Polo Rules

Oh no bud, just trying to clarify what you were asking! I totally agree with you! Just hoping we can get a group of people running with it...

Yes, we should support and follow on from the NAH progression but there are definitely subtle differences and maybe things we would like to implement ourselves, being the forward thinkers we are! :)

Well, we finally seem to have entered a phase where Europe is using the same rules as NA. It would be a shame to diverge again. The NAH are happy to get input from Europe, and it's probably less work for everyone to work with them, and use the same process.

Here's an idea that anyone can pick up and run with right now. Practice reffing at throw-ins. This could be done on a sole basis, or by buddying up with a more experienced ref. Even if you're not making all the calls that the rules might require, you'll get used to concentrating on the game, calling goals/time etc., managing restarts. All this will build familiarity with the role of a ref, and hence confidence.

This
Throw-ins are an ideal opportunity for players to train and get confident reffing. Often someone is time keeping anyway and others are sat around chatting. Why not up that to having a main ref and goal refs when numbers allow? I'd feel a lot more confident reffing if I was doing it more often.

^ just logged on to post that. great shout, chris

You do know that's when you drink and smoke right?

London polo is srs bidnezz, Robert

100%

Like a boss.

Me too.

You do know that's when you drink and smoke right?

Perfect time to practice multi-tasking :)

You do know that's when you drink and smoke right?

That's what beagle does while refing.

#whatwouldbeagledo

Has Finn answered the question about the roles of goal refs yet?

94%.

That quiz is really annoying because it doesn't tell you which one you got wrong!

That's the idea... the incorrect answers will be more memorable if you have to search them out (it also means your ongoing accreditation is more valid as it's not as easy to spam a perfect score).

The real annoyance is that some of the questions aren't covered by the ruleset, but it's still an excellent resource all the same.

compare with the rules, they're only a couple of pages long, at worst you might memorise more of them!

There was one i couldn't work out

• , it's worth removing all the wrong answers, one of them the answer only relates to a certain type of set up, but the other choices given are not possible to be right... if that makes sense?
  
  

I don't think that one is a good question, would be easier if names in the questions were consistent with the rules, going to give it away, but the "official game clock" or "stopwatch" (run by the ref) and the "visible timer" (run by the scorekeeper) for example.

beaten to it by jono, but i don't think any of the answers are missing from the rules?

1, 4, 9 and 16 are not explicitly covered in the current ruleset, although I realise most refs should know these scenarios by now and many of the correct answers can be inferred.

For example: the rules don't mention whether players must first serve a 30 second penalty before they can be assessed a 2 minute penalty (or anything remotely detailed about the appropriate use of penalties), but refs are expected to know the correct response regardless.

Question 9 is pretty flawed as the correct answer is that the player must tap in if they dabbed at any time while entering the court (which is pretty common place), but if they rode on court then they're fine as-is (this needs re-writing as it's not an intentional scenario to put players in).

I assume that lack of a rule saying penalties must be given in order of penalty severity (ie turnover then 30sec then 2min) means you can give them as required. it would be nice to have some guidelines about what penalties go with which fouls...

i don't agree about 9 being a flawed question, they don't have to tap in because of being off, it's the rules that are flawed in not really being able to account for different real life issues.

Which one's 16 again?

Which one's 16 again?
Paging Operation Yewtree...

At the risk of boring everyone to tears:

they don't have to tap in because of being off

I agree, but the question has two (correct) answers:

Question 9: "After a player has been given a penalty, they must first tap out before returning to play..."
...if they entered the court by foot, this is true.
...if they entered the court riding their bike, this is false.

The former is the more common scenario (as you usually can't enter the court by bike). I doubt a ref would ever make a player tap-in as usually they are unaware of that area of the court at the time (I tend to sneak into play regardless of walking/riding on court).

Question 16 is the one about whether a 2 minute penalty should follow a 30 second penalty.

Cool, like so many things experience is key... I've never been sent off :)

Cool, like so many things experience is key... I've never been sent off :)

Jono has.

Many times, it's totally worth it, you should try it Louis.

I notice that the 'Rules' page on the London Bike Polo web-site is about 4 years out of date. Is the NAH rule-set current, and will be used at LO?

I just got interviewed by someone from a newspaper that had quoted some out of date things from the website too...wah. It's on the to-do list!

I just got interviewed by someone from a newspaper that had quoted some out of date things from the website too...wah. It's on the to-do list!

I'm slowly working my way through it, what particular things? (we are talking about londonbikepolo.wordpress site, aren't we?)