Polo Rules

I never get slashed on, unless i've paid for it.

.

We need to add in to our rules about not shooting after a "reset" until a player (or the ball) has crossed the line (I think).

Everyone in agreement with that? Basically the game/time doesn't start until someone crosses over the halfway line and you cannot shoot before then (another thing from NAH rules).

Or we can say that the ball crossing the halfway line from a shot does count, but the other team needs to be in their own half as normal first, etc. (Encourages cheap shots, but keeps things simpler).

Thoughts please.

I was under the impression that the game restarted when 2 players from the scoring team had gone over the halfway line.
At least this is what I was told after conceding a goal when I thought the game wasn't restarted as all 3 of us were not in our own half.

Basically the game/time doesn't start until someone crosses over the halfway line and you cannot shoot before then (another thing from NAH rules).

I don't care either way, but I hadn't realised that you couldn't score from your own half unless someone else from your team had crossed.

cheap shots are just that, cheap. I'd like to see an end to them, they are just a really cynical way of winning a game. Ban them.

While I dont tend to be of the 'dont like it, ban it' school of thought, I do agree with gabes on this one.

Yeah, we played in in Australia and it made sense.

Shooting from too deep is confusing, cheap and difficult to ref: Do you say it's ok only if the shot was made when the other team was in their half, or does the ball (on it's way to the net) just have to cross after the three players have, etc. Does the time start/stop really quickly (it would have to)? Doesn't it cheat the clock towards the end of games by allowing an infinite milling around in your own area and then a hard shot?

I was under the impression that the game restarted when 2 players from the scoring team had gone over the halfway line.

This is incorrect. The game restarts when:

the scored on team has the ball under control
all 3 members of the scoring team are in their own half (although they must retreat without delay or interfering with the ball or members of opposing team)
the ball or a member of the possessing team has crossed halfway

cheap shots are just that, cheap. I'd like to see an end to them, they are just a really cynical way of winning a game. Ban them.

I agree with this statement, but we need to effect a global change, rather than change our rules independently.

Damn, we lost a game because of an early shot then. I am disappoints.

Damn, we lost a game because of an early shot then. I am disappoints.

Me too.

That rule was changed last year at the beginning of the league. Obviously whoever was reffing hadn't read the rules.

I was under the impression that the game restarted when 2 players from the scoring team had gone over the halfway line.
At least this is what I was told after conceding a goal when I thought the game wasn't restarted as all 3 of us were not in our own half.

From the league site:

5 – After a goal is scored:
5.1 – The scoring team returns to their half of the court.
5.2 – The conceding team gets possession of the ball and stays in their half of the court.
5.3 – Play will not resume until all 3 players on the scoring team have returned to their own half

From the tournament rules we were playing at the weekend:

5.2 - After a goal is scored, or a game "reset"
5.2.1 - The referee will stop the time.
5.2.2 - Both teams return to their half of the court.
5.2.3 - The team that was scored upon retains possession of the
ball.
5.2.4 - The defending team must wait for the ball or an
offensive player to cross the halfway line.
5.2.4.1 - Play continues and the time restarts once the
ball or an offensive player cross the halfway line.
5.2.4.2 - The main referee has to the authority to call
“game on” and restart the time.

Also, there was some debate about a so-called *rad-ball *shot from Marc (he used his front wheel to add momentum & direct the ball into the goal but the ball movement had started with a shot):

The league rules say this:

4.1 – A goal must originate as a “shot,” defined as striking the ball with the end of the players mallet. Before passing the line, the ball can deflect on any element on the court, except on the ‘shuffle’ side of any attacking team member’s mallet.

The new tournament rules we were using at the weekend say nothing about deflections or reflections, except off mallets,

A shot from an offensive player that deflects off the broad side their teammate's mallet will be viewed as a shuffle and will not count as a goal.

so in absence of a rule specifically outlawing it, I took it to mean that Marc's actions were permitted.

And can it be noted that the London league rules are much easier to understand on this point, than the LOBP's.

Another point worth consider is: how useful is it to go "321 Polo"? There would be lot less opportunity for false starts if there was no countdown, and there was just a shout or a whistle.

Rad ball needs clarifying, agreed. LHBPA rules to use the league definition?

I like "3,2,1, Polo", it's tradition? NAH have moved to using a whistle. Both work in my opinion. Whistle is more "professional"?

Euros rules would need editing via Alejandro/LOBP.

I like "3,2,1, Polo", it's tradition? NAH have moved to using a whistle. Both work in my opinion. Whistle is more "professional"?

I like 321 Polo, but whether it's a whistle or a shout of polo, with the countdown, it's an invitation to jump the start, and one more thing for the ref to call - and I am all in favour of refs being asked to do less, rather than more.

definitely just a whistle is the way forward, 3-2-1 is perfect for throwins where you actually need to attract the attention of the players before they charge, whereas is a proper 'match' the ref already asks both teams if they are ready.

+1, just an "are you ready" to both teams, and then whistle...

sorry, where are the euro's rules ?

to me, the LHBA ruling on wheel shots is 100% clear, i see no problem with it.

on other hand, personally i think that wheel shots are a clear use of 'skill' and intent to direct the ball, and that they should count as a shot (and thus a goal if they go in) no matter which way the ball was handled beforehand.

Slippery slope. "That was a shuffle!" "No, it was a wheel shot! It came off my wheel! I directed it in that direction."

yeah, i agree that's the big problem.

Euro rules:
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2011/04/01/2011-european-hardcourt-bike-polo-rules

If you allow wheel shots then you should allow all bike-to-ball contact and shuffles in my opinion. I think wheel shots (and non "polo" contact) should always be treated in the same way as deflections/secondary plays.

Or we head in the other direction and bike polo may become more of a "hybrid" sport (perhaps not a bad thing: radball, ice hockey mallets/shuffles, plus polo, etc).

the problem with wheel shots is that they are so tricky to ref.
nobody is watching the small incidental touches of the ball to see if the last touch is a shuffle or a hit because there is no warning that the player will wheel it rather than shoot it.

just a thought, i'm fine with the rules as they stand.

It's always going to be easier to hit the ball with your mallet, than with your wheel - it's very hard to make any kind of front wheel contact at speed, other than to block the ball, so I am happy with the rules as they are, as I think it unlikely that 'rad-ball' shots are going to become a big part of the game.

I just would like to see the Euro rules re-written with the London league clause inserted, as it makes it much clearer.