Distance from back wall to goal

Is there a standard for this?

bike length

should be more

much more

chukkers bike length?!

the gap between his back wheel and his seat post perhaps?

should be more

much more

+10000000

4 meters is what I was thinking, 4 meters of endless circling joy.

you need more than a bike length?

4m sounds good

+1 to four.

2m / 3m

4m seems excessive

2m excessive.

back in my day....

I'm basing my feeling on playing on a hockey rink which has just over 4m behind the goal. Lots of room, really nice. I'd be happy with less, but way more than what we use at D'ham.

Downham is very tight. Whatever the measure ment at the worlds was seemed quite nice

at the Worlds, in court 2, the nice one, I will say is 2m, 2.50m max

Worlds was between 1 and 2 meters (on court 2, the "best" court, it was 2m), it may have felt more because of the curved corners being quite large? In my opinion it was much too tight considering the size of the court itself, there were loads of crashes near/around the goal because of it and the ball could often bounce back from the end of the court in front of goal (after a shot went wide), rebounds shouldn't be such a gift in my opinion.

I also think that ~4m allows the court two be divided into 3 areas (with overlap): mid-court, team 1's goal/defensive area, team 2's goal/defensive area, which I think works well for changing play and talking tactics within your team, etc.

This is what I was thinking:
http://www.lhbpa.org/resources/ExCel_Polo_Court.pdf

Maybe just as an experiement for ExCel, but if anyone thinks there are major flaws, feel free to say so. The playing area would be marginally smaller than Mitch but a similar ratio of width/height and with much bigger extensions behind each goal.

the more space you have the more you encourage players to stay behind the goal, therefore ending up in a pile up behind goal. If it's 2m you want to get round and out onto the field of play.

yeah, i thought the worlds ones were still too close.

The pdf looks good to me.

B, I'd argue that fewer plays will involve blocking the attacker behind the goal or to the side, which is easy as everyone's so close to each other... there's still a need to get back in the playing area as it's the only way you'll get a line on goal?

I guess I'd like more space as I think it'll keep the game moving more with less clumsy/stationary play, I could be wrong though.

I like the PDF, looks good and roomy

Wasn't there a document in the leagueofbikepolo saying that there should be 3m?
2m is a bit tight and 4 is way too big. You want people to pass freely behind the net without them staying there for too long......

I think 2.5 or 3m sounds about right. 4m is definitely too big.

we play with about 2-3 metres in brum, as both of our courts seem bigger than the ones in london. i reckon it makes games more flowing, not less. when i played at downham for the first time i thought it was really weird.

Hang on, I'll draw a 3m behind the goal court with a bit more width to it... sounds like that would keep most people happy?

Here you go:
http://www.lhbpa.org/resources/ExCel_Polo_Court_v2.pdf
(The goal depth eats into the 3m somewhat.)

This second version is definitely more of a conventional court, pretty much the same size as Mitch (marginally thinner).

I reckon it depends on the length and width of the court, and also whether you're using netted goals or just cones.