Polo Rules

I think doubling the size of the goal would lead to a lot more than double the amount of goals scored. At the moment 1 bike "covers" nearly the whole goal, with small areas in front/behind and a semi covered area in the goal hole. Maybe 5% open and 50% semi covered. Double the goal would lead to 55% open and 25% semi covered (excuse bad maths). You'd end up with a very long shot orientated game, I reckon. At the moment if someone gets a sight of open goal from wherever, they shoot, this amount of goal would be almost permanently open. Nothing against bigger goals, but I'd of thought maybe trying 20% bigger, or something would be a more suitable step.

if the goals were bigger, maybe, just maybe.. goalies may learn to actually tend the net instead of just parking in there

We can dream.

Good question. I would love to try goal bigger from 25 to 50%.
but I don't really think this could change the double goalie stuff. Worst, if you double up there is more chances than a team with a lefty put a double goalie triangle in it. Crease rule agaisn double goalie could be a good thing, but honestly I would wait a littl bit before saying that this technique gonna last and fuxk the polo longer. An organized team as cmd, who play double goalie, k ow really well also how to score on double goalie. Im thinking than this guys gonna be the one to beat next season, so we all gonna learn how o fucked up with double g like they do and make this system inefficient( basically, you block the second goalie and in the same time you hook the mallet of the first one, you wait your teamates get rid of the last defensor and they have all chance to score in the slot).
Make a rule or Change the structure just because of one technique is maybe a wrong idea. Guardians and spring break show us a good way to play good and long passes. Probably teams in the futr gonna know how to play good looking passing like that on open teams and then play shit show slot polo when the opponent double goalie. This final of Lo looked like that, and th team who won at the end played open polo. The one who loose played more double triple g, even with the crease rule.

Looks like the anti-double-goalie rule is spreading, that looks very much like a crease to me, at the Dortmund Bench Minor yesterday.

short peeny, massive balls.

so we all gonna learn how o fucked up with double g like they do and make this system inefficient( basically, you block the second goalie and in the same time you hook the mallet of the first one, you wait your teamates get rid of the last defensor and they have all chance to score in the slot).

What if we don't want to learn and just want to play a different style of polo? Guardians resilience in playing their own style of game in the Worlds final was both inspiring and depressing at the same time. Double goalies are effective (as are blocking plays), but both are lame to participate in and spectate (in my opinion).

It would be good to get some sort of consensus on whether the majority like/dislike double goalies and go from there? Usually the game evolves on it's own, but this time making a new rule seems necessary to invoke change?

More experimentation and feedback would be a good approach I guess? It's cool to see other scenes experimenting with a crease.

Usually the game evolves on it's own, but this time making a new rule seems necessary to invoke change?

More experimentation and feedback would be a good approach I guess? It's cool to see other scenes experimenting with a crease.

Changing a ruleset has to be based on actual experience, not a personal agenda (disliking a style of play, marketability of the game, or other).
So I'm all up for trying new stuff up to see what people seem to like best.

Good work on using the Open as an international platform to inovate and consolidate polo accross the globe!

I feel like people are playing devil's advocate. Does *anyone *actually like double goalies/think they're a positive thing? I haven't heard anyone with a positive word to say about it.

One rule to rid one rubbish tactic is a pretty good rate of returns, considering how long out ruleset is becoming. Rulesets are long in most sports I can think of. Maybe it's innate to rulesets that they are long/exhaustive/detailed/unambiguous.

We played no stopping in the 'd' at our mini tournament today. Worked a treat IMO. Hardly ever needed to be called. It pretty much just stops people setting up in that position and allows both teams to play more openly/optimistically.

We outlawed hacking because it's ugly/skilless (and damages mallets), so it's not like there's no precedent.

I don't know, I feel it can be change by it's own, by heckling on teams playing that and by finding way to win on teams playing that tactic. It don't seems that the toP teams from whbpc where all playing this and they finished on top, not first, but not far.

Now if a rule have to be written, we have to also think about how ref and rule the fucking with the goalie moves wich are worst than double goalie for me.

The rules as written should protect goalies. No slashing, no contact apart from shoulders, no blind-side pushes... maybe no stationary offensive players at all in the d?

I don't know, I feel it can be change by it's own, by heckling on teams playing that and by finding way to win on teams playing that tactic. It don't seems that the toP teams from whbpc where all playing this and they finished on top, not first, but not far.

Now if a rule have to be written, we have to also think about how ref and rule the fucking with the goalie moves wich are worst than double goalie for me.

Personally, I don't think double goalies is a disease in polo right now. It's not a magic formula, just the same at the ECM wasn't one.

What I like is that people are being proactive about trying to make the game better, outside of "officially sanctioned" tourneys.

If a crease makes for a more dynamic game, people will readily adopt it. If it hinders it, people will just ignore it. It will play out by itself either way.

What I like is that people are being proactive about trying to make the game better, outside of "officially sanctioned" tourneys.

If a crease makes for a more dynamic game, people will readily adopt it. If it hinders it, people will just ignore it. It will play out by itself either way.

These.

It's a continual process of improvement, not the sudden arrival at a conclusive ruleset.

If every rule improves the game, even just a little bit, then great. If it doesn't we can always take it away again.

We will be playing by the london open Rules.

NO Double Goalies
NO Cheater Mallets

.

Personally, I don't think double goalies is a disease in polo right now. It's not a magic formula, **just the same at the ECM wasn't one.
**
What I like is that people are being proactive about trying to make the game better, outside of "officially sanctioned" tourneys.

If a crease makes for a more dynamic game, people will readily adopt it. If it hinders it, people will just ignore it. It will play out by itself either way.

The anti-ECM lobby saved bike polo!!! If the number of people using them as some of the "better" users were able to, the game would be very different today.

PREACH!

I guess the point is to even out the skill set.

Currently defending is easier than attacking. To make a better all round game i think the crease is a great idea!
It does mean that it will change the team/player dynamic. Like having all 3 out is great to watch and when applied correctly really effective at winning a game.

+1 to NO DOUBLE GOALIES
+1 to NO CHECKING GOALIE
+1 to NO CHEATER MALLETS

I'm very much in favour of experimenting more with the crease rule and experimenting with it's size. I agree with Nik in that it's unfair that offensive players can move into the crease and the defensive have to move out due to the time limit. My opinion is if an offensive player moves into the crease then other defensive players can do this also and not be constained to a time limit. If the offensive don't score a goal in this instance and they move out of the crease then the defensive have to move away also, this is where the time limit rule inside the crease should apply.

Increasing the goal size will of course make scoring goals easier and double/triple goalies less effective but it won't improve the experience of the game from a playing or spectating point of view. Having the crease rule will improve the flow of the game as all players except the goalie will be moving around at all times (unless an offensive player enters the crease).

That's making things a bit too complicated Rich. I don't think we need any exceptions to the 2 second rule, it just needs to apply to both teams at both ends.

I think we don't need a 2 second rule at all, no-one is allowed to stop, except the goalie. Simple.

But yes, both teams, both ends.

So would that actually be 'only one defending player can stop in the crease' or do we need a definition of goalie, or a single nominated goalie per game?

I think we don't need a 2 second rule at all, no-one is allowed to stop, except the goalie. Simple.

But yes, both teams, both ends.

+1

N3il, what are you on about? It's pretty clear. One stationary player allowed.

Yep, one stationary defensive player in the crease.

meh, semantics. sorry.

+1 to no goalie fucking in the crease.

Surely the 2 second rule is to stop accidental/unintentional infractions?

no megacreeping behind the goal also very important.