-
• #27
If you have a specific problem with something specific that has happened, then say what it is - it'll be more helpful to working out what the problems are, than just making nebulous statements like "But there is dangerous bike to bike, like some of [players name removed]'s fucking bullshit on Saturday" - that's innuendo.
Fair. But that doesnt change Em's point. There is safe bike-bike, and dangerous bike-bike. I'm as wary as anyone of giving the refs power to decide on intent, but theres no way we can ban bike-to-bike contact in a physical game that involves bikes.
More importantly, he's right about dangerous play. We dont call dangerous play amongst ourselves as often as we should, and until we're ready to do that, and have people call us out on the things we do, it almost doesnt matter how good the refs are. For example, Ive never seen anyone call high sticking, but we can all list the players who swing wildy. And more importantly, those players know they do it and cant be bothered to stop. Sure, "Its just throwins", but if we stop playing dangerously there, we're less likely to do it at tourneys.
-
• #28
I said at the top of this discussion that these were my views, and mine alone. Where did I say that I thought my views carried any more weight than anyone else's? If I hadn't wanted to have a public debate I would have not posted this to here, and just left it as a private email to Kev. Where do you get off suggesting that I think that my views are more important than anyone elses's?
Probably the same place you get off taking everything as a personal affront. I haven't said you are wrong. I have given my opinion.Although I fully admit that I baited you with the "...crawl under a rock and accept the gospel truth of almighty Bill" comment. I did this as a direct result of you posting my name mid argument (Something which is usually done only to prompt reaction).
I should point out that you'd obviously taken um bridge from my initial rant, otherwise why would you have responded so defensively? At this point I feel the need to clarify, for the record, that none of my initial post was aimed at Bill, he isn't the route cause of my annoyance.
If you have a specific problem with something specific that has happened, then say what it is - it'll be more helpful to working out what the problems are, than just making nebulous statements like "But there is dangerous bike to bike, like some of [players name removed]'s fucking bullshit on Saturday" - that's innuendo.
Would it actually solve anything if I did, or would it just incite more hatred and bitterness into our lives? Maybe, just maybe, I didn't include the name of the particular individual I had in mind because I believe they already know that they did wrong. I'm not trying to start a hate campaign here, Bill. A particular individual has pissed me off, I'm capable of dealing with that without dragging them and everyone else into this. Make of me what you will but I'm specifically not going down the route that we've seen through all the LHBPA trauma and the personal vendettas that sparked.
-
• #29
Players need to start actually being a little bit more conscious of each other, and paying a lot more respect to the people that they spend so much time in the company of. For a group of people who spend so fucking long talking about rules, it's amazing just how quickly certain people are able to forget them along with their friendships, or simply decide that the rules don't apply to them in any given situation. Usually you'll find that those exact same people are the first to cite the rules if, in their view, any of the banned acts are perpetrated against them.
Here's our problem -
As we've now decided to use refs for all competitive games, players are relying on them to make all the calls and are shirking responsibilities themselves. Instead of policing their own play and making sure their team is fair and plays by the rules, players seem to try to get away with whatever they can until the ref calls them.
We had additional rules for Saturday's tourney due to safety reasons, yet players weren't happy to take them on board and still needed warnings to stick to them and even argued when called on them.
The teams that played were supposed to be the top 8 in London, but out of the 24 players who took to the court I can name at least 12 who's grasp of the league rules appeared to be non existent (if you're reading this, smugly thinking you're not on that list of 12, then you're probably right at the top).The players need to step up, make some decisions about how they want to be reffed, decide on some rules and then fucking stick to them.
-
• #30
The players need to step up, make some decisions about how they want to be reffed, decide on some rules and then fucking stick to them.
This right here is exactly what I'm talking about.
What is the point of making rules when we don't pay any attention to them when we're actually on court?
-
• #31
i like what you wrote em, makes perfect sense. I then find it hilarious that bill asks "what is it you are trying to say em..." its all there in the words bill, read them in the order they were written and i'm sure what he is trying to say will actually jump out at you.
-
• #32
exactly.
the people who generally harp on and on about rules are the ones who don't adhere to them on court.
less rules, more respect. polo.
-
• #33
oh, and I'm making new stickers.
-
• #34
This right here is exactly what I'm talking about.
What is the point of making rules when we don't pay any attention to them when we're actually on court?
Well, I agree with this, for sure.
-
• #35
exactly.
the people who generally harp on and on about rules are the ones who don't adhere to them on court.
less rules, more respect. polo.
Yeah, but what about that game against Pipe Gang? Say they had been a little more skilled? Say they had actually won that game by playing dirty? Then what?
-
• #36
Fair. But that doesnt change Em's point. There is safe bike-bike, and dangerous bike-bike. I'm as wary as anyone of giving the refs power to decide on intent, but theres no way we can ban bike-to-bike contact in a physical game that involves bikes.
More importantly, he's right about dangerous play. We dont call dangerous play amongst ourselves as often as we should, and until we're ready to do that, and have people call us out on the things we do, it almost doesnt matter how good the refs are. For example, Ive never seen anyone call high sticking, but we can all list the players who swing wildy. And more importantly, those players know they do it and cant be bothered to stop. Sure, "Its just throwins", but if we stop playing dangerously there, we're less likely to do it at tourneys.
Just to make one thing clear - I don't think that the ref should whistle every time there's contact bike-to-bike. I do think that the ref should whistle when the player with the ball has been impeded by an opposing player, and the opposing player has made no contact with the ball.
The high sticking thing, well, nowhere in the rules does it say that high-sticking is not permitted.
There has been some general discussion about slashing vs hooking, and whether one is better than the other.
-
• #37
Here's our problem -
As we've now decided to use refs for all competitive games, players are relying on them to make all the calls and are shirking responsibilities themselves. Instead of policing their own play and making sure their team is fair and plays by the rules, players seem to try to get away with whatever they can until the ref calls them.
It's human nature, when placed in a competitive situation, to try and gain an advantage.
There are always going to be players who, either because they don't understand the rules (there are still people who do not understand the rules on restarts), or because they think winning is more important than respecting fair play, who will cheat.
If I am playing someone that I think is gaining an advantage by cheating, then I have a choice, I either let them 'get away with it', or I start cheating myself to negate the advantage that I think they may be getting from cheating. Generally, I try not to go to the second option too much, but in all honesty, I will cheat back some of the time.
Expecting the better players not to cheat is unrealistic. A small minority of the better players play for the hell of it. Most play to win.
My experience of reffing is that some games are much, much harder to ref than others. But in general, if you show early enough that you are will to call fouls, most teams will get on with the polo. They will respect the ref, and each other.
Sometimes you will find that instead of getting cross with each other, the players will get cross with you. But that's a better outcome than a mass brawl - which we have seen in polo.
-
• #38
Yeah, but what about that game against Pipe Gang? Say they had been a little more skilled? Say they had actually won that game by playing dirty? Then what?
I have played games recently that were reminiscent of that game with PipeGang, but the players had skill. And we did lose. And I can tell you, it sucks.
It's an ideal, a pipe dream, that we all respect each other enough and self-enforce the Don't be a Dick "rule". But clearly a growing number of players are too self-motivated to be able to control themselves. Yes we play to win, I agree with you there for sure. But telling people to accept cheating as part of the path to success is total crap. People don't need to cheat, and then be proud of themselves. That is dishonest, self-interested crap. I wish I could say that the people who do it know who they are, but I really don't think some of them do, so that blows the ideal of self-reffing out of the water.
In my view, the idea of like on like is also taken too literally. To me it's not about body-to-body, bike-to-bike etc, it's more about matching the styles of play of other players. Like Bill said, he'll take so much shit from a player, then it's time to play them at their own game and see how they like it. I think that's fair game. The number of people (not just from London) who play rough/dirty etc, think it's fine for them to do it, and as soon as you return the favour to them they bitch and whine about it to the ref. Like-on-like should be seen more as Like-for-like, in my opinion. I know that's how lots of us play already.
-
• #39
Yes we play to win, I agree with you there for sure. But telling people to accept cheating as part of the path to success is total crap. People don't need to cheat, and then be proud of themselves. That is dishonest, self-interested crap.
It's a bit early, coffee..
Coffee. Mmm.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that cheating is ok, but I am saying that it happens. It's competitive sport. Polo is better than other sports (everyone must have read the horror stories about children's football - parents in punch-ups on the sidelines etc) but it still a sport, and corinthian ideals are long gone - if they were ever truly present. By all accounts, W G Grace, one of the greatest ever cricketers, was a cheating bastard.
-
• #40
If only there were throw-ins on a Monday night...
-
• #41
....Reffing cheating is very hard. A cheat often doesnt realise he/she is cheating, and when he/she has been pulled up on it. Its often part of the cheat to pretend that you have been shot down.
whos pissed you off Em? maybe you should bump the slap list?
-
• #42
whos pissed you off Em? maybe you should bump the slap list?
I didn't include the name of the particular individual I had in mind because I believe they already know that they did wrong. I'm not trying to start a hate campaign here...
Already answered that question Ray.
-
• #43
How can you remove all bike to bike contact from a contact sport which involves bikes? Using you and myself as a specific case, we've had bike to bike contact plenty of times without it being either of our intentions or either of us at fault (And without either of us falling off I might add). If neither player is at fault but bike to bike is illegal play then how do you punish players without first deciding on then calling intent? We should stop making rules which are unenforceable and focus on ones which are.
Clearly, it wouldn't make sense to penalise ALL bike to bike contact. You and I have had plenty of that contact without either of us fouling each other (or falling off, as you say).
However, if one player pushes the ball past another player, and the other player prevents that player from going past, without making contact with ball, by using his/her bike as a barrier, then that, in my view, is a foul. This is what I am talking about.
It's easy to enforce, and easy to understand, and would cut out all the t-bone / not a t-bone intended / not intended arguments. No contact with the ball, impede the other player = foul. Simple.
-
• #44
Surely that's a right of way rule, not a contact rule?
Sorry Bill, I still don't buy it.
-
• #45
Surely that's a right of way rule, not a contact rule?
Sorry Bill, I still don't buy it.
What, my bike? It's not for sale.
What part don't you buy?
-
• #46
So if the player with the ball thinks they're likely to lose it they can ride into the defenders bike and claim it wasn't their fault. By your rule it's the defenders responsibility to get out of the way of the attacker who is in possession, hence the person who caused the bike on bike is the person protected by the rule.
While you're at it lets go the full way banning screens and picks, lets also ban players from holding their mallets in their left hand just like they do in grass polo. Can we invent an offside rule too?
-
• #47
anybody for a game of chess?
-
• #48
So if the player with the ball thinks they're likely to lose it they can ride into the defenders bike and claim it wasn't their fault. By your rule it's the defenders responsibility to get out of the way of the attacker who is in possession, hence the person who caused the bike on bike is the person protected by the rule.
While you're at it lets go the full way banning screens and picks, lets also ban players from holding their mallets in their left hand just like they do in grass polo. Can we invent an offside rule too?
What's your point here? That because it's a grass polo rule, it must be no good?
-
• #49
No Bill, my point is that you seem to by trying to force your own ideas regarding right of way under the guise of bike to bike.
What's your agenda here? Why are you insistent on trying to discredit my points through subversive means? Why don't you use the LHBPA and get the rules committee fired up and actually doing something? Why don't you go and listen to what other clubs in other countries are doing rather than trying to push London further away from the rest of the worlds rules?
-
• #50
No Bill, my point is that you seem to by trying to force your own ideas regarding right of way under the guise of bike to bike.
What's your agenda here? Why are you insistent on trying to discredit my points through subversive means? Why don't you use the LHBPA and get the rules committee fired up and actually doing something? Why don't you go and listen to what other clubs in other countries are doing rather than trying to push London further away from the rest of the worlds rules?
Not sure what you mean by subversive. Talking about one rule change that I put out there, you brought in another 3 to the discussion, none of which I had mentioned, which I find genuinely puzzling.
Is this because you genuinely fear that I want to make hard-court more like grass court? I played grass court once, 20 years ago, I can't remember much about it, apart from that it was very muddy. I haven't read the grass court rules, and what I know about grass court is limited to what I heard from those who played in that tourney.
So not having too much of an idea about what grass-court is like, I am not sure why I would want hard-court to be more like grass-court, if this is indeed what you are asserting.
I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make here.
+1. Whether its right or wrong, someone needs to be the one who makes that call.
If you have a second ref, they're really only there to spot things and bring them to the attention of the game ref. Apart from anything else, its hard enough to watch one ref when youre playing, let alone two. Ive also continually said that if youre having a second ref to spot fouls from the other sideline, theres no reason not to give goal refs the same power for the ends. Theres no point having two refs in the middle if theres carnage at the goals. I actually think that if you use the goal refs, theres almost no need for a second ref.
Sure, consistent refs across different tourneys will take time and a central rule book, but working out how to be consistent across a single tourney is a realistic goal we still havent managed. Designated non-player refs, all of who attended a briefing at the start, has a lot to do with it, and it wasnt until we stopped doing that at the euros that the reffing really got contentious.