Polo Rules

It isn't really a rules issue. It's another tactic in bike polo, sometimes used well, sometimes used badly. It's boring in throw ins for sure.

Nice mudguards.

Nice write-up Dan.

If teams use a double goalie then you have two tactics at your disposal:

1. Block out the second keeper to secure a shot on a solo goalie.
   
2. Shoot under the BB of the first goalie and hope the second goalie has slow reflexes.
   
   

If you have the lead, then DON'T attack a double goalie... encourage the other team to play mid court polo and chase the scoreline.

Double keepers are effective, but will not allow you to evolve your game, try to work out less "risk aversion" tactics and discover ways to dominate possession/shots on goal that are more optimistic.

In the future you will be playing three players of Manu-like skill (and some), a defensive game has a low ceiling in my opinion.

I often find the second goalie is more of a hindrance than a help. Especially if they're bigger than me because I can't see! Although my usual tactic of riding across the goal last minute is probably more distracting.

Ha, just noticed Fin is in goal back to front too!

The second player being in goal back to front has advantages though. If the goalie moves to cover his front wheel then the second player is still covering the back post.

Strategy & coaching >>

It's not a rule thing, but I think it's relevant to the rules, as I don't think they're clear, and Adam (and presumably others) are talking about a time/player limit in the d.

I try to use the responses that Jono mentions, but they're a lot less effective if your opponents have the lead. I'd hate for the rules of polo to promote a mad dash (or ultra cagey) section before the first goal, then a leaders-kill-the-game scenario.

I reckon there should be a presumption of innocence on the attacking players breaking down the wall, or an 'anything goes' attitude, so long as everyone is stationary and it's not reckless. I know both of those are dodgy and subjective, but it seems to me the pursuit of objectivity above all is flawed. I'd prefer to make the tactic less effective organically, rather than making specific rules against it.

I think we should try to avoid a time/person-in-the-d limit as it's a ballache to keep an eye on and enforce.

Effective or not, it's fucking boring and makes the game significantly less enjoyable to play and watch.

1. Shoot under the BB of the first goalie and hope the second goalie has slow reflexes.
   
   

This works surprisingly well! If you can line up the 2 bottom brackets, the inner goalie will not see the ball until late. Also, if you hit ball hard enough, the ricochet often causes confusion, allowing attackers to force the ball in.

But if your hard shot misses the first goalie's b/b, it rebounds off their wheels and they are facing in the right direction to turn you and form a break.

Counter-intuitively, it's the *attacking *advantage that makes 2/3 goalies so effective.

Get your other player to block their break and shoot away, they can also do a bit of argy bargy while they're at it.

So you should be arguing for rules that limit counter-attacking if that is the effective part?

In Padova Bison where having a perma golie, with a second golie 90% of the time, (only left to play counter attacks)
both where doing, what is going to be the move of the summer, the french guys call it the "raclet" that consist in putting the mallet flat in the floor in the moment someone shoot. I know this is not new, that a lot of people used in the past and now, but I havent see any team use it like they where doing in Padova.
Both of them trackstanding and bunnyhoping in place doing the flat mallet thing, really close together one to the other, not easy to move them, both been big and physical (if need it)... it was extremelly difficult to score on them... but not impossible.

For me a rule of "max time in the D", or "only one man in the D" is need, but tis is just my opinion

Still think we just need bigger goals.

Goals that spit out fire every 30 seconds.

This season definitely has the potential to be full of very blocky/defensive/risk aversion play, lame.

Perhaps just pass the ball around in mid court and don't attack until the keepers come out? Point it out as the lame spectacle that it is?

Still think we just need bigger goals.

What about a tiny goal? But with a restriction zone around it, water polo style, no keepers, etc?

Essentially it'd be good to see all six players moving around and playing a team game.

James, you can not change all the goals that are already made, this sport is not rich and that approach is not practical

and Jono, I totally agree with you, the summer of "blocky/defensive/risk aversion play, lame."

I can't just move the cones a bit?

I think at this point only rules that sort out this porblem*

(*if you think it is a problem)

Whatever you do with a rules change, a team will just shift their defensive focus. For example, they will defend the edge of the D in the same way, or they ride incredibly slowly/hop around in the D. It also becomes more stuff for the ref to call.

It's a legitimate tactic that won't disappear. Defence is easier to play than attack and we're not the first sport to have to deal with it (total football Vs cantenaccio). It won't disappear with a rules change but you can make it less effective by forcing a team to stretch it horizontally across the court.

To take it to an extreme, if bike polo was played with an endzone instead of a goal, teams could never just pack bodies behind the ball and hope to counter attack. This forces defence to occur further up the court. The bigger the goals get, the more the defence has to push out.

So you should be arguing for rules that limit counter-attacking if that is the effective part?

I don't think that follows. I was highlighting the fact that it's not just sit-back-and-defend tactic. It puts the emphasis on forcing the other team to take stupid risks, and puts the game out of balance once there's a 1-0 lead.

Still think we just need bigger goals.

I think there's enough goals in polo. 10 minute games routinely go to 5 (or even more when untimed). But I never thought about a bigger goal, but maybe it would deliver what I want (a more open and flowing game, with more emphasis on mid-field play and with more long-range shots/goals).

I would wait at least 2 seasons before considering a rule change to force a change in defensive tactics. The history of tactics in team sports shows that defensive innovations are often negated by offensive innovations.

If this doesn't happen, then the sport can consider making changes.

If a change really does need to be made to negate overly defensive play, I would be inclined to make the goals bigger, rather than bring in a time / position based rule, for the reason that it needs no referee input at all.

I take the point that it'll make a lot existing goals obsolete, but are goals really all that expensive? Also, you wouldn't need to replace the whole goal, just the back bar (and cross bar, if that finally makes it into the rule-set).

Our goals are already obsolete if we take the NAH ruling as-is (90cm high goals with solid crossbar).

the crossbar is not good, sorry NAH

this summer Geneva will not have crossbars

the crossbar is not good, sorry NAH

this summer Geneva will not have crossbars

Different discussion for a different place, but, yeah, I agree.

why?

Solid crossbar is far too easy to put hands on, which, in my view isn't polo.