Polo Rules

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.

In fact 2nd ref will not have a whistle, the aim is to find a way for him to tell the Main ref who will get the ball turnover in case if the main ref don't see it. (you see what i want to say?)

And yes we have flag, they looks like pennants but they are big and red enough:

In fact 2nd ref will not have a whistle, the aim is to find a way for him to tell the Main ref who will get the ball turnover in case if the main ref don't see it. (you see what i want to say?)

Ah yes of course.

Though as a ref I like to signal things as well.

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.

Great, i'll ask kev.

Ah yes of course.

Though as a ref I like to signal things as well.

Yes sure they can too, it was just about how communicate from the 2nd ref -> main. This way the Main know want he is whistling.

Trio ref' is brilliant.
Working as a team is motivating too. And working together 2-3 hours allows each trio to improve it's reffing.
And the ref would not have to beg people to be goal ref anymore, which is really cool.

Refs will struggle to keep the required concentration levels for 30 minutes, let alone 2-3 hours.

(An hour of reffing is plenty, rotate the reffing crews more often, etc.)

Think that between 1h30 and 2h00 is still realistic period of refin'. And if the trio is composed by good refs you can imagine turn their role, a main ref become an assistant etc...

We are aslo really thinking about writing a penalty shot rules, based on the ice hockey one for the shot scenario:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ca47XAuxjI

Ball in the middle, you have to avance all time (no round circle) and shot before crossing the line.

This can happens any time a last defensive player (last mean between ball and empty net) make a foul on a player with the ball.
It happens in our game against Mum lovers, Quentin (helmet on this board) was completly out of his net when a opponent came with the ball. In a last move Quentin put his mallet under the wheel of the player who felt of. All the crowd was shooting "penalty penatly" to see a penalty shot. I thought that if the ref called a penalty shot and invented the rule right for this case, nobody would have complain because it was too obvious that it was a perfect penalty shot situation.
Some argue that a 30 second penalty is enough but i think a penalty shot is easier to enforce and really spectacular.
If that's also a too small penalty, who can for example push good goalkeepers team to provide lot of last chance foul to avoid goals, we could also imagine that if the penalty shot is missed, you apply the 30 sec penalty after.

Also agreed. I want to see hockey style (not football style) penalty shots for fouls which have directly stopped a goal scoring chance. So as you say, mallet under the wheel from the last defender, or also a footdown in goal.

In fact I've been meaning to test this out in the next fun tournament I do.

Also agreed. I want to see hockey style (not football style) penalty shots for fouls which have directly stopped a goal scoring chance. So as you say, mallet under the wheel from the last defender, or also a footdown in goal.

In fact I've been meaning to test this out in the next fun tournament I do.

I think if you're last defender and you stop the striker who's going to score in the empty net, you should be penalized by more than a penalty shot.

Cause shooting in empty net is 95% chance of scoring.

I would say scoring chance in a one on one is 30 to 70% depending of the players so it's a real disavantage and If I made a rationnal choice looks better to make a fault that letting a guy scoring in empty net.

To me fault as the last defender on someone able to score in empty net should be a penallty shot first.

If it's scored it's a goal, if not the player who make the fault is out for a minute or till next goal scored.

To me fault as the last defender on someone able to score in empty net should be a penallty shot first.

If it's scored it's a goal, if not the player who make the fault is out for a minute or till next goal scored.

Agree, like Clement said:

we could also imagine that if the penalty shot is missed, you apply the 30 sec penalty after.

I don't know where all of this is going but maybe we will see a lot more of powerplay when the penalty will be called more often, wich will lead to more goals and then the no-limit score will really make sense.

BUT, all of this is mainly incompatible with 99% of the pickup/training session we are all practice all year long (no ref, no infrastructure to manage good "jail", etc).
I think this is the main issue: the disparity between practice and tourney condition.

edit: That being said we should all try to ref our pickup session.

This is the same as taking a player out for X seconds in my opinion (as one player is likely to be screened out during the power play).

It sounds like fun but will require more rules to be written/understood (can the keeper rush out, are there restrictions on the player on the ball at all, when does the penalty start/end, where's everyone else, how do you restart the game, etc).

And, yet again, it will require refs that enforce the rules.

Afaik the rules already allow for an instant penalty-goal, maybe the ref in the situation above wasn't aware or was afraid of seeming biassed?

The simple fact that in Paris no real penalty door was there put ref in trouble ( no offense for the best court on earth so far, or close to). How are you gonna put somebody out with a unique big door on one corner only, it was obvious for ref that the 30 penalty was unrealstic to call. We are still thinking about how make some good cells on court, im in favor putin the penalty box on a corner, but we can imagine a door next to the ref (in geneva court gonna be same kind of structure as Parise ones).

Clearly Quentin deserved a 30 sec for his move. but reffin wasn't the best part of EHBPC this year.

Jono, i agree that this requiere more rules and people who enforce it, this is true for most of the cases we are talking here. A penalty shot can be call in my opinion when that obvious that the last defensor fucked up, in the case we talk about, there was no doubt at all.

I think the most simple is to apply a simple hockey shoutout style without penalty at the end. But if people are thinking with greg on this i can understand to move on a penalty shot + 30 sec if the goal is missed. This seems a really reasonable way to rule things, as the nets was empty or close to, you give a lot of chances to the team to score, if they fuck up after all this, then game one.

The restart would be clear to, if you score, then that's a classical ball turnover, if you don't, then the victim team get the ball for a 30 seconds power play.

As Helmet say, i think we should put less taboo on the 30 seconds penalty, make it a part of the game more than a exceptionnal stuff impossible to handle by ref because of the pressure. The goal limitation is an issue in this case.

About pick ups, i remember puting myself auto-out for 30 sec after huge classical foul in geneva two times, for lauchin' my mallet to stop a goal. To enforce this rule alone, i climbed up our concrect wall, and counted every second loudly. This can be a way to enforce it in pick up.

I can count on one hand the number of referees in Europe that are brave enough to dish out the current penalties we have.

I think you should keep things simple (by not adding the shootout rule) and should simply have a thorough referee meeting pre-tournament stating that you want to see the rules enforced (especially during the early rounds of a tournament to help set the standard).

You can always hold a player at halfway for 30 seconds (or 2 minutes) if needed, although I appreciate this isn't ideal (not issuing any penalties at all is far worse in my opinion).

You can always hold a player at halfway for 30 seconds (or 2 minutes) if needed, although I appreciate this isn't ideal (not issuing any penalties at all is far worse in my opinion).

That's what we do at throw-ins. Not ideal, but works well enough.

Afaik the rules already allow for an instant penalty-goal, maybe the ref in the situation above wasn't aware or was afraid of seeming biassed?

They don't, and they should not. Goals should only ever be awarded when the ball crosses the line.

I thought a ball that was going in blocked by somebody foot-downing in the goal can be allowed?!

^ This. If someone deliberately takes you down on what is a guaranteed goal then the same rule should apply imo

imo, ball has to cross the line. no one can predict the future.

Can we have a players procession at the beginning of the Worlds?

(we're all here cos it's the boring Olympic bit right?)

If think it have to be possible if the guy obviously block a goal by staying here on purpose. This is in a lot of case easily readable.
Then should another penalty happens when it look like the guy block a shot for another reason?

• If you are leaving nets? - In most cases right now playing continue and it doesn't shock so much people, we can't ask players to teleport until they foot down.
  -If you stay longer because somebody is on your way or you take time for a "good" reason (pick up your mallet after a hacking, tryin' to reach on you pedal) ? Should the same penalty happens?
  
  
  

I have also trouble about another point in actual rules. When you call delayed penalty, you are waiting take to guilty take the ball to give a ball turnover. But what happen if the team take a lot of time to get the ball? should the penalty happen anyway, like in Ice hockey, if the ref left his arm for a delayed one, the 2 minutes penalty box (or harder) gonna get enforce, regardless what happens in the game. (that's why the victim team usually take this time to switch the goalkeeper by a player, there is no risk about let the nets open cause at the first contact between guilty team and puck, the game is stopped, so no chance to score). Or should we apply the soccer rule: the "advantage" period is define by the ref: after few seconds the game continue like if nothing happnes. If the guilty team take the ball about a period of time long enough, the foul is forgott ( if the foul is light enough to don't deserve a card).

They don't, and they should not. Goals should only ever be awarded when the ball crosses the line.

Defensive player throws mallet to block the ball from going into the goal.

No goal awarded?