Polo Rules

good? reflexion about all this new rules and how bike polo is changing.... worth a read

Interesting only in so far as he uses the hockey metaphor, because that is clearly what he thinks 'hardcourt' bike polo should be. There was no advantage to smash him into a corner hands on bars never wanting to play the ball. In hockey they check and then get the puck. In bike polo the ball is king and you should be wanting it. Keep it and when you loose it, (preferably after scoring) get it back. This is fundamentally impossible to do if you wreck into someone or do not use the thing at the end of your hand to try and get it.

The first video clip looks pretty innocuous, albeit still ugly and in my opinion a dick move. The second one is just stupidly aggressive and I'd be livid if someone did that to me, especially into a low barrier like that. From reading north American blogs/forums it seems they really have a hard on for making it 'bike hockey', where you can proudly show off your injuries and toothless smiles because you're so hard. I really hope polo doesn't go down that route, but I can totally understand that those at the top of the game, in this country, want to get better at playing that way so they can compete.

Body to body contact is part of the game, but riding into someone at high speed, both hands on the bar is just asking for serious crashes and broken bikes/bones. It's also ugly.

I find it hard to take the article seriously... no specific rules or different/new styles of play/games are mentioned. There's just some oddly consistent heckling of the guy for freaking out and winging about the foul/legit move (difficult to tell).

Surely the stance should have been: "Have polo players become pre-madonnas?" not "Are there to many rules in polo?"

Meh, sounds like it's written by the anti-establishment crowd, or someone from the "bruiser" camp who's lost their A-game.

A physical game is predictable and easy to take apart, the exception being if one of your players gets seriously injured and the game is allowed to continue.

I find it hard to take the article seriously... no specific rules or different/new styles of play/games are mentioned. There's just some oddly consistent heckling of the guy for freaking out and winging about the foul/legit move (difficult to tell).

This. It just reads like an awkwardly personal rant.

Interesting only in so far as he uses the hockey metaphor, because that is clearly what he thinks 'hardcourt' bike polo should be. There was no advantage to smash him into a corner hands on bars never wanting to play the ball. In hockey they check and then get the puck. In bike polo the ball is king and you should be wanting it. Keep it and when you loose it, (preferably after scoring) get it back. This is fundamentally impossible to do if you wreck into someone or do not use the thing at the end of your hand to try and get it.

100% agree with the above.

The big problem with the clip that the rant is based on is that the ball goes out of shot before the contact. I also note that the supposedly fouled player is having a pretty good go at elbowing the supposedly fouling player in the back. So it's hard to see whether it should have been called a foul.

has Menace go crazy....?????

http://mistermenace.de/poloupgrade.pdf

In summary: BM format means less teams, so scheduling and registration is easier. The format also allows tournament results to be archived for each region/club/team and not by (potentially ever-changing) 3-player squads... this isn't such a problem in Europe in my opinion (more permanent team line-ups).

I think Adam should have focussed on the positives that "New Format" (BM) brings and not just discussed some (minor) negatives within the existing system with some (arbitrary?) solutions as a conclusion, meh.

I think he does have a point, in the sense for polo ever to become a major pro sport, like football, or the big American sports, what he's suggested would probably have to happen.

But we are so far off that right now (and I doubt many players in polo want that to happen), and I think he's jumping the gun.

Everything he's suggested makes sense, and would work, but at the moment I can't just see, for example, London teams wanting to come together and make rosters of say 10 players, as a permanent team. While it would work for Continental tournaments, what happens when we do the UK champs. A team from Cambridge, a team from Brighton, Manchester too, Edinburgh, London could produce a couple of teams, but that would be it, the others scenes just aren't big enough. So we would have say 6 teams only...

Although that's quite in the extreme, I do think the current format is a little too 'unique' - the First to Five format is my main issue. Timed games, unlimited goals seems to make much more sense. Game length changing over the course of a tournament seems a little strange also.

Timed games, unlimited goals seems to make much more sense. Game length changing over the course of a tournament seems a little strange also.

Agreed: First-to-five suits throw-ins only (when you don't have a timer) and game length needs to get longer across the board (it's short as tournaments are often over-subscribed and because we perceive more short games as preferable).

Up until this weekend, I was a big fan of unlimited goals. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe that's our unique selling point, and it does change how teams play. Unlimited goals there is no reason to score more than a couple if you are leading, it can produce more defensive play, first to 5 gives you another target.

But at the same time I've seen some great unlimited games, where teams came back from a large number of goals down, in games that would have ended 5-1. but ended up 7-8.

Regarding team sizes, if I was one of the good teams, I would consider making a roster of 6 players. You could train together, constantly change combinations, and when you go to tournaments, if people can't make it, you've always got 3 players who know each other very well, or you can send 2 teams. But of course if say 4 people all want to go, you have to leave someone behind.

I would add that in a tight game, the 5 goal reward is unfair to the looser, because if the game would go for a couple minutes longer, up to the time limit, the result might change.

And i'd say, the 5 goal cap does allow to sit on a two goal advantage as well. ANyways it's a tactic. Small team tactic yes, but valid.

What we'll have to adress i think is rules for defense, three bikes in front of the goal can be very disuassive. Fortunately, teams seem to find ways in.

If I ruled the world, I'd keep first to 5, but make it that a team has to score 5 and win by 2 goals in order to stop the clock and be announced as winner- it would stop weak teams getting unneccesarily destroyed at a tournament 10-0 over a 10 or 12 minute timed game and would stop teams essentially shutting shop and playing with 3 defenders/goalies once they are leading by a single goal. It keeps things more exciting in tight games and there's more to play for for both the winning and losing teams at any given moment. I think timing games with unlimited goals is insanely tiring for successful teams/incredibly demoralizing for new or weaker teams and time consuming for qualifying stages at tournaments ie
Team A vs Team B- 5-1 within 2 minutes, A wins
Team A vs Team B- 5-3 after 7 mins, A wins
Team A vs Team B- 3-1 after 10 minutes, A wins
Team A vs Team B- 4-3 after 10 mins, play continues until A scores one and wins 5-3 or B scores 3 and wins 6-4

It may seem a little overly complex but people fucking love tennis, and looking at the brackets from Excel at the weekend- scenario D, play continues until a 2 goal lead, at the knock out stages would only have affected 4 games differently.

If I ruled the world, I'd keep first to 5, but make it that a team has to score 5 and win by 2 goals in order to stop the clock and be announced as winner- it would stop weak teams getting unneccesarily destroyed at a tournament 10-0 over a 10 or 12 minute timed game

With the exception of qualifiers and first round of Swiss, this shouldn't happen anyway in principle because the more equally matched teams would end up playing each other.

No limit on goals would then only create more clarity between the more equally matched teams for example really good teams becoming sorted from pretty good teams, really terrible teams becoming sorted instead of 5–4 results etc.

team B suck

you still drunk Rob?

No limit on goals would then only create more clarity between the more equally matched teams for example really good teams becoming sorted from pretty good teams, really terrible teams becoming sorted instead of 5–4 results etc.

I am definitely in favour of timed games with unlimited goals rather than against it, this is just another scenario, with 2 evenly matched teams needing to win by 2 would keep things exciting, fast and attacking.... Over the weekend there were some teams who were winning 3-2 and consequently running down the clock and playing the ball into the corners in the last 30 secs of a game.

5-4 results barely happened at ExCel, but there were a lot of 5-0, 5-1 games, whats the point in making these end up 7-0, 8-0, 9-0??? I think a much better indicator of being one of the best teams is still playing 3 out, being able to track back and defend (Rappers against L'equip comes to mind, Rapper's were caught out on the break a couple of times but still got back and played some incredible defending) and yet still pushing for an extra goal.

I really didn't make myself clear above ^^^^^ What I was trying to say is that sometimes the scoreline flatters/deceives the actual game. Some of the the games over the weekend were incredibly close play-wise but for one team or another it just didn't go their way, despite amazing shots, passes, movement so it wound up 5-1 or something but with neither team dominating, or having more possession/less chances on goal (as one would assume).

I guess we're coming at it from a different side to most people on here as I don't really play anymore but still am interested in the game development and enjoy spectating

Bill and I may be miss-representing London over on LOBP, thoughts?

http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2012/01/19/whats-ball-got-to-do-with-it

(I either have no idea how to ref games anymore, or am ahead of the curve, sigh.)

Bill and I may be miss-representing London over on LOBP, thoughts?

http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2012/01/19/whats-ball-got-to-do-with-it

(I either have no idea how to ref games anymore, or am ahead of the curve, sigh.)

Yeah. Stop reffing now.

No, I've been reading that all day, I think you are doing a great job, but up against it with the North Americans.

I'm stepping down as a ref in light of the NA debate (I have a feeling Bill will too), I don't think I am helping the London scene develop if the front wheel advantage/cutting a line NA approach is the future of polo.

I also think London needs to start playing "dickishly" if we don't want to get left behind. If you have the front wheel advantage (in any situation) then you are allowed to wreck the player behind you.

I'll keep an eye on the NAH forum, but I don't "get it", so will watch from the sidelines (let other Euro refs step up) until it all becomes crystal.

I may also try playing a bit harsher at Rouen and see how it goes down (out carve the opposition, force a crash for the player on the inside of your turn, keep playing, etc).

damn regretting buying a ticket now jon. `:)