Polo Rules

LO2012: Unlimited goals, untimed final.

(Unlimited goals games are ace.)

Mechanicals.

Or death

team name dibs

Unlimited.

I went to the first cambridge tourney, we lost 5-0 two games in a row. Spent more time getting from the station to the court than we did playing (not complaining about Cambridge, that's how all the tournies were).

We now have Swiss rounds and hopefully unlimited goals, it's never been a better time to get whooped at a tournie.

it's never been a better time to get whooped at a tournie.

Polo quote of the day.

'mechanicals or death'

#iconcurgreatname

Looks really intersting.

Should we think about changing rules for worlds or is that too early?

Honnestly im all open. But i would understand that some people who fly more than 10 hours to come to geneva hope to play game who don't finsh after 3 minutes.

Not tried it but I like it.

I've really enjoyed playing unlimited goals , in both the 10min & 15min versions ! I think that when you take the "1st to 5" out of the equation the game itself becomes more tactical as both teams are aware that there is no "quick way" to end the game , It also rewards teams who have the stamina to play flat out for a full 10/15mins & gives the upcoming teams more court time against teams that they could learn from etc.

Looks really intersting.

Should we think about changing rules for worlds or is that too early?

Honnestly im all open. But i would understand that some people who fly more than 10 hours to come to geneva hope to play game who don't finsh after 3 minutes.

It's not my business to tell you what to do with the Worlds, especially as it's the Worlds, but I don't see why not, apart from this: "we've always played first to five". It's not like other potential rules changes (restart for golden goal) as it is really easy to understand, and there is little chance of refs getting confused.

Not tried it but I like it.

The London Cup was unlimited goals.

#justsayin

#justsayin

Banned from all UK polo for 6 months.

I've really enjoyed playing unlimited goals , in both the 10min & 15min versions ! I think that when you take the "1st to 5" out of the equation the game itself becomes more tactical as both teams are aware that there is no "quick way" to end the game , It also rewards teams who have the stamina to play flat out for a full 10/15mins & gives the upcoming teams more court time against teams that they could learn from etc.

This.

The final at Brighton was great to watch too, unlimited doesn't diminish the excitement.

Played in a tourney with unlimited goals? Care to explain, as I'm genuinely interested in the case against.

reason 1: I'm old so change makes me nervous and ruins my daily routine

reason 2: I indeed played in the "inaugural" unlimited goals tourney, i.e. ESPI in NYC, in 2010 or 2009. I didn't like the format, mainly because it made for really harsh situations. I saw teams get beaten 18-0!! We (Apologies Accepted) beat Adam Menace's team by 9 points, and it felt awkward, especially since he basically taught me how to play polo, back in 1984. Also from a certain moment in agame, you know that the team that is loosing by more than 6-7 points has no chance of coming back, so the game looses interest I think, as a spectator.

BUT
why not.

I got a goal against spring break after they had 9 or 10, one of my highlights of Brighton that wouldn't of happened if 1st to 5, and as a spectator seeing lots of goals is fun.

Tap outs and turn overs - unless I'm misunderstanding something, I noticed a couple of situations In Brighton where a player fouls and either volunteers to tap/is told to tap and the ball is also turned over to the arrived team. This is in essence a double penalty - but the point I make is that the tap element is often negated as the player usually completes it before the ball is returned and play is resumed - the exercise of tapping becoming largely irrelevant.

So which takes precedence in the hierarchy of penalties for individual fouls - ball turnover or tapping out, as they don't seem to work in any practical synergy as I see it?

Tap outs and turn overs - unless I'm misunderstanding something, I noticed a couple of situations In Brighton where a player fouls and either volunteers to tap/is told to tap and the ball is also turned over to the arrived team. This is in essence a double penalty - but the point I make is that the tap element is often negated as the player usually completes it before the ball is returned and play is resumed - the exercise of tapping becoming largely irrelevant.

So which takes precedence in the hierarchy of penalties for individual fouls - ball turnover or tapping out, as they don't seem to work in any practical synergy as I see it?

Double-taps are a waste of time (see previous discussions). The most common situation is mallet under wheel of player in possesion. Turn the ball over & reset, or, if the mallet was particularly reckless, or obviously intentional, turn-over, resest & 30 sec penalty against offending player.

I never make players double-tap, as whilst I am supervising the double-tap I am not able to pay attention to the game.

I think he means single tap outs. Maybe some players are used to tapping so do it anyway when a reset is called (by the ref, not beagle) but if a reset is called it's unnecessary.

Yep, refs should never be calling taps

Unless they're thirsty.

I think he means single tap outs. Maybe some players are used to tapping so do it anyway when a reset is called (by the ref, not beagle) but if a reset is called it's unnecessary.

Yeah, I occasionally see players tapping back in after a goal has been scored & wonder what they are doing.

Beagle reset!

A few calls went against us that I thought had been changed:

1) 2 x ball out of court situations - I struck the ball, but it massively rebounded off a defending players wheel. They get the advantage (I didn't score) but then they also get the ball back on the reset. I thought it was 'whoever touched it last' with any part of their mallet/bike/body, as in literally every other relevant sport I can think of...

2) Opponents took a shot, some scuffing and goal-mouth fumbling ensues, then the shooter 'rad-balls' it in with a deft whip of the front wheel. I thought that had been changed...

Not bitching, I respect the ref's decisions, but just want to get the rules straight in my head.

Good to see so many people calling their own shuffles though...

A few calls went against us that I thought had been changed:

1) 2 x ball out of court situations - I struck the ball, but it massively rebounded off a defending players wheel. They get the advantage (I didn't score) but then they also get the ball back on the reset. I thought it was 'whoever touched it last' with any part of their mallet/bike/body, as in literally every other relevant sport I can think of...

2) Opponents took a shot, some scuffing and goal-mouth fumbling ensues, then the shooter 'rad-balls' it in with a deft whip of the front wheel. I thought that had been changed...

Not bitching, I respect the ref's decisions, but just want to get the rules straight in my head.

Both of these rules haven't been changed yet, as the new ruleset is not being used (as far as I know). Brighton used the LHBPA rules, and both those calls were made accordingly.

Another thing missing from the unlimited goals discussion is I doubt there would have been the fun of shuffles without unlimited goals.

HGS and josh deserve a knighthood for their shuffling.

They are all massive shufflers.