Polo Rules

+1 to no goalie fucking in the crease.

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

I don't know what was in Jono & Erin's collective mind when they wrote this rule, but to me the 2 second rule is good because it's long enough not stop players riding through slowly, which should be permitted, but short enough to cut out turtling.

or flirting.

no megacreeping behind the goal also very important.

ha ! mega lurker !

. 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.

.

i think a no goalie fucking rule would be good enough. goalie fucking is roughly as boring as double goalie and id like to see it gone too. the whole idea is to keep play moving and not end up with a rubbish innner 'd' mess.

^ This

but both are lame to participate in and spectate

This shouldn't be relevant.

This is a sport and, as with almost every sport, sometimes the best tactic to ensure a win is to do something lame and boring. This isn't to say that I'm coming out in favour of double goalies but just that this isn't the best way to be developing a rule set. In the same way that every time you legislate against a dick move someone will come up with a new one, lame and boring tactics will continue to be generated where players determine a need and exploit an opportunity. If you want to keep legislating on this basis then you may as well add another ref to start deducting points if they feel they aren't being sufficiently entertained. However, I'm pretty sure that isn't the way you want the sport to go.

What might be in the short-term interest of the players participating in a given game (lame and boring tactics designed to win that particular game), might not be in the long-term interests of the sport, which is to have fun, and entertain players & spectators.

Nearly all sports have manipulated their rules to encourage attacking play (shot-clock in basket-ball), fiddling with the off-side rule & banning the back-pass (football), the lbw rule (cricket) etc.

Yep, one stationary defensive player in the crease.

Does this rule allow for stopping in front of goal in a 1 on 1 situation?

To me, rules aren't just about keeping the game safe and fair, they should also promote skilful/attractive play and discourage overly physical or defensive play in the best interest of making the sport appealing to potential players and audiences.

'Skilful', 'attractive', 'overly physical' and 'overly defensive' subjective, but I think there's a large majority with a common understanding of them, and like Bill says it's actuall common for rulesets in other sports to be used to sculpt the game into a better form.

Wowza, we are grumpy about double goalies aren't we...

Double goalie = tactic = works for some (defo not for Sirens... with our rate it's more like own goal time)

Wazzing the ball from half court and scoring = tactic = boring polo yadda yadda

I mean really? Are we're talking about "things we don't like" or "things that work against us"?... Who defines pretty polo? I remember in Berlin people whining about how physical the American teams were, and Europe manned up and learned how to give it back the next year, people started checking, etc. I can bet that by next year, someone will have come up with a way to break up the double goalie thing, and it will all be forgotten.

But whilst on the topic of creating new rules, if double goalies are banned, I'd like to see an icing rule, like in hockey, that prevents people from just dumping the ball to get rid of it or anything originating in the defensive end... or even pinning it to ensure a win nearer the end of a game instead of playing the ball.

I do think it was wicked to use the Open as a testing ground and props to the organisers to sticking to their guns. I hated the rule at first, I saw it as discrimination but overall it's certainly got people talking.

I also think that Clem is right though, and heckling goes a long way... so until these rules are put in place, you have all winter to come up with nasty things to shout during next year's tourneys!

shit sorry about the rant... I work at 1 every day now... I've got time to kill between 7am and 1pm... sorry dudes!

or even pinning it to ensure a win nearer the end of a game instead of playing the ball.

We have a game delay penalty for this already (ball turnover to the other team if you pin the ball), although most teams just dribble the ball around their own half if the game has little time left (not much you can do about that).

Icing isn't much of a problem yet in my opinion as you're already giving up possession by making that move?

I agree that writing rules against double goalie tactics seems very targeted/bias, but people have been heckling the shite out of double goalies for over a year now and they're still holding their ground, solid as a rock and (in my opinion) all that has changed to combat double goalies is to go in and "break up the D" with very aggressive/dirty play off the ball.

We have a game delay penalty for this already (ball turnover to the other team if you pin the ball)

My Bad. I've seen it done and never called.

Icing isn't much of a problem yet in my opinion as you're already giving up possession by making that move?

Still time wasting... not the pretty passing everyone seems to love so much. I'm referring to the wazz as wellzz. Not so pretty, but no one complains about that

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.

Or only one offensive and one defensive player (goalie) stationary in the crease.

Fucking with the goalie doesn't bother me, helps make the position interesting and if the person in goal is good enough it just turns the dicker into the dickee.

Or only one offensive and one defensive player (goalie) stationary in the crease.

Fucking with the goalie doesn't bother me, helps make the position interesting and if the person in goal is good enough it just turns the dicker into the dickee.

+1 Keep goalies on their toes

What did people think about the 6'x4' goals at the Westway tournament?

I really liked those goals. They were a good size and not too heavy if there's a colision. Only concern would be goalies using them for support by holding onto/resting on the cross bar (easily spotted/called out by goal refs though)

Would that really be such a massive problem if they did it? I think it actually hinders them when they do it, in that their hand isnt on the bike = less control.

Would that really be such a massive problem if they did it? I think it actually hinders them when they do it, in that their hand isnt on the bike = less control.

I'm not sure if it's a massive problem or just a bad habit.

I guess if your bike's big enough to block front and back with your wheels and you rest your arm on the goal to keep yourself steady, you've only got to watch the BB area with your mallet (ignoring super cool over-wheel goals...), but this is all guess work, I was really happy with the goals over all.

Using the goal for support is already a foul that should be called by goal-refs.

We shouldn't get rid of hassling keepers: it means I've got an additional screen when in goal! It would suck if people that do it actually realised it was pointless and just waited on the posts to pick off rebounds because they would score tons more goals on me.

What did people think about the 6'x4' goals at the Westway tournament?

Well, the trend has been to move away from that size, to the 3' high goals.

It does open a big area that's hard for most keepers to defend (not saying that's a bad thing).

We'd need to see more of Snoop's awesome wheelie saves.

Using the goal for support is already a foul that should be called by goal-refs.

No it's not. It's never been a foul in Europe (no crossbars traditionally) and is a hotly contested (but universally detested) move in NA.

Oddly if the goalie shifts the goal then you should be penalised, but most of them time goalies do this to put the goal back in place and it has historically gone uncalled.

Agreed that taller goals are better for sweet keeper saves (active goalies for the win), we should fall in line with the NAH norm in my opinion (3', or 91.5cm), our current goals are 80cm tall I think.

While it's not really an issue now, if we did have 4' goals, would it be acceptable for goalies to stop the ball with their hands? Either a deflection or even a catch.

In Ice Hockey I believe that's allowed.

I wouldn't go with 4' goals without good reason to be different to everyone else?

Currently you can allow a ball to hit your hand, but you cannot play the ball with your hand. (So the keeper may offer up a static hand for it to bounce against, but may not punch/whatever the ball.)

Well, the trend has been to move away from that size, to the 3' high goals.

It does open a big area that's hard for most keepers to defend (not saying that's a bad thing).

We'd need to see more of Snoop's awesome wheelie saves.

i liked them, It was my 1st tourney and 1st time i've played with a crossbar to determine the hieght. much better than the light weight cones we use for throw ins. I sat in goal most of the tourney and didn't find them too high.I did see a lot of goalies rest/holding them which i was surpized by but thought it gave them a disadvantage as no hands on the h/bars would slow thier reaction time. 3ft/4ft whatever, everyone had the same size goal.