Goal height

No more infinity goals.

I move that the default goal height be 700c wheel height or the height of the cones, whichever is higher. If there is an actual goal on the court, and cones are not being used, then the goal height is the height of top goal post.

(Top tube height might be a bit more ideal, but it is not standard like 700c.)

I agree that infinity goals can be annoying, but the reason they work well is because they are easier to judge -
there can never be argument about if a goal was "over"
but when using proper goals (brick lane + bermondsey) it just makes sense to say if its in the goal it counts.

My goal height is 6ft 2in, I will give it one more year on the egg powder.

+1 to no infinity. I think they should be capped at head or shoulder height, with the referee making the call if it is arguable.

I kinda like the infinity height. I kinda don't like it...

Downham Rd can be easy to sort out, height of the wall.
Brick Lane and other courts with fixed goals... self explanatory
Mitchison, where we don't use the fixed goal and Peckham carpark should probably observe a regulated height.

700c seems way too small to me and would put alot of goals we've always counted without question as too high. Plus it leaves only the bottom bracket and the main triangle as a goal area if someone is parked in front of the goal - is that a positive or negative point?

Toptube height is as standard as 'a bike width' for width of goals. So if there's enough interest in setting a height, I vote for toptube (for now...).

;444019']
700c seems way too small to me and would put alot of goals we've always counted without question as too high. Plus it leaves only the bottom bracket and the main triangle as a goal area if someone is parked in front of the goal - is that a positive or negative point?

Negative point in my opinion, I'd never be able to score!

I think 700c is definitely too low.

No more infinity goals.

If there is an actual goal on the court, and cones are not being used, then the goal height is the height of top goal post.

(Top tube height might be a bit more ideal, but it is not standard like 700c.)

+1 and agreed there are various TT heights. I think the distance between the tt and the top of a 700c is so minimal.

I vote for shoulder height... obliviously refs call on this is final, argument or not. If the ref is unsure he/she should turn to the players for their opinions. insert [the dont be a dick rule]

;444019']I kinda like the infinity height.

I am not so sure this is even a viable idea, I mean there is no such thing as infinity, 'very very tall' or 'without bounds' works, but you can't have an infinitely tall object.

Am I helping in this thread ?

i also think the infinity rule plays too much on luck of a deflection...and not enough on actual goal shooting.

i with top tube or shoulder height, either is fine with me.

;444019'] Toptube height is as standard as 'a bike width' for width of goals. So if there's enough interest in setting a height, I vote for toptube (for now...).

You're right. I vote top tube.

i with top tube or shoulder height, either is fine with me.

Either measurement is pretty arbitrary. And what happens if a ball is knocked up in the air on the way into a empty goal? What measurement then?

unless there is a physical goal there is always going to be an arbitrary measurement. The height for a height restricted goal, or for limitless goal height it gets tricky to judge if the ball went wide of the goal on really high shots. Personally i think it's easier to judge if a goal is in or not on when limiting the height.

Either measurement is pretty arbitrary. And what happens if a ball is knocked up in the air on the way into a empty goal? What measurement then?

The LBHDDHSMDOPA rules that anybody who hits a ball higher than 20 feet will be disqualified from playing polo.

i say head height. 700c is proper silly, like mike says its just the the BB then.

The North East Downham Road Bicycle Polo Club League Association states in it's rules that wall height is the maximum height for a goal to be counted.

I am not so sure this is even a viable idea, I mean there is no such thing as infinity, 'very very tall' or 'without bounds' works, but you can't have an infinitely tall object.

Am I helping in this thread ?
Object is a short arse cunt!

Okay, there is some sort of emerging agreement. I'm just going to state this and see if there is any objection:

Default goal height is shoulder (or head?) level (of the closest player to/in the goal). If there is a physical goal height on the court -- such as a football goal or a wall -- then this is the goal height. To be specified on each court.

Mitch: Cones with head/shoulder height
Downham: Brick wall height

i'm cool with that, infinite goals are bullshit.

ah but bullshit is even[I]more[/I] infinite!

what is the preference of shoulder vs. head height?

I think I prefer shoulder, seen more safe

Out of the two? Head. There's quite a few I'd like to aim for!!!

It just seems like it would be easier to judge. And I think that's about the same height as the Downham ct. wall.

Head.

It'll be tough enough to call, I imagine shoulder would make it even more vague. Besides which, no one really shoots specifically for head or shoulder or even knee height, so it's not like we'd be deterring more dangerous shots, it's simply about what counts as a goal.

Whose head height?
Shinscar or Slamm would have quite a large difference.