UKHBPA - let's get it started

We need some non players to be dedicated refs. Object?

Do I object, or you would like Boy Emily to be a ref?

IdealStandard is Tim of the Warin Bros.
Object was the first person who came to my head as an ex poloista. That is all

. Who exactly am I addressing?

Alfie's biggest bro...Tim?

IdealStandard is Tim of the Warin Bros.
Object was the first person who came to my head as an ex poloista. That is all

Unlikely that Em would want to ref, although I could be wrong.

Non-playing refs wouldn't solve the problems that we have/had. I was a non-playing ref at LII! The problem was down to the way the rules are written, IMO. Also the culture of polo players being caught up in the 'refs if neccessary, but not necessarily reffing' thing.

I'm talking about process, not about people. If the ideas that the UK decides to push on a global scale are seen as being the ideas of a single person they would lose weight and be far easier to belittle.

Perhaps. Saying "The UK think this..." without good awareness of the origins/past debates of our rules will come across as woefully naive/irritating to the "powers that be"... enjoy doing all the research.

The problem was down to the way the rules are written

Our rules are not just written badly, they have massive grey/subjective areas and "everyone is an expert" (far too many people have input).

The NAH rules committee is the best we currently have, but they seem pretty unengaged currently (the NAH rules forum gets a new post every month or so and is not a very inspiring/concise read). I'm fairly confident they'll pull it out of the bag for this season though, they have the most experience, etc.

Not convinced tinkering with the rules should be UKHBPA's main agenda to begin with.

Not convinced tinkering with the rules should be UKHBPA's main agenda to begin with.

I agree that it's not a priority.

yep, i think things are getting slightly over complicated. once we have a strong list of reps (hopefully this week) then we can worry about agendas*. and most talk about the rules etc should be done on another thread.

*agendas such as the UKchamps this year?

yep, i think things are getting slightly over complicated. once we have a strong list of reps (hopefully this week) then we can worry about agendas*. and most talk about the rules etc should be done on another thread.

*agendas such as the UKchamps this year?

I'd like to say that I totally support the UKHBPA.

At the time when the LHBPA was started there was a lot of talk about the LHBPA was trying to 'take over polo' and other such nonsense. The organisation was viewed with a lot of suspicion initially, and it wasn't until Jono became chairman that those nebulous fears were banished. So I'm saying 2 things here:

1. Jono was an excellent chair of the LHBPA, because before he became chair, there were some factions within London polo that regarded the LHBPA as a negative influence on polo, whereas now it is viewed almost overwhelmingly positively (this isn't all down to Jono, many other people have contributed to the LHBPA, but Jono definitely created a significantly different atmosphere).

2. The setting up of the UKHBPA is almost inevitably going to be a little bit painful for everybody, and require a few people to do a lot of work, which they will get little thanks for, and sometimes a lot of grief. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the few in advance of their efforts, and say to the many, let's give them a chance to work things out as they see fit - we need them to succeed.

*agendas such as the UKchamps this year?

Yes, very much so.

I'm rep for Birmingham - Luca I PM'd you my details.

bang on it bill!

I'd like to sa[B][/B]y that I totally support the UKHBPA.

At the time when the LHBPA was started there was a lot of talk about the LHBPA was trying to 'take over polo' and other such nonsense. The organisation was viewed with a lot of suspicion initially, and it wasn't until Jono became chairman that those nebulous fears were banished. So I'm saying 2 things here:

1. Jono was an excellent chair of the LHBPA, because before he became chair, there were some factions within London polo that regarded the LHBPA as a negative influence on polo, whereas now it is viewed almost overwhelmingly positively (this isn't all down to Jono, many other people have contributed to the LHBPA, but Jono definitely created a significantly different atmosphere).

2. The setting up of the UKHBPA is almost inevitably going to be a little bit painful for everybody, and require a few people to do a lot of work, which they will get little thanks for, and sometimes a lot of grief. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the few in advance of their efforts, and say to the many, let's give them a chance to work things out as they see fit - we need them to succeed.

So not willing to illuminate why you are ruling out Jono & I from participating in some way in the process? I don't get it. I am happy for Ben to represent London on UKHBPA, so in that sense I have no desire to be on the UKHBPA, but I would have hoped that Jono, at least, would be consulted about the rules etc, because he has had more contact with the NAH & the Euros than anyone in else in the UK.

One of the things I don't like about this forum is the user names. I have a hard time putting faces to names and vice versa in real life, never mind adding in non-referential user names. Who exactly am I addressing?

Bill - that is not what I meant and not what I said. I think that you should have considerable input and your views and understanding should be consulted (I believe I said that in my post). What I said was that making a special position for you and Jono on a currently non-existant decision making body seemed random and unconstructive. In order for the UKHBPA to live up to it's name and hold weight it needs to be making decisions based on the majority view with input from those who have the best understanding and consideration of each specific issue it has to deal with.

I think that for the UKHBPA to work it primarily needs to be representative and able to listen to many individuals (I did not mean to insinuate that you were incapable of doing that).

I think that anyone who is chosen to represent London will do a good job and I agree that proportional representation is sound considering how much London pushes forward UK polo, but I don't think this should stretch to including on or two more London players on the board in relation to a specific issue.

I think that either you or Jono would be eminently capable of being part of the UKHBPA and what I wrote is not fair in what it says about your abilities to represent London, but that wasn't the proposal. The idea was to create a special position for you and Jono specifically related to rules. Do you even want that?

It's almost certainly counter productive to have either of them on the comittee. They should of course be consulted, but aas a decision making body it is far more effective to have people who are capable of making an informed decision and seeking input from all neccesary and relevant sources than those emotionally wedded to a specific issue.

That post leaves a lot to be desired and wasn't intended to piss you off. I hope I made it clearer in the above what I meant.

IdealStandard
I think that either you or Jono would be eminently capable of being part of the UKHBPA and what I wrote is not fair in what it says about your abilities to represent London, but that wasn't the proposal. The idea was to create a special position for you and Jono specifically related to rules. Do you even want that?

If the UKHBPA is gonna focus on rules, imo at least one of Jono and Bill should be sitting on the committee as a rules rep as they are (imo) without a doubt the most informed people in the UK about rules and reffing....

this stirred up more argument than i thought it would. I was merely thinking bout if UKHBPA wanted to look at the rule set, people who know their shit should be there to talk about it. Deffo didnt MEAN to say that UKHBPA SHOULD focus on the ruleset, that would be for discussion further down the line obviously. I was just thinking aloud that if it were to look at the rules as an association then the input of the people with the most knowledge would probably be useful. Its very early days, so maybe lets wait for luca to organise this first meeting and then work out what is feasible for the UKHBPA to actually do.

sorry for unintentionally stirring things up everyone, as you were

I think that for the UKHBPA to work it primarily needs to be representative and able to listen to many individuals (I did not mean to insinuate that you were incapable of doing that).

hopefully not stirring up another hornets nest here but as it looks like the committee is going to be 100% male, shouldent there be a female presence? Maybe a Ladies rep or something? I posted on the Ladies Polo thread about this too...

Is there a lefty rep?!

the less lefty bullshit the better i reckon.
First UKHBPA motion: BAN ALL LEFTIES

^ +1 lefties scare me.

lefties ate my babies

Bill - that is not what I meant and not what I said. I think that you should have considerable input and your views and understanding should be consulted (I believe I said that in my post). What I said was that making a special position for you and Jono on a currently non-existant decision making body seemed random and unconstructive. In order for the UKHBPA to live up to it's name and hold weight it needs to be making decisions based on the majority view with input from those who have the best understanding and consideration of each specific issue it has to deal with.

I think that for the UKHBPA to work it primarily needs to be representative and able to listen to many individuals (I did not mean to insinuate that you were incapable of doing that).

I think that anyone who is chosen to represent London will do a good job and I agree that proportional representation is sound considering how much London pushes forward UK polo, but I don't think this should stretch to including on or two more London players on the board in relation to a specific issue.

I think that either you or Jono would be eminently capable of being part of the UKHBPA and what I wrote is not fair in what it says about your abilities to represent London, but that wasn't the proposal. The idea was to create a special position for you and Jono specifically related to rules. Do you even want that?

Ok, thanks for clarifying what you were saying, Tim, very much appreciated.

I think it's something to think about. From my perspective, international coordination of rules & reffing is really quite important, and ideally the UK will be part of that. I don't really see that a rules person would need to be a committe member, but would definitely be accountable & report to the committee, but you guys may have different view. Jono & I are already sort of doing this, only without UKHBPA backing. It would be nice to formalise the process, whoever is doing it.

Whether the rules thing is more important than anything else is not for me to say - I am happy for the committee to decide what their priorities are - that's why we have a committee.

The current rules debate could be a great issue for the UKHBPA to cut its teeth on... It's definitely an issue that would benefit us all if clarified...

Ok so the list is currently as follows.

Cambridge - Luca (Superluca)
London - Ben (Punkture)
Birmingham - Dan (Danwentskiing)
Canterbury - Dan (DuD3)

Can everyone else either add to list or PM me (and include email address) thanks.

It's definitely an issue that would benefit us all if clarified...

Here you go Joe.

The NA approach:

[]Every player can take space from each other without warning.
[]Fouls are mostly reserved for reckless/dangerous play (punching, malleting wheels, etc).
[]Players that fall off should improve their bike handling.
[]You may not ride into another player forwards or backwards (t-bone).
[*]There is no such thing as a forced t-bone (so a defender may reverse into your path as long as your front wheel hits their bike and the rear wheel didn't go into the side of your bike).

The UK approach:

[]You may be penalised if your "challenge" is overly aggressive/reckless/dangerous in the referee's eyes.
[]You should make an effort to play the ball, playing the ball is a strong indicator of whether a player fouled another (or not).
[]You may not ride into another player forwards or backwards (t-bone), but also, you may not cause a forced t-bone by short-stopping in front of another player.
[]Forced t-bones exist (so defenders may not reverse into an attacker's path at all, no hopping 90 degrees at the last minute, no cutting someone up on their blind side, etc).

The Euro approach:

[]Every player can take space from each other without warning. (NA approach)
[]Fouls are mostly reserved for reckless/dangerous play (punching, malleting wheels, etc). (NA approach)
[]Players that fall off should improve their bike handling. (NA approach)
[]You may not ride into another player forwards or backwards (t-bone), but also, you may not cause a forced t-bone by short-stopping in front of another player. (UK approach)
[*]Forced t-bones exist (so defenders may not reverse into an attacker's path at all, no hopping 90 degrees at the last minute, no cutting someone up on their blind side, etc). (UK approach)

All the rulesets have the same problem of overusing words such as "reckless" and "dangerous" which are subjective.
All the rulesets have also been written to ban/control certain parts of the game without considering the larger ideal/approaches.
All the rulesets would benefit from using black/white terminology that then goes into explaining the details.

My hope is that the NAH release a concise (re-written) ruleset for 2012 that everyone can use without modification, it'll be interesting to see how they give attackers and defenders a more concise boundary for adhering too.

The differing interpretation of the game/rules and the internet arguments that entail will persist until someone writes a more concise ruleset (hopefully using objective black and white terminology).

There is little point in tackling this issue until the NAH ruleset is released. It makes sense to approach the NAH if their rules for the 2012 season are not up to scratch with a better proposal (and with an accompanying shit-tonne of research/reasoning).

I meant it might be a dialogue the UKHBPA could enter into with the NAHBPA and the rest of Europe to try and get a unified ruleset together... Just a thought...

I'm quite clear on the different approaches...

I meant it might be a dialogue the UKHBPA could enter into with the NAHBPA and the rest of Europe to try and get a unified ruleset together... Just a thought...

I'm quite clear on the different approaches...

The problem is not the rule-set, we're all playing pretty much the same rule-sets, the problem is that the current rule-set is open to widely varying interpretation, and full of holes, and there are some direct contradictions within it.