Polo Rules

Turned from a bearded baby to a rabid wolverine because a goal-ref missed a ball-joint in a game he was watching.

Can refs make sure that goals are awarded when someone is footdown in the goal and it hits said player.

I know this is sometimes difficult to see but we had 3 seperate goals not called at the worlds.

I meant this, i thought the goal was to be awarded for some reason?

"If you foot-down and ‘save’ a goal, you can be given a timed penalty. This will be at the referee’s discretion."

At the world's it was down to the referee to award a goal or not (it was not automatic as that would encourage some sort of weird "hit the keeper" LBW play), lots of refs were under the impression that a goal couldn't be awarded for a "foot down/zombie save".

It was only on the final day that we were all brought on board with this as many refs were under the impression that a time penalty (power play) was all you could dish out. We will be consistent at the London Open and the referee's meeting should cover/iron out these rules/details. Ask your ref before a game if you want any guidance...

It really sucks when you're sitting in front of a goal, ball at your mallet with some douche stood there with his feet blocking even the BB gap.
Three of those situations in one weekend was enough to turn me to drinking hard liquor from the bottle... oh wait, I do that anyway.
Still I don't like zombie dick moves and I want harsh penalties or goals awarded for shots on goal.

Can refs make sure that goals are awarded when someone is footdown in the goal and it hits said player.

I know this is sometimes difficult to see but we had 3 seperate goals not called at the worlds.

Again, I will be guided by the organisers, but I really don't think a goal should be awarded unless the whole of the ball has crossed the line, no matter what.

The ref should definitely have the power to eject the offending player from the court, and I think that time penalties should be carried over to the next tournament game...

... I really don't think a goal should be awarded unless the whole of the ball has crossed the line, no matter what.

+1

As much as it sucks having shots blocked by downed keepers, or having to wait there with the ball for the keeper to move out the way, i think it's not a great idea to start awarding goals for things when the ball hasn't crossed the line.

I agree.

I understand the logic in it. Doesn't make it any less frustrating when it happens.
I think this should be a high priority foul which results in an immediate time out. It would help to reduce the number of people trying to get away with it.

I understand the logic in it. Doesn't make it any less frustrating when it happens.
I think this should be a high priority foul which results in an immediate time out. It would help to reduce the number of people trying to get away with it.

Personally, I would say instant out for the rest of the game and 1 min sin bin of next.

Personally, I would say instant out for the rest of the game and 1 min sin bin of next.

Wow hardcore. I was thinking 1 min out total carried over if less than one minute remains in the current game.
I don't mind though I don't do this so it's highly unlikely that I'd be on the receiving end.

Maybe just a public lashing on the main court after the prize giving?

Wow hardcore. I was thinking 1 min out total carried over if less than one minute remains in the current game.
I don't mind though I don't do this so it's highly unlikely that I'd be on the receiving end.

Maybe just a public lashing on the main court after the prize giving?

My theory is since you don't want people deliberately blocking goal-bound shots, make the penalty out-weigh the possible rewards.

That is a sound theory Bill, a sound theory indeed.

i happened to footdown at the exact moment iain shot the ball. it hit my foot, we didnt even contest that it wasnt a goal. It would have pissed me off if i'd been sin binned for a simple foot down, its not like i anticipated where the ball was.

dick what?

My theory is since you don't want people deliberately blocking goal-bound shots, make the penalty out-weigh the possible rewards.

what if it isn't deliberate though? guaging the intention of a player is often difficult or immpossible. it would be excessive to ban an unfortunate or unlucky player (especially goalie) who unintentionally blocked a goal for more than a minute or two, i reckon.

tough one though - although i think it's pretty clear that you can't give a goal unless the ball crosses the line. there'd be some ridiculous arguments otherwise.

what if it isn't deliberate though? guaging the intention of a player is often difficult or immpossible. it would be excessive to ban an unfortunate or unlucky player (especially goalie) who unintentionally blocked a goal for more than a minute or two, i reckon.

tough one though - although i think it's pretty clear that you can't give a goal unless the ball crosses the line. there'd be some ridiculous arguments otherwise.

Clearly one wouldn't want to penalise inadvertent blocking, but one does want to encourage foot-down players to get out of the way as soon as possible, if not quicker.

Exactly, people are a little too happy to take their time to move.
If there is the threat of incuring a penalty then that may speed them up?

In one of our qualifying games the opposing team cleared the ball from the mouth of the net with their foot whilst tapping out. It sucked as that game was a draw when we should have won it.

I feel your pain em.

On the earlier ball joint discussion.

I've had the conversation with a few people now and I really feel we should adopt the ball joint then pass rule (which has been used in all recent major European Tournaments) for pickup games.

It just makes sense to adjust our rules to be in line with the rules we'll be playing competative games with. A similar example would be the adoption of the half court reset, there was resistance initially but it's become second nature.

i concur

Then we should probably adopt the "no ball joint in the offensive half" rule seeing as it was used at the NAHBPCs and will probably be the rule in place if the world's are in the US next year.

On the earlier ball joint discussion.

I've had the conversation with a few people now and I really feel we should adopt the ball joint then pass rule (which has been used in all recent major European Tournaments) for pickup games.

It just makes sense to adjust our rules to be in line with the rules we'll be playing competative games with. A similar example would be the adoption of the half court reset, there was resistance initially but it's become second nature.

I agree that we should use the rules that everyone else is. BJ then pass it should be.