Polo Rules

Teams of 4 make sense also for the league as it may be easier to schedule games.

Teams of 4 for the league?

League 2012/3 thread.

Bench format makes sense.

I've never understood the once you sub the sub has too stay till the end rule.

What is point?

Originally, I think it was to stop people gratutuitously playing for multiple teams in the same tourney.

boagey = london cup slut :)

Bizarrely the NAH (old) rules allow it, and a team can object if they think the sub is too good (very subjective).

I like their ruling, because finding a sub who isnt playing can be really tough. So a team can take any sub as long as the other team agrees/is ok with it. A team is well within their rights to say no to any opposing sub.

Yeah, well, that's the obvious abuse of it, just refuse to let the other team have any sub. I guess at some point the organiser can overrule. I just really don't like the idea of having someone play on two teams, it's too easy to abuse it.

Louis, a reason for returning the original player after a sub, is that a team could effectively have 4 players, and choose whichever 3rd would suit whichever opponent.

Yeah, well, that's the obvious abuse of it, just refuse to let the other team have any sub. I guess at some point the organiser can overrule. I just really don't like the idea of having someone play on two teams, it's too easy to abuse it.

I think the only solution to the problem of delaying a tournament due to 1 player being injured is for every team to name a sub (who cannot play for another team) or for there to be designated tournament subs who can play when any member of registered team is unable to continue playing, but aren't playing for a specific team, who can play for any team that requires a sub but is not actually a member of that team.

So, in the example of Shotguns vs Cosmic, the designated sub (let's say it was Joe Teenslain or Horatio) would have replaced Jo for the rest of the game, but would not necessarily have played in any subsequent game, if Jo was able to continue. A floating sub, if you will.

This makes more sense to me, than being forced to take a sub through subsequent rounds when your original player is better!

I can see your point John, although I don't understand the antipathy to having a four squad team and being able to change players?

I can see your point John, although I don't understand the antipathy to having a four squad team and being able to change players?

I don't think anyone has a problem with it per se, but I would have a problem going to a tournament and being the 4th.

I don't think anyone has a problem with it per se, but I would have a problem going to a tournament and being the 4th.

+1. It's not like you get 25% off the travel cost.

I don't think anyone has a problem with it per se, but I would have a problem going to a tournament and being the 4th.

Yeah I agree, but why have rules that stop teams from having a fourth?

Oh don't get me wrong, if the rules allowed a squad of four, and you could select your lineup from it on a game by game basis I'd be all for it. I think it would develop into 4 equal players though, rather than 3+1, as the former would be much better for team play etc.

It would solve so many problems for teams, injuries in tournaments, if a player can't make a fixture/training session, you still have a familiar squad of 3. You can play teams to their weaknesses, if you know you are likely to defend play a goalie, if you want to counter attack play your fastest players, etc.

But the rules clearly say at the moment it's a team of three, and if you allow subbed players back in, it's allowing teams of 4 through the back door, which should never be the approach to the rules.

Great, do it!

Do it for what? The new NAH rules? That's up to Jono to communicate with them, and I doubt such a radical change like that would get through.

Essentially you're talking about New Format. Adam's your man. (I'm all for it and it is the future of bike polo if you want to see bike polo on TV.)

Squads of players only really makes sense for longer games, you don't ever need to swap out a man for 15 minute game tournaments as polo is hardly an endurance sport (until the final few games).

It's very possible to have different team dynamics/formations without needing a fourth man. You've failed to provide a good reason to tweak 3v3 in my opinion.

The sub rule is written as-is to prevent sand bagging and teams "helping" each other during tournaments. It's also written that way so that a team's ability changes as little as possible during a tournament (having 4 players would also screw the ability to compare teams accurately).

I'm all for it and it is the future of bike polo if you want to see bike polo on TV

Dunno about this.

Good first to 5, 10 minute games are great to watch.

Good new format games are great to watch in the last 10 minutes.

I agree that you shouldn't be able to take a player already playing for another team.

But i don't see the point in a rule that basically makes it even harder for teams that have been effected by injury. Particularly not allowing an original player back on to the team because he got injured in a pervious game.

Just seems like running salt on the wound.

Nope, it's to ensure that each team plays the most similar teams possible during tournaments (especially important in qualifier rounds, group stages, or RR).

I agree the original player could be allowed back on the team without much of a problem (depending on the exact situation), but you can achieve this by finishing your current game 2 on 3.

I agree that you shouldn't be able to take a player already playing for another team.

But i don't see the point in a rule that basically makes it even harder for teams that have been effected by injury. Particularly not allowing an original player back on to the team because he got injured in a pervious game.

Just seems like running salt on the wound.

I completely agree, and I think the solution is designated tournament subs.

I agree the original player could be allowed back on the team without much of a problem (depending on the exact situation), but you can achieve this by finishing your current game 2 on 3.

Yeah, but as a ref, I wasn't happy to see Spring Break play on with 2 when you were bleeding from the face, as it was manifestly unfair, and I wasn't happy to let you play on - you can't allow a player to continue to play when they are bleeding, sorry, that's not soft, that's just common sense.

It's easy to put a plaster on within the alloted time out window?

I could have sat out for the length of a time out and (if needed) joined the game after it had been restarted for additional time?

Perhaps a compromise would be a designated generic sub that could be used to finish games (goalie sub if you will)... my personal feeling is that I would drop a player to compete against a team 2 on 2 if I felt strongly about it and they had no available sub, I've often presented that option to the teams on court if time is running short on a tournament.

The "temporary sub" thing can be manipulated and has been avoided in the past (although no-one has gamed the system to-date as far as I'm aware)?

... really all of this has come about as debate because we dont have enough time on sunday for the EQ. Most tournaments are not as congested as such. Surely the standard rules we have applied with common sense, i.e. louis at BFF JOno at Lii me at EHBPC, just means: lets wait, assess, can you play on?, no, then postpone until the team can compete as usual 3 or has to take a sub and that sub has to have been knocked out or in the case of RR swiss etc i guess you have to take a sub from the crowd / community.

Basically, people are sensible, it would be nice if the rules reflected this.

... really all of this has come about as debate because we dont have enough time on sunday for the EQ. Most tournaments are not as congested as such. Surely the standard rules we have applied with common sense, i.e. louis at BFF JOno at Lii me at EHBPC, just means: lets wait, assess, can you play on?, no, then postpone until the team can compete as usual 3 or has to take a sub and that sub has to have been knocked out or in the case of RR swiss etc i guess you have to take a sub from the crowd / community.

Well, it's reignited it, but I wouldn't say that the situation (not being able to postpone games) is unique to the qualis. We had it in the LII & Hell's Belle's. The rules, as they are written, aren't particularly helpful.

no me neither, but the qualies are so fantastically tight on time, which is rare for most tournies.

Shameless blog plug, but here is a bit I did about double/triple goalie set-ups.

It'd be interesting to see what people think/if it's a problem/if we should do something about it.

I think Adam wrote about it on the SB Padova blog post too.