Polo Rules

I think it's dickish, but I don't think I've ever seen it called.

I've been on the receiving end of this a few times, Is it as black and white as I think it is?

Hard to say from a still. If the guy in the foreground has ridden into the arm which is already extended, it's a different thing to if the guy has come along side, and the arm has been extended to impede his progress, in which case I would call it as a holding penalty, as the arm is being used to hold the foreground player back.

It's possible that the foreground guy has ineptly attempted a blind-side check, from which the back ground guy is protecting himself. In this case, the foreground guy could be called for a blind-side check.

Depending on how the arm is used, you could call a fore-arm check on the background guy, which is not allowed under London Open 2012 rules, if the arm has been moved back across the rider, assuming they were going at the same speed, or the background guy was coming from behind.

I think it's very difficult to make a call based on a still, as the relative momentum & direction are difficult to read, and it's also impossible to tell what happened immediately before the incident shown, as there may have incidental contact, without any foul, from which both riders are trying to extricate themselves.

At the very least, if I was reffing, I would be very concerned to see how close the background guy's mallet is to the handle-bars of his opponent's bike.

And, just in case any readers are wondering, I have called all of the above fouls at various times in various tournaments (I called Manu for a blind-side check during the final or semi-final of London Open this year).

Blind side checks aren't illegal though, in the LHBPA or NAH rules (but were for this years Worlds, only)

Checks to the back are, and checks below the elbow on the steering arm (in Worlds and LHBPA, not sure about NAH)

Forearm checks are legal in the NAH rules, not in this years Worlds, or LHBPA rules.

Also a long discussion on off the ball checks, which has some discussion on blind side checks too: http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2012/12/17/offball-contact

Some good discussion on what a blind-side even is (is it based on the ball, the steering arm, where the player is looking, etc....)

If there was such a rule, I would prefer to have it defined by steering arm.

yeah but its still just a really good photograph.

Blind side checks aren't illegal though, in the LHBPA or NAH rules (but were for this years Worlds, only)

Checks to the back are, and checks below the elbow on the steering arm (in Worlds and LHBPA, not sure about NAH)[/url]

To me, a blind-side check is from behind, always - I should have been more clear what I meant above. That's what I called Manu for.

These are the LHBPA rules for London Open:

[INDENT]8. § 8 – Bodily Contact Penalties

1. Checking From Behind
   
2. A checking from behind penalty will be assessed when a player delivers a check with the hand, elbow, or shoulder to an opponent's back[/INDENT]
   
   

Manu moved up from behind him, and from left to right, hitting him behind his steering arm, into the boards - at speed. I called it, and Manu rode back, shaking his finger, and saying 'no, no, no, no, no...'

Yeah, I think everyone is pretty much agreed that's a foul.

Yeah, I think everyone is pretty much agreed that's a foul.

Everyone apart from Manu.

I assumed what cam was complaining about was players reaching across the cockpit to get the ball... I'm probably wrong, but I'd like to know something.

If someone reaches across to get the ball and the other person makes contact who's at fault?

I'd only reach over if I wasn't going to make contact. If the other person then rides forward and makes contact then I'd say they're at fault.

yeh but is it a good foto?

I'd only reach over if I wasn't going to make contact. If the other person then rides forward and makes contact then I'd say they're at fault.

But how would that be reffed? You can't ref intent, so how does the ref know you aren't intending to impede the other player? How does the ref tell the difference between someone reaching over and being run into and someone reaching over and trying to knock an opponents bars?

I'd say the ref should assume the person reaching into the others cockpit is at fault unless they can tell otherwise. But I'd like to hear the opinion of people who ref?

Oh and yes b it's an awesome photo... Framing is lovely...

What about reaching around?

can I play?

Only if you like balls.

^^ that could be a confusing username in the memes thread.

New NAH 2013 rules here (to be used at the Worlds, and probably other tournaments).

http://www.nahardcourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013NAHRules_v3-3.pdf

I think it needs some work, I've started a thread here, feel free to add comments there: http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2013/04/18/nah-rules-2013-feedback

Great shout John H.

On the high sticking rule. Example: I am not that tall, me as compared to someone who say is 6' 2", my shoulder would be naturally lower than his. To prove a point, I have had elbows in my face playing in London, such is the height difference, hence how is the ref gonna enforce this? As it is, the smaller player (i.e. me!!!) is being penalised more than the 6' 2" player no? Also, if you take a swing on a more upright position compared to a more leaning forward (aero?) position, wouldn't the person who is upright get away although his swing is much higher compared to the one leaning forward?

Just 2 pence worth.

Great shout John H.

On the high sticking rule. Example: I am not that tall, me as compared to someone who say is 6' 2", my shoulder would be naturally lower than his. To prove a point, I have had elbows in my face playing in London, such is the height difference, hence how is the ref gonna enforce this? As it is, the smaller player (i.e. me!!!) is being penalised more than the 6' 2" player no? Also, if you take a swing on a more upright position compared to a more leaning forward (aero?) position, wouldn't the person who is upright get away although his swing is much higher compared to the one leaning forward?

Just 2 pence worth.

Well, regarding the shoulders, the new rules make no mention at all, of what contact is allowed, so you could argue that elbows to the face are fine (I know that's not the intention).

Regarding a high swing, it seems to suggest that making contact is fine, as long as you are taking a shot. Which basically means "facecage-or-shutup"

lol that beagle refutes high sticking.

lol that beagle refutes high sticking.

Ha!

Regarding a high swing, it seems to suggest that making contact is fine, as long as you are taking a shot. Which basically means "facecage-or-shutup"

Wouldn't the above negate the high sticking rule then? Surely banning high sticking is because you might hit someone but on the other hand hitting someone from a shot is legal? Or is there something more dangerous about high sticking than hitting someone on the face while taking a shot?

The above is not to my liking, high sticking or big shots should be allowed but you will be penalised if you hit someone. Then again if that it to be made a rule, you as a footie fan should well know about diving, people who go down at the faintest of touch or just balantly simulating it to get the other player sent off.

I am not on LOBP so if you wanna quote me on that and cross post it over I am alright with it.

Yeah, which is why it makes no sense to me, I'm really not sure what they are intending with that rule.

Ok, a clarification from Nick Kruse on that:

"To clarify this point, yes it was intended for shots on the ball to be exempt. Much like in hockey. A big slapper is fine, but a mallet above the shoulder to play an airborne ball is not."

Personally I don't mind, as I think face cages should be mandatory, and would always wear one in every game, but I know that's not a very popular view. I predict controversy on this one.

"A big slapper is fine (REALLY?), but a mallet above the shoulder to play an airborne ball is not."

...

I predict controversy on this one.

Can you ask him further why playing an airborne ball is more dangerous than a slapper i.e. the risk of being hit by the follow through?

Maybe he means taking a horizontal swing shot i.e. the swing is going accross your chest (as oppose to a more vertical shot where the ball above you between the shoulders i.e. snoops shot at the London Invitational) which is above the shoulder? If that's the case it should be banned if it is already not, check with him on this and if is indeed not, maybe ask him to include it?

Controversy indeed. First and foremost, how are you gonna enforce it? My shoulder, my opponent's shoulder, ref's shoulder? Secondly, if I high stick to control a ball when there is no one within 5 yards of me, is it also a penalty? Going by what was said above, it is.

I think when writing rules, it is best to also include the background and whatever discussion that has gone into it as an appendix. It saves discussion like this with plenty of ambiguity and therefore hard to enforce and controversy ensues.

Don't have to be much: Why must we have this rule? What will it take to properly enforce it? When should exception apply to this rule (i.e. the 5 yard example above)? How receptive is the scene as a whole about it?

Rules will change, I will embrace change, however in this instance if the consensus is high sticking is dangerous then I will happily accept it but I am against it as I dont see high sticking more dangerous than a follow through swing.

Personally I have seen follow through do more damage than high sticking.

Just my 2 pence worth and again cross post it if you deem fit.

Just 2 pence worth.

Just my 2 pence worth and again cross post it if you deem fit.

Beagle's Polo Rules Tab: 4p