Polo Rules

No? explain.

The impact of 10 seconds of timewasting are clearly less over the course of 1 hour, than over 10 minutes..

40 goals X 10 seconds = 400 seconds, which is a lot of time wasted out of 40 minutes. The argument for stopping time after goals applies equally to BM as 3 X 3.

40 goals X 10 seconds = 800 seconds...
Um?

Um?

Half-wite. I mean 400 seconds.

For BM I'd rather see continuous timing (one less thing for the ref to do), and instead the ref can call a turnover for repeated timewasting, and only stop time/add on time, for serious injury/loss of ball.

Why leave something up to the ref's discretion & interpretation? At a BM, it shouldn't be hard to recruit a time-keeper.

I tend to agree, time-wasting/stalling is a horrible tactic, there are many sports that freeze the clock when the game is "dead" to avoid such scenarios.

An alternative would be very harsh game delay penalties, but with 3v3 this is going to have a huge impact on the game which doesn't seem ideal.

I'd rather see shorter games (45 minutes) that actually take an hour to play (NFL style) than an hour long game where the "live" play is anywhere from 30 minutes to 55 minutes long.

I also don't think keeping time is tricky, all sports have to keep time anyway, you just have to start/stop it (although, again, this is done anyway for "live" time to work out the stoppage time at the end).

We were robbed in Cambridge... a goal every 30 seconds before Cambridge started dilly dallying, tsk.

40 goals X 10 seconds = 400 seconds, which is a lot of time wasted out of 40 minutes. The argument for stopping time after goals applies equally to BM as 3 X 3.

Sorry, read my updated post.

My point is not the cumulative wasted time (if we are talking league, I've already factored that into the time), but if either team is greatly disadvantaged by it.

For example, if scores are close, and you timewaste, you may only be harming yourself, due to the length of the game it's fairly unpredictable who might win, until close to the end, so there is a self-policing element to it there.

If scores aren't close, it makes no difference anyway.

I tend to agree, time-wasting/stalling is a horrible tactic, there are many sports that freeze the clock when the game is "dead" to avoid such scenarios.

An alternative would be very harsh game delay penalties, but with 3v3 this is going to have a huge impact on the game which doesn't seem ideal.

Agreed for 3vs3, for short games, stopping time is clearly best.

I'd rather see shorter games (45 minutes) that actually take an hour to play (NFL style) than an hour long game where the "live" play is anywhere from 30 minutes to 55 minutes long.

Why leave something up to the ref's discretion & interpretation? At a BM, it shouldn't be hard to recruit a time-keeper.

Well yes, for the BM league (where it may be harder to get a timekeeper out), I'm effectively saying it's a 45/50 minute game (I think your lower boundry of 30 mins is way out, but that's just my opinion).

I realise this is about general BM rules, not the league itself, which is more what I'm concerned with right now. For a BM tournament, with lots of potential timekeepers? Sure, I don't mind either way. My only concern (with my organisers hat on), that not stopping time is more predictable for the schedule, and would encourage less longs break in play (IMO), with time stopped there would be no motivation not to have long breaks (I'd like to keep the game moving, not lots of lame timeouts).

We were robbed in Cambridge... a goal every 30 seconds before Cambridge started dilly dallying, tsk.

Whatever, we should have let in less, scored more. If the ref wasn't calling it, what they did was then a legitimate tactic (now I'm trolling a bit).

My only concern (with my organisers hat on), that not stopping time is more predictable for the schedule, and would encourage less longs break in play (IMO), with time stopped there would be no motivation not to have long breaks (I'd like to keep the game moving, not lots of lame timeouts).

Don't get really get it. It shouldn't be hard to figure out (as an organiser) how long games take on average. I agree that long breaks in play are not desirable, but if you're allowing unlimited subs, all that extra milling about is bound to waste some time (unless you just leave your strongest players on all the time).

Whatever, we should have let in less, scored more. If the ref wasn't calling it, what they did was then a legitimate tactic (now I'm trolling a bit).

We were letting in less and scoring more, but the other team cut the game short to secure victory? There was nothing for the ref to call.

It's like saying three goalies is a legitimate tactic when you have a one goal lead (self policing is still important in bike polo in my opinion, it's not just about what's acceptable within the rules, etc)?

I'm still bitter, Cambridge poloistas, coming to London, stealing our throw-in time, doing so well at the Worlds, tsk.

Is time wasting in the last 10 minutes of a 30 minute game not the same as time wasting in a 10 minute game. Who's going to be time wasting 5 minutes into a 45 minute game anyway?

It's like saying three goalies is a legitimate tactic when you have a one goal lead (self policing is still important in bike polo in my opinion, it's not just about what's acceptable within the rules, etc)?

That's where we disagree...

New rule: T-bones allowed if the other team triple goalies.

I have trouble concentrating for fifteen minute games, stopping and starting the clock for an hour would be a recipy for disaster.

I don't see the advantage of playing a 30 min bench minor that actually takes an hour to play verses an hour game where the ball's only in play for half the game. Isn't controlling the clock one of the skills of the sport?

How about changing when the halfway mark can be crossed, instead of it being just when the attacking team cross the line, but also 3 seconds after the defending team (ie the team that just scored) are back in their half. Instead of stop/starting a clock for an hour the ref just has to count to three after each goal.

going back to goal size, in Bristol we are going to be making some steel goals falling in line with what most scenes are using in the UK (180cm x 80cm on cross bar). Looking at the previous discussion it appears inconclusive whether anything will change for next season and what those changes are. Should we hold fire on construction for now?

Secondly we will be using the square poles for ease of construction and cost, someone mentioned rebounds might be weird, any comments on this?

Depending on the size of the box section the ball will react in a different way. If it's 1" across the back of the net then it's more likely to throw it up into the net making less likely for the ball to bounce back out again. Tubes on the corners would be better imo even if you just sleeve some plastic pipe over the top.

Secondly we will be using the square poles for ease of construction and cost, someone mentioned rebounds might be weird, any comments on this?

Where are you getting your quotes for materials?

Mild steel tube shouldnt be much difference in cost than square section, and you are only going to be mitring them to join at 90, construction should be just as easy..

On the topic of goals, is it possible to design a goal that doesn't ping the ball straight back out again?

1" box/tube 1.5 or 2mm wall should be strong enough. You'd probably want to gusset the corners. Also has the bonus of not bouncing a ball straight back out (tried it before)

at the worlds they had those sweet wooden dangly things which stopped it dead. good sound too (most important thing)

I think they were mainly there to throw the ball up behind the second "catching" net, the difference between the post and goal noise was an added bonus though.

Won't square goal posts give weird deflections on rebounds with the post?

Rebounds off posts have never struck me as the most predictable aspect of polo.

1" box/tube 1.5 or 2mm wall should be strong enough. You'd probably want to gusset the corners. Also has the bonus of not bouncing a ball straight back out (tried it before)

We didn't gusset the corners for the LO goals, i think it is unnecessary.

Something to ping the ball up would be good though.. maybe a smaller od pipe attached on the inside of the back of the goal.

Rebounds off posts have never struck me as the most predictable aspect of polo.

Manu disagrees.

I suppose as long as both goals are the same it doesn't really matter, but I imagine would-be-goals-off-posts are more likely to come back out into play.

The height thing is now meant to be 91.5cm (from the latest NAH rules), but it's not a very standardised thing yet in my opinion.

Manu disagrees.
Manu hits the post? I call bullshit.