Protection

Which is why I'm thinking of not going to tournaments. There are certain people who I refuse to play against any more. Even in a game that's meant to be 'friendly' he was taking people out

The perceived danger thing is a funny one, I personally find the aggression much more controlled than what it once was (which I see as rising in-line with the adoption of shoulder checks and "holding your space" across Europe).

High-sticking is reckless behavior, but we've always gone with the "fine if you know no-one's near you" mentality (which doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny as most people have no idea what's behind them, etc).

If someone was hit in the face from a swing I'd see that as 30 seconds (non-malicious strong foul), intent has nothing to do with it, you have to keep your equipment "in check". The problem is that a face cage negates the "danger" of a high swing (and is often missed by ref's now), so does that mean it's allowed? What about swinging and hitting the neck/arms/chest/groin, is that to be padded up against too, or are we actually going to call mallet-to-body regardless of protection worn, etc?

I have no problem with getting the odd mallet to the face as long as the penalty's called and the player says "sorry". What I am concerned about is presenting the game as "dangerous" to the masses and the slow acceptance that high swinging is allowed as it's no longer as dangerous (for most people).

In Birmingham we've never (to my knowledge) had any face/head injuries and noone wears a face cage. We play just as aggressively.

This is not to say that it's probably wise to wear one if you feel it's safer. Just stating a fact.

I don't know where I stand on this, I don't think high sticking is a major issue tbh. Most injuries are happening from shots, people aren't shooting any different. I've never heard anyone called out for high sticking in a tournament or had a goal disallowed for a follow through, and I would think it would be crazy if we got to that stage.

I hit Josh in the face(cage) in Edinburgh last weekend, I apologised immediately and the game just kept going, that's how I think it should be handled. I don't even think it needs an apology really but it feels natural to do so when you hit someone in the face. I'm not a particularly wild shooter (IMO), Josh got the mallet to the face because he was riding down the inside of me when I decided to shoot. It was neither his fault nor mine, it was just a moment on court playing bike polo.

There are some occasions where high sticking seems a little more out of hand, but at the end of the day you either ban mallets rising above bars, at all times, or we just count it as part of the game. You can't allow one players graceful follow through but disallow another's crazy flail, they are basically the same thing. I don't think we should ban mallets above bars, I think that would ruin a lot of aspects of the game.

That's where the shift is in my opinion, before people got really mad about high swings (be they wild, playful, elegant or a simple follow through), where as now it seems to be seen as part of the game? It seems like it's gotten to the point where a mallet to the head isn't a foul even though the head is (largely) a static object?

I know "should've got a face cage" is a joke but it's starting to feel real. There is no longer a line between acceptable stick handling and reckless play, it's too blurry, largely because people lean in closer to the ball, but also because we don't seem to have a problem anymore with big swings (I do have a problem with them, hence the rant).

What happens when a loose-accidental-swing becomes a purposeful-knock-to-the-head? Who's going to ref the intent? It's not possible, which is why I think the onus should be on the stick handler to avoid making contact (30 second penalty).

I think banning high sticking is impossible and would be a real shame (it'd be like banning pointy elbows and the potential rib tickling they could give), but I think any mallet-to-body should be heavily scrutinised regardless of any lack of injury (or face splitting). A big swing is fine when the wielder is aware of their surroundings (but if you connect with someone then you're in trouble kind of deal).

The alternative is mandatory face cages and we allow the game to get more physical by proxy, which would be a shame in my opinion.

You shouldn't need to be checking over your shoulder before you shoot.

You should be able to crack a shot off precisely because you know defenders are coming in soon.
Your proposition is that if I know a defender is about to get close to me on my non-mallet side then I should not shoot in case the defender lunges forwards to block my shot and into the swing of my mallet? That should never have to be a consideration for an attacker, the game will suffer for it.

I understand the problem but I think it has arised not as a result of people shooting differently. People have always had wild shots, and if anything, more-so when we all started. Facial injuries are becoming more common as a result of braver defending. We should penalise defenders not attackers, as that is the aspect of the game which has changed. (I am playing devils advocate, I don't think anyone should be penalised).

I believe what is happening is that players with face cages are becoming braver in their challenges, as a result more players (with or without cages) defend closer and players without protection get injured. So ban brave defending or just get on with it.

This is all IMO of course. More opinions welcome...

What happens when a loose-accidental-swing becomes a purposeful-knock-to-the-head?

Permanent sin-bin.

These are the conversations that make me sad. But I'll post anyway. (Also, this stuff should be discussed off forum).

"Your proposition is that if I know a defender is about to get close to me on my non-mallet side then I should not shoot in case the defender lunges forwards to block my shot and into the swing of my mallet? That should never have to be a consideration for an attacker, the game will suffer for it. "

"We should penalise defenders not attackers, as that is the aspect of the game which has changed. (I am playing devils advocate, I don't think anyone should be penalised)."

I am assuming these to statements are directly connected.

This doesn't make sense to me. A shot is not a static thing. It can happen at any time on the court from any location and a defender cannot always predict when and where that will be. A defender, in fact, may not even be moving into the attackers space - it could be the attacker who has moved into a defenders space. It is not always a clear run up to goal, followed by a shot. A shooter may be looking for a pass and then see and a chance to shoot. Should the defender/defensive player be aware of this and constantly give the ball carrier space, just in case? Or should the ball carrier not swing as big? Or should everyone just pad up because it's part of the game?

Permanent sin-bin.

And how will you know when that's occurred (or not)?

Snoops: I believe the onus is on the mallet wielder, it's almost impossible to have the table's turned: The head wielder simply cannot move fast enough (or with enough prior warning) to be out of the way of your mallet (not to mention that a head-wielder has nothing to gain from making contact with a mallet, they will always come off worse)?

I believe aggression is fine (such as fighting for the line, or a nice clean shoulder check) but I believe a foul should be called if the line is crossed (such as a t-bone, a check from behind, or mallet-to-body contact). Just because the face is now covered (or not), doesn't mean striking it is now allowed (my opinion).

I could be in the minority here, would love to hear the thoughts of others...

Mark: I accept that a mallet to the face is part of the game, but I believe it should be seen as a foul.

Should the defender/defensive player be aware of this and constantly give the ball carrier space, just in case? Or should the ball carrier not swing as big? Or should everyone just pad up because it's part of the game?

This isn't a trolling question. I don't know the answer. I don't think it's number one though.

I said I was playing devil's advocate, I don't think anyone should have to change anything. Defenders choose to get close or not, I also understand you may not be choosing to get close in some instances.

Do you disagree with my point that shooting hasn't changed, defending has?

I personally think the answer is C, as unpopular as that is.

#notangryjustbored

I said I was playing devil's advocate, I don't think anyone should have to change anything. Defenders choose to get close or not, I also understand you may not be choosing to get close in some instances.

Do you disagree with my point that shooting hasn't changed, defending has?

#notangryjustbored

Yeah, that's why I quoted the part about you playing devil's advocate (to acknowledge that I recognized that).

I don't agree that shooting hasn't changed. I don't know, to be honest, but my gut tells me it's shooting more than defending. I don't see people sticking their heads in the way of mallets very often. I do see massive swings quite a lot (and some have even claimed I take massive swings. So mea culpa. But I think that's true of almost everyone on the court). But I don't know is the answer.

Most hits to the face happen at the end of reverse shots, where it's hard to stop the momentum of the mallet after it has hit the ball. I cannot see how that can be considered poor play or lack of control. If Manu "cyborg" l'equipe does it, then how can you expect lesser players not to do it?

This is a bit of a ramble, I try and write concisely, it doesn't always pan out that way.

I started wearing a face cage because I was hit in the face a few times, I started wearing chunky gloves because I was hit in the hands a few times... etc so now I basically put on a suit of armour before I play. But this is my choice because that's what it takes for me to feel confident enough to 'go for it' on the court.

Accidents happen on the court. People lock mallets and yank them back, skillful 'hooking' can quite quickly snowball into a retarded hackfest (especially when hooking the goalie – i.e me), people ride through seemingly impossible gaps with mixed results etc etc. Sometimes people forget where they are and swing for balls in the air or follow through on a reverse shot than they mean to and sometimes peoples faces are on the receiving end. It happens. I'm not saying high sticks are ok, they're not and I've yelled at plenty of people for doing deliberate dick moves. But accidents happen.

Sharp mallets, long axles etc are checked to protect other people on the court. If people want to wear a face cage to protect themselves then I think that's up to the individual, just like any other protective equipment. How long has it taken for people to compulsorily wear helmets at tournaments?

I don't think that polo has become "more dangerous".

People have been getting hit in the face for a long time! Ian malice/John eggpie spring to mind, just people have started to wise up and protect their face!

Remember back in the day when no one wore helmets? Shoreditch invitational, dude cracked his fucking skull. People got smart, started wearing helmets.

I don't think the game/high sticking has changed significantly in the last couple of years. There always have been and always will be the chance you could get hit in the face, high sticking rule or not. It's your choice to protect/not protect your face.

Not saying we shouldnt encourage people to be careful, I got hit by the danger beagle on saturday, sat upright, not "agressively defending", wild high sticking like that needs to be discouraged.

Most hits to the face happen at the end of reverse shots,

apart from when yorgo trys to hit you in the face on purpose!

If Manu "cyborg" l'equipe does it,

if Manu is the cyborg, Lucas must be the robot

What's Mario? Fleshbot?

my protective gear:

why I use it:

WARNING: gruesome pic

Fuck it, I'm ditching the face cage. That pic of Luis is epic.

I know "should've got a face cage" is a joke but it's starting to feel real.

My personal opinion (and I know this is one many people will disagree with), is that is a fairly sensible attitude. I think it makes a difference as to whether you treat polo as a hobby or a sport. Clearly for some people it is a hobby, and I can totally understand people like Oz saying they don't want to play it, if this is the way it will turn out, but for the top end it is a sport, and in sport people want to win, which sometimes means it's the best idea to wear protection.

That doesn't mean you can't have the polo equivalent of a football kickabout in the park without wearing shinpads, as long as everyone is aware of the level it's played at. At beginners/casuals I don't wear a helmet most of the time.

I'm not saying it should be a free for all, and I think a high sticking rule should be enforced, it's not something to be encouraged, but accidents and wild shots will happen, and someone getting a sin-bin, or being ejected from a game isn't going to give me my sight back if I get blinded, so I'm going to wear a face cage.

Make rules to discourage dangerous play, but at the end of the day you are responsible for your own safety.

Jono, I'm always amazed that you (and Ryan, Cam and others) as players at the top of your sport, don't wear face cages (or even helmets when you don't have to). I understand it's your choice, but is it worth the risk?

You guys are giving me the fear. This last week has been proper jinxed as well.

its all well and good saying that high-sticking etc will be penalised by the refs or that polo hasn't become more dangerous or that danger is only perceived or whatever...

but accidents happen and I don't want to lose an eye

what taxi and max and john h said