Polo Rules: Shot blocked by a footdown

Play continues until an actual goal is scored.

This is where I stand on the issue.

If the organisers & refs of a tournament make the call that a particular team are flaunting the rules and being dickish too much then they have the right to eject them from the tournament and/or exclude them from future tournaments.

Not good enough. If I was reffing, and you were reffing, our definitions of what is being a dick are likely to vary widely. To then expel someone from a tournament based on a subjective judgement is nonsense.

Any judgement over whether or not a given foot-down block is intentional is also going to be subjective...

Any judgement over whether or not a given foot-down block is intentional is also going to be subjective...

Not when it's right in front of the goal, about 10 cm out, it's not.

what is subjetive is if the foot-down block was intentional or not.

thats why intention cant be part of the rule.

(sorry for posting bill)

the footdown player to tap out, play continues until an actual goal is scored

We've always played that a ball has to cross the line to be counted as a goal.

If the defending team actively fuck that up by being dicks when they're out of play then we should use the rules that we already have. That player taps out, irrespective of whether it was accidental or not as they already had a foot down.

Play continues until an actual goal is scored.

agree completely, keep things simple!

thats why intention cant be part of the rule.

I would impose some sort of abitrary penalty but I can't be sure whether your intention is to annoy me by reposting what I just said, or placate me by reposting what I just said, or simply to annoy me by posting after you just said that you didn't care.

Fuck it.

10 days in the sin bin, Malletov number 2.

goal

or gaol

Not good enough. If I was reffing, and you were reffing, our definitions of what is being a dick are likely to vary widely. To then expel someone from a tournament based on a subjective judgement is nonsense.
That's why I posted this bit seperately to the rest of it. It isn't something that we've ever had to do before and I don't envisage having to throw a team out in the the future.

As far as I'm concerned if the ball doesn't cross the line it isn't a goal.
No penalties, no bullshit. The way we've always played.

I agree with Bill that we can't tell whether it's intentional or not. However, i'm not sure about calling it a goal when it hasn't actually crossed the line. That seems like a strech to me. In football (soccer), when there is a handball in a goal (when the hand of a non-goalie saves a goal), it is a direct penalty shot.

I'm not sure: (a) Goal; (b) penalty; (c) tap out and play on.

I would tend toward "keep it simple" and go with (c). But there is someting to be said for letting a ref call it (as when Dale blocked a clear goal with his hand)

As far as I'm concerned if the ball doesn't cross the line it isn't a goal.

This seems correct to me.

I'll leave the rules debate up to others, but...

I don't think the 'don't be a dick' rule is good enough to stand up to international competition. As much as some people hate it, we do need some more rules.

I'll leave the rules debate up to others, but...

I don't think the 'don't be a dick' rule is good enough to stand up to international competition. As much as some people hate it, we do need some more rules.

rules....rules.

I agree with Bill that we can't tell whether it's intentional or not. However, i'm not sure about calling it a goal when it hasn't actually crossed the line. That seems like a strech to me. In football (soccer), when there is a handball in a goal (when the hand of a non-goalie saves a goal), it is a direct penalty shot.

Handballs where the player has moved his/her hand towards the ball (hand to ball, as opposed to ball to hand) in the penalty area are almost always adjudged to be worthy of expulsion. So the famous incident where Dale blocked the ball with his hand would have resulted in a penalty and a red card, if he had been the last man, and not the goalie (because goalies in football, unlike bicycle polo are allowed to use their hands).

Wow, this is getting complicated.

Me and Brendan were having a conversation about getting taken out by one particular player at the tournament, and how he kept saying 'sorry' after he did it.

In those situations, in my view, sorry just isn't good enough. And to me, a tap-out is sort of like saying sorry.

Yeah, Bill, but as you say, it is very hard to tell intentions, particularly with a foot down in the goal. I don't think we want to bring in red cards, but do we really want to call a goal when the goal did not actually cross the line?

I think a penalty shot or something is better, but best is probably to just tap out and play on. Luckily, this is rarely an issue.

the footdown player to tap out, play continues until an actual goal is scored

yep. yep.

If someone from the defending team is footdown, they should get out the way, tap out and re-join the game as quickly as possible. Awarding goals that haven't crossed the line is silly!

As far as I'm concerned if the ball doesn't cross the line it isn't a goal.
No penalties, no bullshit. The way we've always played.

nail. head.

i agree that play continues until goal is scored.

It would add so much space for controversy, faulty judgment and all other if we were to be evaluated on whether a footdown is intentional or not, and if the ball would have go in or not.

It is a real bastard move to make intentional footdown to block a goal, and should be fought against, but debating whether it would go in or not and if this person meant it or not is not in my opinion a way to move forward.

Sin bin the offending player (if its deliberate) for 60 seconds

'deliberate' is as much a subjective judgement as 'intentional'.

No ball over the line, no goal.

nail. head.

you did it you dirty cheating scummer. I laughed my arse off.
gaol

cheat...cheater!