Comments on rules / refs I sent to NA Hardcourt

Bill, stop playing the fool. You obviously have your own agenda here, whether you are going to ever get around to revealing it is anyone's guess.

My main points through this whole discussion have surrounded two things:

1. Rules should be there to keep people safe, not to ban skills that can be learned.
   
2. Rules must be enforceable, therefore anything rule which relies on intent is pointless.
   
   

Which part of that are you finding difficult to understand?

(bit early for popcorn - i've only just finished ma porridge)

Bill, stop playing the fool. You obviously have your own agenda here, whether you are going to ever get around to revealing it is anyone's guess.

My main points through this whole discussion have surrounded two things:

1. Rules should be there to keep people safe, not to ban skills that can be learned.
   
2. Rules must be enforceable, therefore anything rule which relies on intent is pointless.
   
   

Which part of that are you finding difficult to understand?

Em,

if I say I really don't have any agenda at all here, would you accept that?

I totally agree with your two points above.

If you disagree with me about bike-to-bike, that's fine, we can agree to disagree - I would like to explore why it is you have a problem with that specific thing without being accused of playing the fool and having a load of other rule changes which neither you nor I have proposed thrown in for ballast.

iain, porridge is like soggy popcorn anyway.

I can say one thing, people pushing for new rules, often don't adhere to them themselves. If you want anyone to value your opinion of what is/isn't acceptable play, then rule by example.

Otherwise your internet vents don't show on court, and you've instantly devalued all your comments.

people pushing for new rules, often don't adhere to them themselves.
This, right here hits the nail on the head.

Bill, for the sake of not continuing this bullshit I'll accept that your word that you have no agenda. I do not, however, wish to "explore" anything else today as I simply don't have time to continue these circular debate.

I'll leave you with a final thought though: All players either need to accept and start playing by rules, even in the "heat of the game" or just admit that they're never going to play by the rules so that we can drop the façade and turn polo into a full contact sport.

I'm out for the day. I'll respond to any reasonable comments or questions this evening.

I can say one thing, people pushing for new rules, often don't adhere to them themselves. If you want anyone to value your opinion of what is/isn't acceptable play, then rule by example.

Otherwise your internet vents don't show on court, and you've instantly devalued all your comments.

I don't want to take this the wrong way, but seeing as I am pushing for a rule change, I wonder whether you mean by this

a. I should play by the new rule that I am proposing whilst everyone else continues to play by the previous rules.

b. I don't play by the rules, therefore my views on rules don't count.

a. seems a little unfair.

b. also seems a little unfair. Either what I have to say has merit, or it doesn't. Whether I am the dirtiest player in London or not does not matter.

I'm saying "a" bill.

I'm not getting into a discussion about you and the merit of your comments. I just think it's pretty hypocritical for someone to say "don't do this" then go an do it. Whether that be Ball Joints, scoops, bike to bike, shoulders, knees, whatever.

Set an example, and people might respect the 'idea' of the new rule, rather than just thinking you (whoever you are) are talking out of your ass.

I'll leave you with a final thought though: All players either need to accept and start playing by rules, even in the "heat of the game" or just admit that they're never going to play by the rules so that we can drop the façade and turn polo into a full contact sport.

As I said above, I don't believe that most people set out to cheat or break rules. But they do, because it's in the nature of competitive sport that people push things to get an advantage, because they want to win. Players also apply rules subjectively, much as drivers, who are able to observe that other drivers are 'bad', are not able to identify their own driving behaviour as 'bad'. Ever met a motorist who admitted that they were a 'bad' driver?

That is why you need refs, in my view. The alternative, full contact sport, is not one I find appealing.

Having reffed, the area that I found most difficult to call was the t-bone rule. 'You know one, when you see one' - sure, but you try and figure out where a t-bone finishes, and legitimate bike-to-bike starts. Not easy. Hence why I am suggesting that we take out bike-to-bike. It makes the ref's job a lot easier. That's it.

That is why you need refs, in my view. The alternative, full contact sport, is not one I find appealing.
I find this particular statement laughable considering how often you tout yourself as the dirtiest player in London.

Make up your mind. Do you want refs so that you can be chastised by them when you continue playing how you do, or are you suddenly going to start playing within the rules once we disallow bike to bike as per your above criteria?

I don't want to take this the wrong way, but seeing as I am pushing for a rule change, I wonder whether you mean by this

a. I should play by the new rule that I am proposing whilst everyone else continues to play by the previous rules.

b. I don't play by the rules, therefore my views on rules don't count.

You asked Gabes but I'll answer this.

Option a is ridiculous, all players should play by the same rules.

Option b is a perfect example of how to play victim during a discussion. it's actually two points rolled together to try and confuse the casual observer.

Option b part 1. That is correct, you do not play by the rules.
Option b part 2. Of course you can have an opinion on the rules but that doesn't mean that you will adhere to it during game play.

I find this particular statement laughable considering how often you tout yourself as the dirtiest player in London.

Make up your mind. Do you want refs so that you can be chastised by them when you continue playing how you do, or are you suddenly going to start playing within the rules once we disallow bike to bike as per your above criteria?

Honestly, I don't consider myself the dirtiest player in London. Or at least, no more or less dirty than most. Your view of my play might be different.

I don't want to be singled out by refs - I just want to play fair, and be played fair.

I have been reading some books on behavioural economics and behavioural psychology and a lot of it is influenced by game theory. I don't know if you are familiar with game theory, but the classic game theory puzzle / paradigm 'the prisoner's dilemma':
[INDENT]
In its classical form, the prisoner's dilemma ("PD") is presented as follows:
Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

If we assume that each player cares only about minimizing his or her own time in jail, then the prisoner's dilemma forms a non-zero-sum game in which two players may each cooperate with or defect from (betray) the other player. In this game, as in most game theory, the only concern of each individual player (prisoner) is maximizing his or her own payoff, without any concern for the other player's payoff. The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution, that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect, even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperatively.

In the classic form of this game, cooperating is strictly dominated by defecting, so that the only possible equilibrium for the game is for all players to defect. No matter what the other player does, one player will always gain a greater payoff by playing defect. Since in any situation playing defect is more beneficial than cooperating, all rational players will play defect, all things being equal.[/INDENT]

If you substitute cheating for defecting, you have the polo player's dilemma.

err or maybe just, don't play like a dick and go for the ball. if you can't get it go around and try again. If the other player has the ball and is going at speed, don't block them. if they are dribbling slowly or trying to get the ball under control, blocking is fine.

I'm going to stop quoting where possible as this is turning into an endless wall of text.

Thanks for posting the prisoner's dilemma, I was aware of it but haven't read the wiki article.

Let's break this down:

As per our posts in this thread, we both agree:
1.All rules need to be enforceable, hence intention cannot form a basis of any rule.
2.Rules should be there to keep people safe, not to disallow skills which can be learned.
3.All rules should be adhered to at all times.

As per our posts in this thread, we both disagree:
1.Refs, in their current format, are the way forward to ensure everyone sticks to the pre-agreed rules
2.That we need to create a specific bike to bike rule.

I've tried to keep those points as unloaded as possible, please let me know if you disagree with this post and I will edit as necessary.

Once we have a starting point that we both agree on this discussion can continue, until we have that basis of agreement there is no point us two, specifically, continuing this discourse.

err or maybe just, don't play like a dick and go for the ball. if you can't get it go around and try again. If the other player has the ball and is going at speed, don't block them. if they are dribbling slowly or trying to get the ball under control, blocking is fine.

I pretty much agree with the above.

If you agree with it why are you trying to make the game more confusing and less accessible by adding yet more rules for players to ignore?

As per our posts in this thread, we both agree:
1.All rules need to be enforceable, hence intention cannot form a basis of any rule.
2.Rules should be there to keep people safe, not to disallow skills which can be learned.
3.All rules should be adhered to at all times.

As per our posts in this thread, we both disagree:
1.Refs, in their current format, are the way forward to ensure everyone sticks to the pre-agreed rules
2.That we need to create a specific bike to bike rule.

Once we have a starting point that we both agree on this discussion can continue, until we have that basis of agreement there is no point us two, specifically, continuing this discourse.

Yeah, I would say that was fair.

Thank fuck for that.

Okay, so to keep this moving in a positive direction, can you please list the specifics of what you would like to discuss from this point forward.

If you agree with it why are you trying to make the game more confusing and less accessible by adding yet more rules for players to ignore?

As I said above, the bike on bike rule is not clear, either to the players or to the refs. I guess what I am getting at is that one player's acceptable bike to bike is another player's t-bone.

An example of this is a coming together that Matt and I had in the BFF. I got to the ball before Matt, Matt me hit from the side, knocking me off, and we both had to tap-out. To me, it was a t-bone, as I got to the ball before Matt; to Matt it was fair contact, and he hadn't intended to run into me. The ref saw it Matt's way.

Note that I am not singling out Matt as a dirty player, it's just one example of something that happens quite a bit.

I honestly don't think you will come to an outcome on this, take football, Rugby and ref'd team sport with established rules and professional members. there isn't a game that passes without poor decisions and shades of grey.

You increase the roll of a referee you put the decision making into the hands of that person and take responsibility of actions away from team members.
I have played competetive football without referees and had fewer problems than with a ref. there is a greater sense of injustice when an impartial person is involved, without you resolve the issues between you

The Ref should mediate not dictate and encourage free flowing play.

He/she should only step in on constant offenders and pull them up with warnings and then sin bin them if it occurs again, then violence met with removal from the court and banning (1/2 matches)
So i guess the penalties for the extreme actions need to be in place first. once teams start losing games down to their lack of on court players they will have to change their tactics

I fail to see how we can remove bike to bike contact from a contact sport involving bikes.

In the example above, apologies I can't remember the specific occasion, would I be correct in assuming that it was a dead ball and that neither team was in possession when Matt and yourself chased it down?

Note that I am not singling out Matt as a dirty player, it's just one example of something that happens quite a bit.

did you shake hands after the incident?

Greasy makes a very valid point in the first of these two posts;
"and take responsibility of actions away from team members"

I don't wish to discuss this straight away as it's not relevant to the bike to bike rule but I certainly intend to come back to this in the list of things that I do want to discuss.