Polo Rules

Yeah, it's hard to count past 5...

Yeah, it's hard to count past 5...

Ha!

We played the Iberic championships with unlimited goals, 12 minute matches.
Everyone loved it. Even those getting the short end of a 15-0 result. They got to play their full 12 minutes, not 2-3 minutes, which sucks for everyone.

First to 5 is for pickups, IMO.

not even that, at the german champs this past weekend, we have to time pick ups, so the games didnt went to 20-30min.

Clem, another vote for unlimited goals for the Euros, please

Issues with unlmtd goals (mostly at worlds):
-You can't win some time. And schedule are always tight
-Some people may not like get beaten by 17 goals differences
-In 10 minutes, tights games stay under 5. Looks like it don't change actual balanced games.
-People get used to play to 5, and sometime you gonna take more risk to reach for 5th golas if you lead 4-2. Is you play unlmtd you maybe push people to play the clock more when they lead.
-People get used to play to 5, organize worlds around a new standard like that can be weird.

So the only real agument for them is time on the court for weaker team. But is this time really helpfull? is the time you gonna spend sein' a team take goal on goal worth it in front of don't being late on a schedule?

5 goals rule can be see as tennis rule, a tennis player as Nadal can kill a game in 1 hour and half.

Clem: unlimited goals has loads of positives, the only negative is the inability to gain time as you've mentioned (although this is also a negative as there is no guarantee that you will gain any time during your tournament and it actually makes scheduling/planning things much less predictable!) See: http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2012/04/24/going-to-5#comment-99284

It's great news that unlimited goals is going down so well.

A quick note for organisers: Podium stats seem to state that 50% of games (mostly NA games as we don't use Podium) go to 5, this means that organisers are probably gaining an average of 2 minutes of time for half of their scheduled games (or around 1 minute per game).

For this reason, I would suggest moving to 4 minutes of "down time" between games at tournaments that use unlimited goals. The current normal of 10 minutes (with 2 minutes down time) for each game will be woefully inadequate if using unlimited goals (I've already found it inadequate as large scale tournaments and tend to use 10 minute games with 3 minutes of down time, etc).

It would be great if other tournaments move to unlimited goals, but we'll need to be careful not to over-schedule things, it's always good allow for more time than you need (or have a backup plan of dropping a round of swiss or something).

Issues with unlmtd goals (mostly at worlds):
-You can't win some time. And schedule are always tight.
-Some people may not like get beaten by 17 goals differences
-In 10 minutes, tights games stay under 5. Looks like it don't change actual balanced games.
-People get used to play to 5, and sometime you gonna take more risk to reach for 5th golas if you lead 4-2. Is you play unlmtd you maybe push people to play the clock more when they lead.
-People get used to play to 5, organize worlds around a new standard like that can be weird.

So the only real agument for them is time on the court for weaker team. But is this time really helpfull? is the time you gonna spend sein' a team take goal on goal worth it in front of don't being late on a schedule?

5 goals rule can be see as tennis rule, a tennis player as Nadal can kill a game in 1 hour and half.

Solutions:

1. Get John H to plan the gaming schedule. First problem solved!
   
2. Who cares what "some people" think? 5-0 in 2 minutes sucks a lot. Second problem solved!
   
3. Not an actual isuue. 3rd problem solved!
   
4. You might be surprised of matches coming back from a 4-2 loss to a 6-5 win. Even with teams "playing the clock". 4th problem solved!
   
5. People get used to lots of things, especially when they improve the game we all love. 5th and last problem solved!!!
   
   

UNLIMITED GOALS AT THE WHBPC 2012, YEAH!!!!!

I was thinking about scheduling, and one of the variables is mechanical time-outs. Brighton almost ran over 1st day due to mechanicals. It might also be wise to guesstimate time lost to time outs.

Teams will spending a lot of money to come to the Worlds, I am sure they would be grateful to have maximum court time for their hard spent cash.

I was thinking about scheduling, and one of the variables is mechanical time-outs. Brighton almost ran over 1st day due to mechanicals. It might also be wise to guesstimate time lost to time outs.

Mechanicals did not help, but I was under the illusion that the time pressure was more due to the late start of the first round.

Mechanicals are always an unpredictable element for scheduling, the only way of negating that would be to insist people use a "sub bike" in the event of their own bike going wrong, or to continue the game 2 on 2 until the mechanical is fixed.

Sub bikes are a bad idea: it would take ages to move saddles/whatever and would mean that a mechanical could easily cost you a game, 2 on 2 isn't a bad idea but I can see most people hating that approach.

People just need to allow more time at tournaments, it makes for a more fun evening and a less stressful evening if you (shock horror) finish the games by early evening, organisers should also have a contingency plan (cutting the top and bottom teams during SR, or dropping a round of swiss, or moving to shorter games at X time if behind, etc).

My personal pet peeve: people that don't start the game as soon as they can after a goal is scored (tactics talks, etc).... there's no time!

I'm being asked if radball bikes will be allowed at the LO? The bars above will either be facing forward or backward (depending on the move the player has just done, bar spins!)

What are people's thoughts? How were they in Germany?

It would make for a few tricky referee decisions regarding steering arm/handlebar infractions (if we go down that route) and the bar shape looks more dangerous to me than conventional flat (or riser) bars?

They are obviously deemed safe for Radball, but bike polo is a more physical (and faster) game in my opinion?

Any info/experience would be greatly appreciated.

4. You might be surprised of matches coming back from a 4-2 loss to a 6-5 win. Even with teams "playing the clock". 4th problem solved!

When you look Britghon, no one of the game answer this situation, that's all : or under 5, or obviously high goald diff.

Argument for paying a lot to come: is a good one.

Bill:
We clearly have to deal with mechanichal. I think we should have several options for ref:
First: Mechanical due to the player: Old chain breaking, chain issues, opening game issues. Most of these happens early in the game or more than one time. For this, the ref should be able to let not more than 30 sec or max 1 minute delay, and then put the clock back on. I know several players who always as shit like that, and they ask way to often time out. Also refs often ask opponents if they let them a bonus time out etc. Every time people say yes, because we are all nice and happy to take a break and drink.
another one is mechinacal as flat (on a not too used tire), and independant from players stuff. This should be something around 2 minutes or 3 time out.
third is when the mechanical is after a collision between oppenent, and we should think about it too. maybe if the player can't come back within 2 or 3 min, both player implicated are out...
this is just ideas, but clearly we lost way too much time due to mechincal, and i will say half of them can be avoided by keepin' your bike in track with systematical checks.

Even in normal circumstances, I reckon there is never less than 2 minutes, and often greater than 4 between games.

But lack of time is a rubbish reason not to go to timed games. I want my 10 minutes.

4. You might be surprised of matches coming back from a 4-2 loss to a 6-5 win. Even with teams "playing the clock". 4th problem solved!

When you look Britghon, no one of the game answer this situation, that's all : or under 5, or obviously high goald diff.

I'll try to upload the Iberic final. It was 7-6 after 20 minutes and there was only one time during the whole game where there was a 2 goal difference between the teams, (we were down 5-3 which would have ended the match). In the end it was a fantastic final that could have gone either way. 20 minutes of beautiful, intense bike polo.

Also refs often ask opponents if they let them a bonus time out etc. Every time people say yes, because we are all nice and happy to take a break and drink.

Not when I'm reffing. It's not about being nice, it's about fair, which also means respecting the fact that the teams on court don't have exclusive rights on the court, they have to share the court with the other teams.

I think we have to be a lot tougher with teams on mechanicals. The most common is dropped chain, puncture or bent wheel. If each team makes sure they have a 15 mm spanner (or whatever it is that you need for your wheels), and a spare wheel (10 London teams at the Euros, we should be able to help each other with wheels, shouldn't we?) then there shouldn't really be a problem. At the moment UK allows 5 mins per mechanical, 1 time out per team, except in cases where reckless play by the opposition has resulted in damage to a bike.

Delaying restarts is also poor form, and all refs should encourage the teams to get on with it. Calls of "Nice Break, are you calling a time-out" normally do the trick, or the current fave "THERE'S NO TIME!!!"

I'm being asked if radball bikes will be allowed at the LO? The bars above will either be facing forward or backward (depending on the move the player has just done, bar spins!)

What are people's thoughts? How were they in Germany?

It would make for a few tricky referee decisions regarding steering arm/handlebar infractions (if we go down that route) and the bar shape looks more dangerous to me than conventional flat (or riser) bars?

They are obviously deemed safe for Radball, but bike polo is a more physical (and faster) game in my opinion?

Any info/experience would be greatly appreciated.

I will say, allow them.

this people are way more skill with this bikes than us with ours.
they take less speed as they have a close 1:1 ratio
their center of mass (I think is teh right term) is way lower so they have better balance on the bike

at the german champs they were just footing down, I dont remember any of them been involve in a crash

and if you think about it this handlerbar is safer that flats or riser, if someone falls on them, their is not danger of getting them in your guts
[B][/B]

That rahmenverlängerung looks a little dodgy.

I'm coming late into this.

I'm not a fan of the idea of unlimited goals. I'm not the kind of guy who don't want the game changed, but I think we should have some evolution only if it make the game change in a good way. And I don't see anything really interested the unlimited goals rules.

First, to me, a game who ended by a fast 5-0 is a boring, so why should we have to wait 5 more minute to continue to watch this game 5 more minutes to finish to a 10-0.

Many times I've heard around courts people complaining because a team looked pretentious because after 3-0 they were trying some spectacular plays. So how will it be if instead of doing it 3min they do it during 7min.

We played london BFF with unlimited goals, we won the final with a big gap, something like +10 or even more. I remembered how Luis was pissed on the court and how bad I felt between, it's a final I need to play my best and what the point of killing them, everybody is looking at this game.

From what I've seen (but I was not there, so I might be wrong, please correct me if I am) during Brigthon tournament last WE, the unlimited goals rule did not change any outcome.

To conclude my main point about this rule is, I think the game will move to a most defensive game with this rule. Cause if you lead 4-2 2min before the end of a game, with the 5 goals rules you can choose to defend or to kill the game with a 5th goals, but with the unlimited goals, the only option is defending. With SPD and bunny hopping defense are stronger and stronger don't give them an other argument to stay close to their goal.

So I think that with this rule we'll have more goals during unbalanced games and less during balanced games.

• My best polo memorie was final EURO 2010, between L'Equipe and Cosmic. 5-4 after a 40min game. We would have never seen that game with an unlimited goals game.
  
  

That was 40 of full intensity just because the guys were thinking about going to 5 and not thinking about this game will probably be long.

I thought that if we would have told the 2 teams that the game would have 40min long I'm pretty sure the would have not played with the same intensity.

So first to five at the Euros, then? :-)

radball bikes:

i told them to get in contact with you, because somebody told them their bikes would not be allowed at hells belles.
i say these are bikes and every sort of bike is allowed on court.
they use the bars backwards (not as in radball), thus being a lot safer than ours.

important point:
you will all be glad to let them play on your tournament because its a pleasure seeing them play.
radpolo is quite an old womens sport in germany and the girl in their team is in one of the best teams.
in times of freewheels and fbo everywhere it is a nice pleasure seeing backward riding and keo spins being effectively used in the game.
#unblockable

RAdpolo Wetzlar III gegen Frellstedt III - YouTube

First, to me, a game who ended by a fast 5-0 is a boring, so why should we have to wait 5 more minute to continue to watch this game 5 more minutes to finish to a 10-0.

Because it will allow the game to reach it's natural end and will show more disparity (or not) between those teams (this is hugely important for tournaments that use Podium's GD as the tie break). It also ensures tournaments can be scheduled more predictably and all teams the same amount of minimum court time for their registration fee.

Many times I've heard around courts people complaining because a team looked pretentious because after 3-0 they were trying some spectacular plays.

This is not a problem inherent to unlimited goals. (Teams should be more professional/sportsmanlike regardless.)

We played london BFF with unlimited goals, we won the final with a big gap, something like +10 or even more. I remembered how Luis was pissed on the court and how bad I felt between, it's a final I need to play my best and what the point of killing them, everybody is looking at this game.

Your individual experience may have been negative, but that is not a reason to disregard the benefits of unlimited goals... it is highly unlikely for finals to be so uneven (with few exceptions). You should learn to enjoy winning and the other team should be less flustered when conceding goals (this is a problem for most teams in polo as Cosmic Matt pointed out earlier, teams that stay calm under pressure should be allowed the opportunity to close the gap on a team with a convincing lead).

I think the game will move to a most defensive game with this rule.

There is no evidence to support this claim, actually the opposite is true (as now a team have the opportunity to increase their GD more substantially in each game and defending teams will be punished accordingly).

My best polo memorie was final EURO 2010, between L'Equipe and Cosmic. 5-4 after a 40min game. We would have never seen that game with an unlimited goals game.

True enough, but that is not an accurate representation of the two team's ability to "win" the average polo game. I like a spectacle as much as anyone else, but there is very little reason to move the goalposts of a competitive event (during the later rounds) to appease the spectators of said event.

We have also had finals that were won in a couple minutes because one team had a shaky start and both teams are awesome on the attack (but not in defense), the ball's out approach of first to 5 has as many poor results as it does exciting/good results. I can remember many 30 minute games where the crowd started shouting "boring" (for example).

My preference is giving a team the ability to come from 5-0 down to win 6-5 (or whatever), that would truly be an exciting game, or a game where both teams constantly chase each other for the win (ending in double figures even).

Statistically/logically there is no reason to use first to 5. But emotionally I can see the argument (I think using unlimited goals for the Euros or the Worlds is a bad idea personally: it would irritate lots of people.)

radball bikes:

My personal feeling is to allow radball bikes until such a time that they cause a problem (or not).

There will be some people that feel strongly about standardising bike polo though (to keep the game moving in a predictable direction).

The skills of radball players are admirable indeed, but it will perhaps be a headache to ref their games and to convince everyone to welcome their "out there" setup.

Thanks for your input though, much appreciated. We won't make a rash decision on it and the London Open is perhaps the perfect place to accommodate/try out such things.

Yes Bill. ;o)

Not because I prefer limited goals games. But because the way you manage a game in one way or another is really different so I guess people should be used to it before having to play like that in a major tournament.