Polo Rules

seconded

cunt.

cunts.

London Open... no lefties allowed, you heard it here first (heh).

Ha!

right ok...lets talk mallets then... yours should be banned.

I think Ray's should be banned

I think that the most controversial rule introduced in the ESPIs was the interference rule, totally changes the game!

ps. did anyone else see dan defending brendan on hardcourtbikepolo?

ha, i was reading those comments last week.

D.D makes some interesting points about blocking and the forever anti u.s opinion of EU's use of goal keepers.

First up, how to use a keeper is a teams choice - end of discussion.

The debate about blocking is more complex and not an easy matter to rule in our current game.

Off the ball blocks have def become a apart of our game (some more than others). So do we start calling these 'tactical' blocks an obstruction of play? In which case instruct the blocker to tap out or give a foul ball hit to the blocked player? Opens up a whole new game of rules and a big change to how we play.

Although, one rule I would def like to see introduced or tested is that a player who is forced to foot down by another player doesn't have to tap-out. Instead the player who caused the foot down (ie made the foul) has to tap out only. This way 'tactical' foot down fouls are penalized more fairly. I know a ref would prob need to step in at times to call these fouls, but thats what a ref should do, call fouls and goals.

I'm sure many of you would disagree with the above opinion, but Ive never understood why someone can cause a tactical foot down foul and the fouled team doesn't receive any play advantage.

Note, a standard self made foot down still counts as a tap out.

Re. scoring...again in my opinion, one should only be able to score from the 'business' end of the mallet head ie a clear shot. This means a player has to shoot from any kind of ball joint or cup. Also, no intentional shot of anything else counts...ie Aidan's last goal off his rear wheel shown in that Amsterdam game should not count.

Basically, as we evolve the game, new rules will come in. However, we need to make sure rules are in place to keep the game safe, fair and moving. Which means we will probably need to rely on refs a lot more.

But this is all just my opinion.

Hell yeah, lets have a right of way rule. The guy with the ball cannot be obstructed in any way

That reminds me of a rule in grass polo...think it goes...

a defending player can not cross the directional line of the ball made by the attacking player

...or something.

Just remember that rule real hard to play against.

You're never forced to foot down really though, Cam demonstrates this during most games.

Instead have more double tap-outs for the goon doing the fouling.

I admit, he tries hard not to foot down when a player tries to take him down. Therefore, I admit what causes one player to foot down might not cause another player to foot down. This is where the grey area of what is an intentional foul. Maybe, if a player is penalized harder for causing an other player to foot down we might start seeing player doing 'polo dives'.

but maybe we should just call for more double tap-outs. Although having players double tap more often thus could cause an additional 'safety' issues from more court crossing. Maybe we should encourage sin bins at tap out points...5, 15, 30 secs.

How does it create a more clear penalty? What is this penalty? How does it effect the offended team that the ref calls a penalty when we don't actually have penalties?

I'd rep you for correct use of the word 'effect', but apparently:

Message
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Object again.

and that's why he's not alllowed on court

I'd rep you for correct use of the word 'effect', but apparently:

Oh Chris. I'd neg rep you for inapproriate repping, but the DBAD rule applies.

Affect v Effect

;)

the no goal limit rule made for some strange and humbling situations. We beat a NYC team 9-2. Doug, Zack and Paul beat a mixed team 12-0! DTGP got beaten by Chicago 13-3 or something. I think if we'd met a top team (MKE, Chicago, Seattle...) we'd have suffered the same fate.

The interference rule was barely enforced. Lots of people tried scoop shots but few succeeded

Oh Chris. I'd neg rep you for inapproriate repping, but the DBAD rule applies.

Affect v Effect

;)

I'd taken it to mean 'effect a change in', as per point 1 of the 'affect' meanings in your link. I'm confuddled now.

Sorry, it's briefly become the 'A few grammar rules to ponder' thread!

You're right in that it's covered by point 1 of the 'affect' meanings. i.e it's 'to affect a change in', not 'effect'.

I'll stop being an asshat now.

the no goal limit rule made for some strange and humbling situations. We beat a NYC team 9-2. Doug, Zack and Paul beat a mixed team 12-0! DTGP got beaten by Chicago 13-3 or something. I think if we'd met a top team (MKE, Chicago, Seattle...) we'd have suffered the same fate.

there was a 17-0 and an 18-1!

http://www.hardcourtbikepolo.com/?p=2269

Is there anywhere that has the full results? ie from the knock-out stages

check www.twitter.com/leagueofpolo for scores from the knockout rounds

the interference call was barely applied during elimination rounds because the top teams rarely use this tactic, teams who did well relied on passing, not blocking the defenders on the other team.

wrist shots were barely used in the big games, partly cause they're so hard to do at high speed. don't worry there were no 270s.

How long were the ESPI games?

15 minutes at first, then 20 minutes in the elimination round

get your ass to london kev... you here for the open?

That reminds me of a rule in grass polo...think it goes...

a defending player can not cross the directional line of the ball made by the attacking player

...or something.

Just remember that rule real hard to play against.
I was taking the piss saying we should adopt that grass polo rule. I was not in any way serious with that comment.

I admit, he tries hard not to foot down when a player tries to take him down.

Not that hard.

Modest!