Polo Rules

I don't think banning hooking is feasible when we aren't really calling hacks, which are against the rules already!

More refs should call high sticking, it's the most dangerous thing still permissible and allowing it on shots seems counterintuitive to me (as being hit in the face by a shot is probably going to hurt more than most other times mallets go above shoulder height).

Luca was actually called for a scoop that went over shoulder height, at Cambridge. Although it was safe, it's the thin edge of the wedge and any time the mallet goes above shoulder height it should be called (including going for a hook on a shooting player). It was noticeable after Luca got called that everyone's mallets stayed a lot more under control.

I've never heard anyone say 'beautiful hook'.

I see them all the time, and let people know when they've done it.

Beauty in the eye of the beholder etc. You might think its lazy, ugly play - its defensive and blocking action yes, but so what? Not everyone can play beautiful, flowing, passing, three out games, so leave it be.

Ha. @n3il It's stabbing at someones planted mallet in the centre of the shaft.

More beautiful tactics. thats how you win tournaments.....

lolz @EMM

it is illegal, refs just don't know to look for it yet but i think the word is spreading

hooking is tight and an alternative to playing the body at times
Playing the body can make for ugly polo
If people wanted to make polo as pretty as possible then get rid of hooking and physicality and all your left with are sweet passes and tight goals

As far as the high stick rule goes, it's in place for safety right, but how effective is it? I mean, who actually knows if injuries have decreased since the rule was implemented (whenever that may have been, idk). Most of the time when a high stick penalty is called nobody is harmed and it seems like a bullshit turnover. That is my opinion as a spectator.

I don't remember when the high stick rule came into force, but the two injuries I think of were both before it I think?
(Dude at Barcelona euro's and otters at Halloween?)
But it's a very small population, with a low serious injury rate so statistically insignificant.

Maybe it's because I turned up at downham one time to see an ambulance that I don't think of it as an imposition?

Maybe if you hit someone with your mallet in any fashion you should have an instant 30 second / 1 min penalty. Its impossible to declare what is and isn't safe but any contact with another player from your mallet will result in an instant 30 seconds, could be enforceable. Leg, shoulder, hand whatever. People will automatically begin to see the opponent as off limits.

More refs should call high sticking, it's the most dangerous thing still permissible and >allowing it on shots seems counterintuitive to me (as being hit in the face by a shot is >probably going to hurt more than most other times mallets go above shoulder height).

There is a logic to it. Banning ball/puck contact over the shoulder is an easier way to make the game somewhat safer, without greatly affecting the game. But if you force the shooter to think about their shot in that way, it's going to affect the game much more.

It's exactly the same rule in Hockey. You can raise the stick on the backswing, but can't contact the puck above the shoulder.

The NHL and other leagues, and even beer leagues enforce visors to deal with the majority of the backswing issues.

I don't play bike hockey.

No. But bike polo shares a lot of common issues and situations with Hockey, and it's where a lot of the ruleset comes from. Because they've had these problems, and resolved them in the way that makes most sense for them. As such it's good to see how they do it.

High sticking!

When "I" called Luca for high sticking I was looking at his scoop to hold thing he was doing and trying to figure out if it had gone from using centrifugal force to hold the ball and progressed to just having it sat in his mallet. The goal ref called high sticking so I went with that as it was above shoulder height, in contact with the ball and not a shot, it seemed easier than trying to remember the other rule and explain it (not good reffing). I think I'm right with what I was going to call though, please correct me if I'm not. Also not sure if going with the goal refs call was a good thing when all the crowd around the ref was calling the same thing, was I going with the other ref or pandering to the crowd? I'd say I was just listening to the goal ref but should I take into account them being influenced by all the people shouting around them?

My point of view of the game last night:

• Ben went for a big hit
  
• I put my mallet up to block the mallet as he was swinging down
  
• ...dubious bit... my hook was quite high although I wouldn't say too high, probably saddle height. I'm pretty sure Ben came down and struck my mallet with his hand but it could have just as easily been my mallet hitting his hand. I don't know exactly what happened/was in the heat of the match and wouldn't have argued too hard against a turn over but I don't think I fouled.
  
  

I knew I was being cheeky but I don't think I was dangerous or performing a straight up foul.

I had no idea there was a new part of the high sticking rule which actually relates to shooting and/or blind watsons. Seems like making a judgement based on (impossible to predict at the time) consequences because the shooter can't know who is next to them all the time. I guess 'face cage or stfu' is outdated now, but if everyone wore them, nobody would be at a vision disadvantage and we could all rejoice in massive slapshots without the potential guilt at blinding someone. Are there any other swingy/sticky/batty/mallety sports where they don't wear visors or cages?

Said it a million times, but hacking sucks. The existance of hooking makes hacking impossible to call because it's a sliding scale that goes like this:

1) graceful hook
2) beautiful hook
3) ugly hook
4) hook
5) firm hook
6) aggressive hook
7) potential hack
8) debatable hack
9) hack
10) aggressive hack
11) ridiculously aggressive hack

I've only ever seen 10) and 11) get called and then very rarely. It's also depressing because it's the very best players who do it most and at the end of tournaments when shit is on the line and people are watching. 1) and 2) aren't good enough to justify the other nine uglies. Ban them all and move on.

1 through 6 are all amazing.

"§9.2.1.1 – Windup and follow through associated with normal shooting motion that
extends above the height of the opponent’s shoulders is not subject to a high sticking
penalty. Wild swings or blind backhanded swings that extend far behind a player are not considered “normal shooting motion” and will be subject to a high sticking penalty at the
referee’s discretion according to proximity of other players."

Couple of questions:

1) 'associated' by whom/how many people? What's 'normal shooting action'?
2) what's the definition 'wild swing'.
3) what's the definition of 'far' (in this context)?

Seems like such a debatable rule!

Let us debate it.

You first.

High sticking rule is fucking crappy. Wear a facecage. Spectators want to see cool scoops and sweet tricks not boring under the elbow because everyone is scared of a turnover play.

AND SHHHHHH STOP SAYING THE 'T' WORD

Maybe if you hit someone with your mallet in any fashion you should have an instant 30 second / 1 min penalty. Its impossible to declare what is and isn't safe but any contact with another player from your mallet will result in an instant 30 seconds, could be enforceable. Leg, shoulder, hand whatever. People will automatically begin to see the opponent as off limits.

Gotta agree with this. Fuck the high sticking rule. High sticking for a scoop should be ok if it isnt dangerous (usually called for high sticking) but a big swinging shot in close proximity to a player/hitting a player cause of a swing is dangerous (almost never called).

Also, polo is meant to be accessible. If people are blamed for getting hit cause they dont have a facecage then thats not too conducive to getting new players involved as you shouldnt need to have ALL THE KIT in order to be safe. the onus should be on not hitting them in the first place

Cage up or... ;)

If you have to wear a facecage, you're playing with dickheads.

The high sticking rule doesn't seem like it can be applied to scooping anyway, because the ball is not airborne:

§9.2 – High Sticking §9.2.1 – A high sticking penalty will be assessed
when a player attempts to contact an airborne ball at a height above
the nearest opponent’s shoulders.

However, the carrying rule might possibly apply, depending on what the player is doing:

§5.6 – Carrying §5.6.1 – Carrying is defined as picking up the ball
and carrying it in the air, in any hole in the mallet head, with
gravity providing the force which holds the ball in the mallet head.
§5.6.2 – Carrying is not permitted and will result in a ball turnover.

I don't think that what Luca was doing in Cambridge was carrying though, he was scooping, which is permitted:

§5.5 – Scooping §5.5.1 – A scoop is when the ball is cupped in any
hole in the mallet head using centripetal force and is maneuvered,
whether it be on the ground or in the air. §5.5.2 – Scooping is
permitted.

So, Luca getting called for high-sticking in Cambridge isn't really supported by the ruleset as it is currently worded. Sweet tricks ftw.

It definitely started as scooping, but it seemed like there was a moment of carrying once he had hold of it, the sweet tricks are sweet but if that mallet stops moving and the ball is still attached then it ain't centripetal force keeping it there. The first bit is a good point though, I'd say the ball is still quite obviously airborne but the rule isn't so clear on whether it means a ball that comes towards you in the air and you attempt to contact it, or a ball you have put there midway through a sweet trick. Luca is obviously awesome at doing this (and everything else) but when you get people swinging around a mallet at head height and above trying to keep a ball on the end of it in a crowd of people then someone will get hit it the face, possibly quite hard. If the high sticking rule doesn't apply to this I think it should, although I also think you should be allowed to grab a ball out of the air if there are no faces nearby to accidentally smack.

Yeah, if the motion had stopped then it is carrying, which isn't allowed. I don't think it matters how the ball came to be airborne, if you have lifted it above shoulder height and then hit it down, it is a high-stick.

I was always under the impression that it wasn't a high-stick if contact isn't made, but the rule says "attempts to contact an airborne ball", so I am clearly wrong.