and the communication between assistant refs and main ref is clear, then I could see that being a really good thing.

Certainly any bullshit going on in near the goal should be picked up easier.

Obviously mics and headpieces would be amazing, but football refs managed long enough with flag signals, I'm sure we can too.

Which bring me on to my next point, can we have flags for the goal refs for the Worlds? Not little pennants like the Coq Sportiv ones, but proper refs flags? It worked so well at the LII.

I think its a good idea, its like in football. the linesman can call fouls etc.

ps. all about the walky talkies!!

I think its a good idea, its like in football. the linesman can call fouls etc.

ps. all about the walky talkies!!

Yeah yeah talkiewalkie, we are on it for the main ref and the HQ but since it's expensive the communication between ref and 2nd ref must be gesture based.

And you have to think about lowest common denominator, not every tournament will have walkietalkie...

The gesture is the key, you need to tell 4 things to your main ref:

a) penalty (and wich team is faulty OR wich team get the turnover)
b) delayed penalty (the team who have the ball a this time is the "victime")
c) Calling a goal
d) Calling a no-goal

idea:
a: one hand up and one pointing the faulty side (pointing the ground and pointing the horizon)
b: one hand up
c: flag up (or two hand up?)
d: arm crossed

As uolmo/clem told me too, add few gesture to describe the penalty (if needed):

blind check
slashing
mallet on bike/body

http://www.fpsports.org/hockey%20terminology/hockey_referee_signals.htm

The NAH had some signals worked out for the penalties if you want to ask them for the full list... I think it's unlikely that most refs/goal refs will learn them, but it's a sound idea.

The gesture is the key, you need to tell 4 things to your main ref:

a) penalty (and wich team is faulty OR wich team get the turnover)
b) delayed penalty (the team who have the ball a this time is the "victime")
c) Calling a goal
d) Calling a no-goal

idea:
a: one hand up and one pointing the faulty side (pointing the ground and pointing the horizon)
b: one hand up
c: flag up (or two hand up?)
d: arm crossed

a) maybe just point in the direction of play (like in football), as they will need to whistle at the same time.
b) and then maybe the football advantage call as well (just in case it's not clear who the advantage is for)
c) just flag/arm up I'd say
d) yeah, arms crossed, or waving horizontally.