Pre-Play-off Discussion on Reffing; Call for Refs to Meet

sorting the reffing pre-playoffs would be awesome

1. Jono
   
2. Bill
   
3. Josh
   

I agree more people need to ref...but really is talking about it bitching?

Is talking about it bitching? No.

But some people do bitch, a lot. And they dont fucking ref ,so they can shut up.

Good shout jono/bill im down

1. Jono
   
2. Bill
   
3. Max
   
4. Josh
   

Could a mod move all the rules talk and subsequent meeting list to a new thread maybe? Clear the fixtures thread up a little?

(Sorry for the derail.)

1. Jono
   
2. Bill
   
3. Max
   
4. Josh
   
   

Funny how you inserted your name in there above Josh.

1. Jono
   
2. Bill
   
3. Max
   
4. Josh
   
5. John H
   

1. Jono
   
2. Bill
   
3. Max
   
4. Josh
   
5. John H
   
6. Ed
   

1. Jono
   
2. Bill
   
3. Max
   
4. Josh
   
5. John H
   
6. Ed
   
7. Alexis
   

Ref training

1. Jono
   
2. Bill
   
3. Max
   
4. Josh
   
5. John H
   
6. Ed
   
7. Alexis
   
8. Louis
   

This discussion has been moved. I wasn't entirely sure where to start it, so I started with John H's discussion on his own reffing, which quickly moved on to become a discussion about reffing in general. However, I've tried to keep posts that were related directly to yesterday's game in the fixtures thread.

Ref training

1. Jono
   
2. Bill
   
3. Max
   
4. Josh
   
5. John H
   
6. Ed
   
7. Alexis
   
8. Louis
   9 gorms
   

Ref training

1. Jono
   
2. Bill
   
3. Max
   
4. Josh
   
5. John H
   
6. Ed
   
7. Alexis
   
8. Louis
   9 gorms
   10 Ben
   

In KA BM... I called a few t bones durring my reffing stint. I think the decision to call a guarding play and a blatant T bone is pretty clear. Any sort of reverse T bone should not be tolerated thats a sin bin for sure.

When it comes to judging an dangerous obstruction, in my mind is the T bone call. Speed and position is the determining factor.

... while i think reversing to obstruct a keeper (bike on bike) is not a T bone but an offensive play.

I don't understand. Why is a reverse t-bone an automatic trip to the sin bin, but a regular t-bone not?

And what is "reversing to obstruct a keeper"?

Exactly, the rules are not good enough to enforce. You need to sort the rules before you sort out how to enforce them.

There are far fewer times in polo where you reverse your bike... so the intent is much easier to see (as opposed to deliberately forcing a player off their bike when moving forwards).

As a ref you're calling a t-bone as opposed to a block (or check), there's loads to consider:

• Who has possesion?
  
• What was the intent of each player?
  
• Were both players looking up/being observant?
  
• Were the lines of play observed (was an exit point given)?
  
• Was the contact incidental are who initiated it?
  
• Etc...
  

Exactly, the rules are not good enough to enforce. You need to sort the rules before you sort out how to enforce them.

So no rules?

There are much fewer times in polo where you reverse your bike... so the intent is much easier to see (as opposed to deliberately forcing a player off their bike when moving forwards).

Because the chance of it being intentional is much higher, the penalty for the outcome should be more severe? This still makes no sense.

There is a degree of ambiguity in the rules relating to bike-to-bike contact, which goes back to the original 'like to like is permitted', and the 'don't be a dick' thing.

As I said above, my own personal view is that we are playing a ball sport that happens to take place on bikes, as opposed to a bike based game like foot-down, so we should be making contact with the ball a key component of deciding whether a given incident is a foul or not. Intent should not, in my view, be factor in determining whether a foul is called, or what the penalty is.

Pretty much any contact body to body which is not incidental to playing the ball is now frowned upon, so it's clear that bike to bike contact should be treated the same way.

Because the chance of it being intentional is much higher, the penalty for the outcome should be more severe? This still makes no sense.

The penalty for a deliberate t-bone should be a sin bin, it's (nearly always) the case that a reverse t-bone is a deliberate t-bone. It shouldn't be an automatic sin-bin (as Ray stated) as there may be a weird play going on, or two bikes moving very slowly, etc, but for the most part a reverse t-bone is an easy call.

Fair enough. I understand that perspective. But you're still reffing the intention, rather than the outcome.

It's just the way I think through it in my head... with the rules as they are you kind of have to think through each player's intention to discover the fouls committed, maybe that's wrong.

Kind of a "Why did this happen? What did each player do, etc?" If I saw a bike moving backwards before a crash I'm likely to think that you're attempting some sort of crazy block/t-bone, you're not normally going to be involved in playing the ball when moving backwards, etc.

If you were moving backwards to screen the goal (in good time) and someone flew into your bike at crazy speed because they were staring at the floor then the attacker is likely to be to blame: "look up", etc, trickier to call though.

If I saw a bike moving backwards before a crash I'm likely to think that you're attempting some sort of crazy block/t-bone, you're not normally going to be involved in playing the ball when moving backwards, etc.

If you were moving backwards to screen the goal (in good time) and someone flew into your bike at crazy speed because they were staring at the floor then the attacker is likely to be to blame: "look up", etc, trickier to call though.

Okay, I think I agree with you still. You're not describing intention, just placing fault. I agree with that. (I.e., you're not saying in the second case that they meant to do it, therefore they are at fault, but they were responsible for the accident, and that is why they should be penalized).

My original question was why would a reverse t-bone be an automatic sin bin, but a normal not be? A t-bone is a t-bone. If you as a ref think that is a sinbinable offence, they should all be sinbinable offences. Not 100% of the time for condition A, but only a tapout for condition B.

Yeah, I suppose the (potentially flawed) thing for me is that I try and infer whether the t-bone was accidental or purposeful (intention). Purposeful t-bone = sin bin, accidental t-bone = maybe sin bin... I do see how this is wrong though, but can't see an alternative (for me)?

A purposeful forwards moving t-bone is a sin bin every time for me too (same as reverse), much harder to decide on/call though because of the varied nature of the plays when this could happen.

Call an, obviously, purposeful (or simply overly aggressive) act something other than t-bone and penalize for that? I.e. sinbin for dangerous play. Tapouts for t-bone.

Or, take the hockey route. They have "major" and "minor" penalties for the same offences.