Polo Rules

Crease as in ice hokckey have to be for on defensive player only, either offensive or teammates have to be ban from this. This is really strange to say that offensive players have the right to be there and not the defensives. It's gonna be really easy to mess with the goalie if nobody is around to protect him. I like th idea of trying this ule but you should copy one who already exist and work, the ice hockey one.

Well, they can only hook, no physical contact to the goalkeeper.

But I know what you mean.

Just to clarify this, if I'm going one on two with a defender and goalie in the crease I can just track stand for a second and wait for the defender to get out of the way? Surely the same applies if the defender follows me towards the goal. did this get tested before it went in the rules?

Well, in theory yeah, but while you are waiting, the defender can just take it off you.

The defender doesn't have to get out of the area, he just needs to be keep moving.

Static defending is shit anyway, you want to keep moving, and adjusting your position depending on where the attacker is.

3.1.6. The goal judge signals a false start when a player’s back wheel leaves the boards behind the net prior to the whistle that starts the game.

1. If the referee deems that a false start has resulted in an advantage for the team committing the false start, a ball turnover will occur.
   
   

So a false start by one team always results in a ball turnover, since the the act of the false start is an advantage? There would only be a re-joust if both teams were deemed to have false started?

My under standing is, 2 false starts cancel each other out so no restart.

I think rejoist for double false start is logical. Please don't make fake wistle blow to pul people, so few ref doing that at worlds and at the invitational and that's lame, you pretty sure you gonna catch somebody who was just fallowing the rythm of the calls. X ready? Y ready? Wislte.

Yes, please remember that polo is serious business, no fun being had please.

re: double goalie, and how to call it.

You could just have the (goal) ref yell "get out of goal second goalie" as soon as they stop. Two-seconds may just complicate it. If they don't being moving/ignore you, penalty.

whistle for goal refs moving forward, more responsibility is being put on them for this potential rules, and other existing ones. One ref can't see all!

It's already hard enough to work out if the whistle is going on your or another court, without introducing more. If a goal ref has a flag they can wave it to get the ref's attention, no way they should have whistles and the power to stop the game.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, duck calls.

Yep, only the ref should have the whistle.

Ideally goal refs need 2 way communication with the refs. I know that's not realistic right now.

Duck calls and cans with string?

Cans? Bit upmarket innit, plastic cups were always good enough when we were kids

I'm curious to hear some feedback on the whole crease ruling. Is it something that should be included in "more serious" tourneys....

I didn't find it too much of a hindrance. It did force a different style of polo but I think people resort to doubling instead of attacking. I'd like to see it introduced, possibly after a little experimentation with the box size.

I'm curious to hear some feedback on the whole crease ruling. Is it something that should be included in "more serious" tourneys....

IMO, yes. No double goalie = much better polo. It was still possible to defend, but the rule rebalances the game in favour of attacking play.

I'd also want to see the rule modified so that one attacker only is allowed in the crease, and I also think the crease should be 1m wide from each goalpost, and 2 or maybe even 2.5m from goal-line.

I thought it made very little difference when actually playing defensively because as a defender you can still just sit outside it and track offensive players into it when the need arises. When attacking you can force defending players into it and then just wait for them to move which is probably lamer than what it's meant to prevent (which isn't even a safety/necessity rule issue, it's a subjective aesthetic issue). It also adds a lot of grey areas for refs and players (I had no idea what the rules were regarding allowed penalties, hopping/pivots/one wheel inside etc etc).

Overall I'm not really a fan but I'm not really against it. I just think it's still a lot simpler to widen the goals, making active defence (as opposed to passively waiting for the attack to hit a wall of bikes) the best way to prevent goals. Plus, look how many equally matched games do not go to 5 goals - we could have more goals!!

I love the crease! I found it motivated defensive players to defend more actively rather than sitting 3 deep and waiting for a shot. I rarely had to call an advantage from double goalie as a result of it but did give warnings a few times as it turns out 2 seconds is quite a long time.

In one scenario, i saw one goalie attacked by three offensive players in the crease while his team mates had been out positionned. I thought that it seemed unfair that they couldnt get in there to attack really, as the offensive players were being stationary in the crease and obviously the defensive players coul;dnt do this. On reflection, I feel that if the offensive team out manovres the defensive team, this is just their advantage and that what happened in this case was really the result of 3 players unable to take a shot. I think if we introduce this creASe rule permenantly it will open the game up. Love the crease!

Personally, I'd change it so that no player from either side, apart from the goalie, can be stationary in the crease. I think that would balance it, and not produce the strange "wait for the defender to move" thing.

It would also make it much easier to ref.

I can't remember which team it was, but I remember watching them play the Radpolo team. They were sitting an offensive player next to the goalie and constantly hooking the mallet of the goalie, even when they weren't attacking. I thought that banning the second stationary player in the crease was supposed to reduce this style of play?

In any case, it makes more sense to say that only the goalie can be stationary in the crease, it strikes me as considerably easier to ref effectively.

I think James speaks the truth. Bigger goals rather than extra rules.

Bigger goals is worth trying at some point, what size increase are we talking about? (I can't see it encouraging defenders away from their goal to be honest, but could be wrong.)

Well, this was my thought process:

If the goal is as wide as the court, you can't line 3 players up on the line to defend because it guarantees the opposition a shot with a high % conversion rate. So correct defence would involve attempting to prevent the shot in the first place. This can't be done by one player since they can be passed around easily and there is no point leaving one player covering such a huge goal. Consequently all 3 should work together to prevent shots.

Let's say that with 180cm goals and one player in goal, your shot conversion rate is 10%. With two players in the same goal maybe that halves (could be more, could be less) so say 5%. That's a very effective way of trimming down an opponents edge.

Let's double the size of the goal to 360cm, assume your shot conversion rate increases to 20% with one keeper. Even if they double up, you should still be able to shoot above 10% (IE one player in a 180cm goal) because there are effectively 2 goals and 2 keepers. Suddenly there's nowhere near the same advantage to be gained getting two players in the goal and more advantage to be gained by stopping the 20% shot in the first place.

It also depends on what you think of goalkeepers and their role in the game. Personally I'd like to see them take on a more active role but I understand that you could maybe also argue for disallowing anyone in the crease, getting rid of keepers and shrinking the goals (but I think that just shifts defensive focus up-court).

Quick answer = I don't know, let's try it!

Currently 6 foot? I say 8foot?

I'm not a fan of banning people from areas of the court, there's nothing wrong with a goaly to stop any long shot silliness (you could end up with two teams just shooting from miles away, which doesn't makethe sport much more interesting than double goalies IMHO.) but as James says a goal even just 25% bigger would make double goalies pointless... I think.