Polo Rules

It's dodgy to award a goal that never crossed the line.

The attitude to date has been to withdraw one or more offending players to give the attacking team ample time to redress the balance. If they can't score with a 30 second to 1 minute powerplay, then they probably were never going to win anyway.

But what happen if the team take a lot of time to get the ball?

It's about restoring advantage, so you watch the game and if the team to be penalised take possession of the ball then you stop the game (and issue out any time penalties as needed) and then proceed with the ball given back to the innocent team. The delayed penalty is to allow the team in possession (innocent team) their chance of scoring (otherwise you are penalising the wrong team)!

Just because some time passes doesn't mean the incident is ignored... there are very few cases where the advantage would be cancelled (a similar foul from the innocent team during the advantage would cancel each other out in my opinion, or a stronger foul from the innocent team would then give advantage to the other team, etc).

Generally speaking once a ref has their arm in the air then the game will be stopped once the ball is dead (or it turns over), far too many people drop their arm simply because some time has passed (this is wrong in my opinion).

It's dodgy to award a goal that never crossed the line.

Agreed, the ball should always cross the line... we should remove all three players from a team if needed! We also need to increase the length of a game (penalty time) in the event that a serous foul happens within the last few seconds of a game.

Generally speaking once a ref has their arm in the air then the game will be stopped once the ball is dead (or it turns over), far too many people drop their arm simply because some time has passed (this is wrong in my opinion).

This.

The team must feel that they got their chance AND the ball turnover.
I think it would really add a nice gameplay feature that should be part of the game.

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

No goal awarded?

Nope. I would give at least a 2 minute penalty (as just the throwing itself is an automatic 30 seconds), quite possibly take them out of the rest of the game, depending on the circumstances.

If it happens at the end of the game, it's pretty tough under the current rules to do much about it.

But it's a perfect example of where a penalty shot would be the best option (as it gives the team the best chance to restore the goal in the least amount of time).

Regarding penalty shots, this is how Hockey handles this:

A penalty shot is awarded to a player who is deemed to have lost a clear scoring chance on a breakaway by way of a penalty infraction by an opposing player. A breakaway, in this case, means that there are no other players between the would-be shooter and the goaltender of the defending team. Generally, the penalty shot is awarded in lieu of what would normally be a minor penalty, so the fouled team will not get both a penalty shot and a power play from a single infraction.

Following the announcement of the penalty shot, the official places the puck at centre ice. The identified shooter is allowed to skate a short distance to the puck in order to gain momentum and then, unlike penalty kicks in soccer and penalty strokes in field hockey, the player is allowed to skate with the puck before shooting.

All players other than the selected shooter and the selected goaltender must move to either side of the ice surface in front of their respective benches.

The goaltender must remain in the crease until the attacking player has gained possession of the puck. After this point he may move out of the crease to gain a better defending position. If the goaltender exits the crease prior to the attacker touching the puck, the official allows the play to continue, and any goal scored stands. If the penalty shot is unsuccessful, however, the puck is returned to centre ice and the shot is re-taken, thus penalizing the goaltender by giving another penalty shot.
During the attempt, the shooter must move continuously towards the goal once the puck is touched. If at any point the official determines the shooter is stalling, the play is nullified. A goal may not be scored from a rebound off of the goalie, the goal itself or the end boards (however, a goal can be scored from a shot which strikes the goal frame or goalie and then goes into the net as a result). Once the puck crosses the end line, the attempt is considered over, regardless of whether a shot was taken.

I think if we did it in Polo, we should pretty much copy the Hockey rules.

So ball on the centre spot, player can gain momentum before taking the ball, once the shooter touches the ball the keeper may leave the D if they want, the player must move forwards at all times, they only get one shot (no rebounds), and once it crosses the goal line (extended across the court), the chance is over. Play starts again as normal after a goal, or as a reset to the shooting team if it isn't.

All other players stay in the opposite half, and time doesn't run during the penalty.

I like all this.

I like all this.

+1, i think penalties are awesome

If someone stops a ball going over the line by throwing a mallet and only a penalty shot is called it still leaves the "offending" team in a better position than not breaking the rules and receiving a goal?

Especially if it's a very close match. Like Skull Attack vs Thumbs up, there was very little between us so the other team stopping an almost guaranteed goal could have dragged it on even longer than it did.

If someone stops a ball going over the line by throwing a mallet and only a penalty shot is called it still leaves the "offending" team in a better position than not breaking the rules and receiving a goal?

Penalty shot AND 30 sec then, this way it could be goal, and goal.

I didn't see anybody throw a mallet sinces ages, and i can't remeber saw it once in tourney. Honestly, if that's obvious that the ball goes in, really obvious, i think nobody gonna complain if the ref allow the goal and even give the 30 second penalty in bonus.
I understand the point about non allowing a goal if the ball never cross the line, but in a case were that there is absolutely no doubt, i think we can allow ref to count it. Especially if that's the end of a game for example and that you don't have in the ruleset any way to enforce a penalty over time.

This case is rare enough in my opinion to don't make it specific. That's more a ref discretion question. It almost never happens.

If someone stops a ball going over the line by throwing a mallet and only a penalty shot is called it still leaves the "offending" team in a better position than not breaking the rules and receiving a goal?

Penalty shot AND 30 sec then, this way it could be goal, and goal.

Well, in that case I'd give a penalty shot, and a longer penalty. Throwing the mallet anywhere is 30 seconds, so if it then is used to stop a goal, that should be at least 2 minutes, or the rest of the game.

So if it's a penalty shot, and 2 players for the rest of the game, that could be worse than not throwing it.

I understand the point about non allowing a goal if the ball never cross the line, but in a case were that there is absolutely no doubt, i think we can allow ref to count it. Especially if that's the end of a game for example and that you don't have in the ruleset any way to enforce a penalty over time.

This case is rare enough in my opinion to don't make it specific. That's more a ref discretion question. It almost never happens.

Interesting, reading the Hockey rules, if an attacker is fouled, in a way which would normally give a penalty shot, and there is no goalkeeper, they just award a goal (as I guess a penalty shot would be pointless).

Now we obviously don't have permanent goalies, but I assume in the case of throwing the mallet, there probably isn't any defensive player near the goal, and you could argue the same thing. I still don't really like the idea of giving a goal that hasn't crossed the line, but maybe in that case it is the best solution, especially at the end of the game.

What I really don't like is "ref discretion". Grey areas in rules lead to bad and inconsistant reffing. If it's possible to define something clearly in the rules, rather than leaving it up to the ref, it should be.

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.)

I reckon that the ideal length of time to ref is 3, maybe 4 games, or roughly 40 mins at a stretch. At this point the refs need a break of at least 15 minutes before reffing again.

The idea of reffing in teams is sound, this is one of the reasons that I recommended that teams ref as teams in the UK National Series, as they all know each other, and there's no confusion at all about who is goal-reffing.

I also think it's really important for goal refs to have flags. Ideally these would be the same size as the football flags, i.e. like the ones we used at LII.

And I can't stress enough that the reffing of the preliminary rounds is just as important as the finals. If you don't know who is reffing, including goal refs, you can't get the games on, and then time is lost, and the tournament starts to run behind schedule.

This is precisely the reason that we adopted the 'winner team refs' system for the UK NS. The Brighton tourney ran over time, because the reffing wasn't sufficiently organised (my fault), so we adopted a system that ensure that each court had refs ready to ref within a minute or so of each game finishing.

Whatever system you decide to adopt for reffing, you must have it nailed down well before the tourney, and make sure that you know exactly who is going to be reffing each game, and that they know that they are going to be reffing it, well before the tournament, not 1 minute before the game is going to start.

It is also important to ref the preliminary rounds well because, in my view, these games set the tone for the whole tournament.

In the early NS, I made sure that Jono & I reffed the very first games of the tournaments, so that we could set an example for the others to follow, and give them the confidence to make the 'big' calls, and not to swallow the whistle. I think that NS reffing, although still a little inconsistent, is now of a good standard, because we have all gotten used to reffing, and being reffed, and we all know what to expect.

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

No goal awarded?

It's dodgy to award a goal that never crossed the line.

The attitude to date has been to withdraw one or more offending players to give the attacking team ample time to redress the balance. If they can't score with a 30 second to 1 minute powerplay, then they probably were never going to win anyway.

Agreed, the ball should always cross the line... we should remove all three players from a team if needed! We also need to increase the length of a game (penalty time) in the event that a serous foul happens within the last few seconds of a game.

I agree with all of this. Throwing a mallet should always, ALWAYS, result in a 30 second penalty*.

Awarding a goal when the ball has not crossed the line is still something I am not comfortable with. I would rather issue a 30 sec penalty for foot-down in the goal.

Do you think it would help if, in every team, there was a nominated referee for the season that could be 'registered' for training or alignment. This named person would be the one responsible for knowing the ruleset and would be PM'd updates by the tournament organiser; have to attend the pre tourney meeting etc.

Surely out of every three in a team there is one who is more suited to the task, whether just keener or more committed...?

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

It's very hard for the goal ref to get the ref's attention. As far as making a call based on a gesture from a goal ref, I'm not sure I would be comfortable with that. If I was reffing, I would want the goal ref to draw my attention by waving a flag, and then I would go over & ask what was up, face to face.

Just about the non crossing the line awarded goal.
3 last second of a game, open net, you shoot the ball goes in a straight line right in the middle of the goal. I launch my mallet 5 m far away from nets, and hit the ball. What would you do? I think that count it as a goal is easier than any other way of reffin' this situation. Nobody gonna complain that the goal was going straigt to nets.

What's the other option? give the game 30 second more with 2-3 players? isn't that giving teams a bonus chance? and what if during this extra team, the penalized team get ball and score on the victim team?

I agree than in most of the cases, almost every case, givin' a 30 second penalty or at least a delayed is the best way to do, the ball have to cross the line. But i think everybody can really understand that if there is no doubt at all that the ball would goes in, the ref can have the right to allow the goal.

In any case you can also give the 30 sec penalty.

By the way, one of the biggest issue with the 30 seconds penalty is material issue: having to stop watch, having a good penalty box on court etc...

By the way, one of the biggest issue with the 30 seconds penalty is material issue: having to stop watch, having a good penalty box on court etc...

All good points, and here's another one: should the player re-entering play at the end of 30 secs, i.e. if a goal hasn't been scored, have to tap-in? Would make sense, especially on courts where the only entry/exit point is at one end.

Ok, so what about:

*Before the last 2 minutes of the game, throwing a mallet, which stops a goal = 2 minute penalty.

In the last 2 minutes of the game, throwing a mallet, which stops a goal (and the goal ref is sure it was going in) = goal, and the offending player thrown out of the game.*

If that was the rule, any team would be crazy to throw the mallet at the end of the game.

Alternative scenario: goalie has a brake issue and footdowns to fix it whilst his own team has dominant possession. Other team steals the ball and takes Cam-style shot from their own half. It's on target but there's a foot-down player in the way. Should be a goal. Ball doesn't cross the line.

The offending team shouldn't be given the chance to reduce it to a no-goal scenario with a 30-second sinbin or one-on-one penalty.

Wasn't there a time when throwing a mallet was an ejectable offence?

Alternative scenario: goalie has a brake issue and footdowns to fix it whilst his own team has dominant possession. Other team steals the ball and takes Cam-style shot from their own half. It's on target but there's a foot-down player in the way. Should be a goal. Ball doesn't cross the line.

The offending team shouldn't be given the chance to reduce it to a no-goal scenario with a 30-second sinbin or one-on-one penalty.

Well, again, I wouldn't give a 30 second penalty for that. If the player sits in goal fixing his bike, when they could get out of the way, I'd consider that a deliberate attempt at cheating, and as such would give them a 2 minute penalty or even throw them out of the game.

Again, unless it's at the end of the game, then it's not really an issue, a 2 minute powerplay should be enough.

Ok for me to close my view about count non-crossed line goals. We should let this power to ref, mostly because some times it can be obvious that a goal shoul have be count if no foul happens. IF you don't give this power, then you can imagine player who play on the rules gaps, as we saw a few major one in EHBPC this year, using this to win games.
If you don't want people to launch their mallet, then maybe we can even say that the goal can be counted any time you did that. I don't want to see people trying to launch mallets to stop goals because they think a 30 second penalty at the end of a game is nothin etc...

I think its way more dissuasive to know that the goal can be allowed if you stay in nets on purpose or without any good reason, than knowing that you can maybe get a 30 sec penalty.
I was first against allowing goals when ball didn't cross the line, because i imagine a scenario where you kick the goalie out, then block it, then your teamate shoot on it to argue for an automatic goal. But this situation should be easily readable by a ref.

@Bill:
Yeah in one door court tap under the ref can be a good way to avoid trouble. This is clear for me that if you put 30 seconds rules in your ruleset and have absolutely no process to enforce it, even good ref gonna hesitate a lot before give this kind of fouls.

Talking with Lewis from sydney, who provided best ref i've seen so far during NAHBPC this year. He told me almost never using 30 sec. Just give a lot of ball turnover, delayed one too, and cancel goal after a foul. This keep low the bad mood intensity a lot.

Talking with Lewis from sydney, who provided best ref i've seen so far during NAHBPC this year. He told me almost never using 30 sec. Just give a lot of ball turnover, delayed one too, and cancel goal after a foul. This keep low the bad mood intensity a lot.

I think I know what you mean. Personally, I try not to give out 30 sec penalties, but sometimes the players don't give you a choice.

Agreed, there was at least one mallet under wheel of a breaking player (last defender) that should have been 30 seconds every time (Lewis gave a ball turnover in the game I watched which didn't restore the advantage).