Goalies, and back through the goal

After the weekend, where the reffing made off-the-ball contact with goalies illegal, I was thinking about ways to fiddle with the rules to promote more engaged play from goalies.

At the moment, the rule that we play with balls back through the goal is that the ball must be touched once before a score is possible OR the ball must pass out of the D. So a ball that goes wide of the post, hits the back wall, passes across the goal line and then strikes the goalies bike and rebounds back across the line is NOT a goal. I think we should change this so that such a rebound IS a goal.

This would penalise goalies that sit tight to the goal, and don't engage.

Or we could make the goals a bit bigger.

i didn't even know that the first example was not a goal until i moved down here.

i could play that but you can't go moving the goal posts surely.

I don't agree with the rebounds goals.
It would be easier to score with the rebound than from the front and encourage to do so.

Taking the keepers mallet even if balls not in play is preferred by myself.

Taking the keepers mallet even if balls not in play is preferred by myself.

I don't think it's cool to encourage mallet-hacking, off the ball. Not really polo, IMO.

I agree with Todd. It becomes a farse if you can just ride behind the goal and shoot back through the goal at the goalie's wheels. This isn't polo either bill.

I don't see the need to change anything.

yes i really enjoyed the clean polo that was played all weekend. it makes the sport better to play and watch. mallet hacking and some of the other stuff that goes on over the pond makes the game intimidating to outsiders and stressful to play.

I agree with Todd. It becomes a farse if you can just ride behind the goal and shoot back through the goal at the goalie's wheels. This isn't polo either bill.

I wasn't suggesting that you should be able to do this - just back-wall rebounds.

I can't really see it being relevant at any courts apart from Dowhnham though ?

Thinking about Tom's objection - surely anything that encourages the goalie to vacate the goal, without resorting to hacking etc is better polo?

In any case, I am just throwing it out there, prompted by comments from bikepolo.ca about EHBPC goalie play (or lack of it).

I can't really see it being relevant at any courts apart from Dowhnham though ?

Fair point. But it's still relevant for tourneys.

Most Goalies don't just hang out in goal, it's hard work saving difficult shots. You should do more goal keeping Bill, if you disagree.

Everyone (in London, and it looks like Europe) plays with goalies now. And everyone still loves playing. What's all this talk about goalies being a problem? Less exciting? Some of the goals on the weekend were amazing. Golden Wheel and JB in particular got some real burners on me. And having no goalies would just mean constant long shots on open goals. That, in my opinion, would be even more boring.

Anyway, the goalie has the shittiest deal out of everyone already.

^ +1

+1 the games are quick enough already!

a time limit of how long you can spend in goal might work, 3 minute goal limit. to prevent dedicated keeping.

but it's just all building up to too many rules. ultimately teams with dedicated keepers lose out as their outfield players don't get a rest and become tired out. or not, in the case of geneva.

mallet hacking and some of the other stuff that goes on over the pond makes the game intimidating to outsiders and stressful to play.

You big girl's blouse! You're the king of mallet hacking.

I wasn't suggesting that you should be able to do this - just back-wall rebounds.

Thinking about it it's very easy to aim that back wall rebound. Tom's right.

I still think that we should be able to check the goalie (NOT T-BONE) and lift (NOT HACK) the mallet of tripodding goalies.

What's all this talk about goalies being a problem?

Like I said, it was something that was mentioned on bikepolo ca. Not that I give a f*** what those bloody colonials think of our polo, but it got me thinking.

a time limit of how long you can spend in goal might work, 3 minute goal limit. to prevent dedicated keeping.

I don't think there is much point in trying to control the keeper. It's like saying one person is only allowed to score X number of goals...

I still think that we should be able to check the goalie (NOT T-BONE) and lift (NOT HACK) the mallet of tripodding goalies.

+1

I still think that we should be able to check the goalie (NOT T-BONE) and lift (NOT HACK) the mallet of tripodding goalies.

Yeah, but then we are right back into 'don't be a dick'-land. By which I mean, one person's hack is another's lift, and one person's check is another's t-bone.

Almost everyone preferred the cleaner polo in this tourney. I know some of the less experienced teams (and FFF) were a bit rough, but on the whole it was remarkably restrained AND THERE WERE NO FIGHTS!

Yeah, but then we are right back into 'don't be a dick'-land.
I disagree, clean checking is not dirty play as there is nothing dickish about it.
It involves high levels of skill to manoeuvre someone out of the way of a goal.

I disagree, clean checking is not dirty play as there is nothing dickish about it.
It involves high levels of skill to manoeuvre someone out of the way of a goal.

I agree with that, what I meant was that I think it's quite difficult ref, like the 'don't be a dick' 'rule'.

I'll keep on trying Seattles anyway

what i think...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2546/3794556451_3a8e010bfa_o.jpg

^ too hard to call/ref a couple of those.