Would you allow shuffle goals?

If Jono was right, Horse Polo would be full of toothless bruisers "wrist pushing" goals in while their horsey team mates hassle goalies.

Mark, horse polo is entirely irrelevant here and I think the comparison is a little unfair. So your argument is now: "Why wouldn't we allow shuffles, look at Jon's crazy outlandish thoughts?"

Allowing shuffle goals may not change our game in London by much (right here, right now), but I do believe it would change the game dramatically in years to come.

If you don't believe it will change the game, then why even fight for allowing shuffles? Please go into more detail around the mystical benefits of these "sweet shuffle plays"? Or do you just want a simpler ruleset?

It's not our duty to defend the existing game, it's your duty to point out why your dramatic change to the rules is worthwhile... I'm yet to be convinced and you're arguing the point like an ass.

Mark, horse polo is entirely irrelevant here and I think the comparison is a little unfair. So your argument now is: "Why wouldn't we allow shuffles, look at Jon's crazy outlandish thoughts?"

1) If horse polo is irrelevant, so is hockey. This is my point.
2) I don't have an argument. I'm just enjoying your posts right now. They make me smile.

Allowing shuffle goals may not change our game in London by much (right here, right now), but I do believe it would change the game dramatically in years to come.

I've always been opposed to things that I think would dramatically change the game (i.e., ECMs). I disagree about the amount shuffles would change the game. That's all.

If you don't believe it will change the game, then why even fight for allowing shuffles? Please go into more detail around the mystical benefits of these "sweet shuffle plays"? Or do you just want a simpler ruleset?

I never mentioned sweet suffle plays. But deflections off mallets would be pretty sweet shuffle plays. Ultimately, I think it would just simplify the game. Which would be a nice change.

It's not our duty to defend the existing game, it's your duty to point out why your dramatic change to the rules is worthwhile... I'm yet to be convinced and you're arguing the point like an ass.

Word. I don't think I've been arguing at all really, but if I've been an ass, I apologize. Just some Friday smiles.

Just re-read what I've posted. With the exception of some friendly banter with you and Bill, I don't think I've been an ass really. I basically made two points (well, one was an opinion): I don't think it would change the game that much (based on what I saw at the BFF) and I think the comparison with ice hockey is a red herring.

Ultimately this is a discussion, not a vote. People shouldn't get too worked up.

Hoser.

I think the way Jono waded in with bullet points was a bit assy.

in the BFF balljoints/lobs were also allowed, which slightly clouded the issue

Yep, that was a mistake.

I don't think it would change the game that much (based on what I saw at the BFF) and I think the comparison with ice hockey is a red hearing.

Neither of these two points are reasons to change the ruleset in my opinion.

My main concern is that it only takes a few baby steps to change things dramatically, I don't think we should view change as a positive thing by default.

If you allowed shuffle goals in Australia, the sweeper mallets users would own the court (the style is already akin to ice hockey when watching them play, hence the comparison), why wouldn't future players see this advantage and push for a different standard mallet? Would this be a good/bad thing if the ball was pushed/flung/dumped and why (my view is "bad thing" but it may be my "hatred for hockey")?

I think the way Jono waded in with bullet points was a bit assy.

Everyone loves bullets.

"red hearing"? I knew it! Bolshevik scum.

Neither of these two points are reasons to change the ruleset in my opinion.

Neither of those two things were the reason I have for allowing them.

My main concern is that it only takes a few baby steps to change things dramatically, I don't think we should view change as a positive thing by default.

Absolutely right. high-five

If you allowed shuffle goals in Australia, the sweeper mallets users would own the court (the style is already akin to ice hockey when watching them play, hence the comparison), why wouldn't future players see this advantage and push for a different standard mallet? Would this be a good/bad thing if the ball was pushed/flung/dumped and why?

We're into hypothetical discussion territory now (not saying that this is a bad thing), and no one knows the answers. But: You're arguing that if we changed the rule now, another rule could be changed in the future? That's quite possible. And if people spontaneously decide that want the game to change, and enough people agree, it will happen. There's no point in fighting it.

I don't understand your second question. Is it: If everyone had Australian sweeper mallets, would it be a good thing (in terms of how they interact with the ball on the court)? If so, my answer is no, I don't think it would be a good thing. But I could be wrong.

Everyone loves bullets.

Jono is the Gadhafi of the LHBPA. Your time has come.

"red hearing"? I knew it! Bolshevik scum.

I had already corrected it by the time you posted this!

Neither of those two things were the reason I have for allowing them.

I know, I'm doing the... it's your responsibility to provide reasons for a rule change thing and you're still holding your cards fairly close.

My thinking is that shuffles = a move towards pushing/flinging/deflecting/dumping and whether (or not) this is a good/bad thing.

My own view is "bad thing", but I hated sweeper mallets in Australia and love a good long shot.

My thinking is that shuffles = a move towards pushing/flinging/deflecting/dumping and whether (or not) this is a good/bad thing.

My own view is "bad thing", but I hated sweeper mallets in Australia and love a good long shot.

I don't see how. A shuffle is very limited in its uses. A horizontal, cross-court, pass or very close passes around people. I find it difficult to imagine people "flinging" with a shuffle.

As far as deflecting, I think that would be a good thing. And solve reffing problems.

As far as dumping, that wouldn't change at all. A shuffle would be a terrible way to dump, and people dump already, anyway (well, some people do. It's a stupid tactic 90% of the time though).

My own view is "bad thing", but I hated sweeper mallets in Australia and love a good long shot.

Just so everyone is clear - only 3 players currently use these in Aus, and they are all localised to Melbourne, where they aren't very good at polo*

*well, joel's ok.

I had already corrected it by the time you posted this!

Revisionist worm!

I don't see how. A shuffle is very limited in its uses.

A shuffle may be limited in it's uses now but you're opening the flood gates for scoop shots, wheel shots, egg and spoons... why don't we just pick the ball up with our hands and fling it in? Why don't we allow BJing again for example? Was it really lame? Wouldn't it be nicer to have a simpler ruleset? Is the polo mallet the best tool for the job? Should we even ride bicycles anymore?

Every tournament (save one) in the history of hardcourt bike polo worldwide, shuffles have been illegal and we're gonna change that, hmm.

You're debating the fundamental nature of a goal in bike polo, why don't we open up the discussion to getting the ball into the net any way possible? Is a shot the traditional swing along a plain, or is it just getting the ball into the net... why have we been wrong in the past when discussing this? Why are shuffles now "worthy" of discussion again?

With this discussion (and the surprisingly close vote), we are on the road toward shuffled goals and the de-legitmising of the merits of the "shot" to the game of polo, awesome. Perhaps it is time to put into question all of the points surrounding the "shot" for hardcourt bike polo and ignore the years of precedent (and worldwide norms) just because we can, on a whim, because it'd be "fun" or "cool".

More reasons for making this kind of change are needed and we've yet to hear them, bring the reasons, let's re-write the rulebook.

Jesus.

I have to say, Snoops & Mark is doing the classic passive-aggressive thing: "wow, why are you takin this so seriously", instead of engaging with it.

What's the matter, guys, don't you like a frank debate?

I've outlined my reasons on many occasions, I don't feel the need to say anymore, people can make their own minds up.

Jesus.

Wept.

I have to say, Snoops & Mark are doing the classic passive-aggressive thing: "wow, why are you takin this so seriously", instead of engaging with it.

What's the matter, guys, don't you like a frank debate?

^ Passive aggressive (and BS).

Re-read what I've posted, Bill. I've tried to be very clear with every point I've made. I've made points only as far as I can take them. I've engaged in what has been said and responded as I think I should, or I believe. When I agree with someone else, I make that clear. When I disagree I make that clear as well. With the exception of some jokes, I have been frank. What I have not done is turn to hyperbole. Maybe that's what you mean by frank?

Sorry, Jono. I missed the beginning point of this post between my waves of posts.

I know, I'm doing the... it's your responsibility to provide reasons for a rule change thing and you're still holding your cards fairly close.

I gave my reason later in the post you quoted. It's this:

Ultimately, I think it would just simplify the game. Which would be a nice change.

That is to say, I don't think it would change the game drastically as far as style and game-play. I imagine everyone would play the same way we do now (trying to shoot goals, because they are harder to stop, and possible to get off from a distance), with the occasional shuffle (which I don't think is a big deal).

I could be wrong. And the world of bike polo you paint is pretty grim and one I wouldn't want to play in. I just don't think that's what would happen. But I can say that with as much certainty as you can say it would...

Maybe shuffles would help with deflections/reffing and reduce the number of rules (as an aside maybe you'd simply open a different can of worms, it's unchartered territory).

So in the same vein, why can't BJs be allowed, including BJing to goal and scoop shots... it would help with reffing and reduce the number of rules?

We are discussing shuffles, not sweeper mallets, not BJs, not scoop shots.