Polo Rules

Sorry, I'm talking about www.lhbpa.org which I have updated the basics on but needs going into more detail...

So, are we using NAH rules for LO?

Ask Ryan, I assume so.

I don't see any reasons not to. The reasons for using it at UK Champs/Euros/Karlsruhe etc.. are still valid.

Crease.

One thing I find we are missing is something between the ball turnover and the 30's. I already launch a thread about it months ago on LOBP.
https://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2013/04/30/what-between-30-seconds-out-and-ball-turnover
. Does the one who have experience in reffin' feel the same here? That sometimes you are missing a step in penalty, between a ball turnover who can be a really good thing for the guilty team and a 30 sec' who can be too much severe and often hard to enforce ( wich door, what clock to use, how to follow the game and the clock etc...).

I quote myself here and would love to have some feedback from the London community

 *Few months ago i had to ref a whole one court tourney in Lyon, France, for the qualification process for the european champs.*

What i noticed is that we are missing a penalty for cases where players need more than a simple ball-turnover and less than a 30 seconds box penalty (wich i always think is really hard to enforce due to the lack of staff and materials condition: assistant time keeper, good door, process to get in the game).
Sometime, a ball turnover is clearly not enough, because:
1) the situation was better than a classical 3v3 restart, for example a 3-2.
2) the player who made the fool deserve to get out of the game, but for less than 30 seconds.
So what i did was: taking the player right in front of me (i was in the middle of the court), make him faces the opponent nets, them give him the right to get back in game only AFTER the ball or a opponent crossed the line. The fact that we was in the wrong direction to get back on defense give him extra penalty time, but not so much.
This way really easy to enforce, this avoid the double tap or the penalty box punishment.
I think this system have to be in the ref tool box. We can also imagine a longer penalty by asking the player to goes make a ride behind the opponent net before comming back.
What are you thinking about?
This happens in this game, at 10 : 51. The guy hack. But that's my first call against him. I don't want to pull the guy out for 30 sec', but i don't want him to get back in the game without any sanction....I tried first to tap in during the time gap between stop and restart. So i have to call him back and ask him to wait that they cross the line before gettin back in game.
LYON pre qualies 2013 - Les Chevals vs Léptizizis on Vimeo

Make them ride in a 360 or double tap out.
#brandnewideas

Faceoffs

Scrums, penalty kicks, 3 point throws, birdies and pirouettes.

Dice?

Penalty vodka.

Penalty vodka.

Best idea yet.

"Hacking again? OK ref."

Thanks for feedbacks.

Some good delay call in this game:
at 1:22 and and 10:37
it seems both for extanding arms contact or something like that (but more than the fool that's the process of wistling that i find intersting).
Midwest Qualifier 3rd Place on Vimeo

(oh and a stupid-lovely shaft shot at 14:58)

Faceoffs

Seriously though, we did faceoffs in Ottawa last weekend, instead of jousts, and they were so much better. No dangerous situations, and no disadvantage for lefties.

The fuck is a faceoff?

I quote myself here and would love to have some feedback from the London community...

The guy hack. But that's my first call against him. I don't want to pull the guy out for 30 sec',
I think (and this is a general comment, not aimed at you personally) sometimes there's a reluctance to penalise bad or dangerous play in polo.
It shouldn't matter if an offence is the first time. If there's anyone in polo who is unaware that hacking is not acceptable these days, then they've no place on a court.
If you feel that a 30 second penalty is too much for a given incident, then I'd recommend playing advantage (delayed penalty). Think how shitty it would feel if you hack someone, then defend for your life, block shot after shot after shot... finally regain possession of the ball, break onto an open net and... the ref blows up, tells you that you're on the wrong end of a delayed penalty, and the other team's getting the ball. How shit would that be? All that defending, the chance to score, taken away from you. I reckon you'll stop hacking pretty quickly.

I agree hacking is unacceptable, but it's almost always accepted and is commonplace. I see it more amongst better teams than worse ones, but maybe that's because I watch more of those games, and those games tend to be more important (IE at the end of tournaments).

Hacking is bullshit, but it takes balls to call it.

@John H
Faceoffs are irrelevants in the situations i'm talking about. A faceoff would mean that you give a 50/50 chance for the guilty team to get the ball back, without any penalty applied.

@Landslide
I agree that a delayed penalty can be a good thing. But imagine, the guy get the ball by his hacking, then you have to stop the game and give a ball turnover. And then you didn't realy give a penalty to the player, because the situation is back to normal.
Imagine same scenario, but the guy who hack to get the ball is alone against 2 players, because his teamates are taping out because of dab'. He get the ball by his foul, so you have to wistle to give a ball turnover. During the time you give the ball turnover, every team in their halves, you just give the guilty team a way to get back in a good situation instead of the initial 2v1. Also you can think about an incendental mallet under wheel if you think hacking deserve 30 sec every time.

I can think a lot of situation where 30 sec is too much, and a ball turnover too weak. Also and again, if 30 sec' were more easy to apply (every ref with an assistant, every court whit a proper central door etc.) this won't be such a problem, because ref would apply them more. But right now that's something we see 1 or 2 times by tournaments, not more.
Making a player wait at the tap out point before the opponent team cross line is realy easy to enforce, it keep the player in front of ref' eyes, give the non-guilty team a small numeric advantage that they can capitalize on etc. And you can imagine a lot of simple variations: if a player by a foul (as in my exemple) break a 3v1 situation, you can call 2 players at tap out point before starting back. If you think that's not enough time for penalty, you can imagine asking the player to go around opponent nets before getin' back in games etc...

I think (and this is a general comment, not aimed at you personally) sometimes there's a reluctance to penalise bad or dangerous play in polo.
It shouldn't matter if an offence is the first time. If there's anyone in polo who is unaware that hacking is not acceptable these days, then they've no place on a court.
If you feel that a 30 second penalty is too much for a given incident, then I'd recommend playing advantage (delayed penalty). Think how shitty it would feel if you hack someone, then defend for your life, block shot after shot after shot... finally regain possession of the ball, break onto an open net and... the ref blows up, tells you that you're on the wrong end of a delayed penalty, and the other team's getting the ball. How shit would that be? All that defending, the chance to score, taken away from you. I reckon you'll stop hacking pretty quickly.

+1.

"+1"
So Bill, no need someting between ball turn over (even delayed) and 30 sec in your opinion?

(also i would know how many times people who refs game here gave 30's in past, and how does it works, what's the process you used? did you have an assistant to keep the 30 sec', wich "door" did you use to put the guy out etc... i find there is some points missing here).

"+1"
So Bill, no need someting between ball turn over (even delayed) and 30 sec in your opinion?

(also i would know how many times people who refs game here gave 30's in past, and how does it works, what's the process you used? did you have an assistant to keep the 30 sec', wich "door" did you use to put the guy out etc... i find there is some points missing here).

Clement, you must know that I have given loads of 30 sec penalties (probably not more than 50 times but definitely more than 10). I was probably the first ref in Europe to give a 30 sec penalty (Yorgo at EHBPC 2009). Which door? Good question, normally only one door on the courts, so that was the door used (in Barcelona 2011, this was not an issue, as the boards were so low). Timekeeper makes a note (or I did if no timekeeper), and then player rejoins on the fly (no tap in).

I think 30 sec penalties are under-used, and are an excellent deterrent. If players are aware that the ref is not frightened of upsetting them (which seems to be the case with most refs), and will happily give out 30 sec penalties, then they pay more attention to rules etc.

( if i remember in 2009 you get an assistant and no door cause the court were plastic road thing easy to jump off. so it was easier to enforce.)

Im not saying that we should get rid of 30 sec'. Im saying that
1) we should have another penalty to give
and
2) that if we took 30 sec seriously, every time we organize, play or ref at a tournament, we should all be aware about how it's gonna happens and how to make it easier to enforce by ref. wich door, wich signal to get in etc etc. If that's only one door, then we agree that you get back or in opponent camp or in your own camp?
And as you said, ref didn't give so much 30 sec, so it's hard to feel pressure of that penalty when it happens less than one or two time per tourney.

You think my idea of make a player stay at tap out point before opponents cross line is a bad idea? I mean there is a lot of situation where 30 second didnt apply (incidental mallet under wheel ) but where ball turn over didn't give a real advantage back, don't you think?

We don't use the penalties we already have Clement.

This is not because they are "too strict", it's because refs are afraid of making calls in general. (Almost every game has calls that should be made, but they're not.)

For me it's simple:
Give a warning if the foul/action just needs flagging but didn't change the game in the slightest.
Give the team possession back if the foul caused them to lose possession.
Take a player off for 30 seconds if the foul stopped a potenital shot on goal, or was a reckless version of the above dispossession.
Take the player off for 2 minutes if they stopped a shot on an open net, or there was a reckless version of the above stopped potential shot.

I can't see how adding another rule would be a good thing (yet?). In my opinion adding another rule is likely to confuse refs further and you would make it even less likely that the 30 secs (or 2 minutes) penalties would ever be used.

We got rid of double-taps because they were an inconsistent call (depending on your position on court, and whether your team was attacking/defending) and your idea has similar flaws (in my opinion).