Unlimited Goals For Tournaments?

Bill, I don't know who are the mainstream, but after the LII you nearly quit reefing because of that mainstream

Yes, thanks for reminding me that I was wrong, and the rest of Europe was right. I think you're missing the point. I don't want to push London in a different direction to the rest of Europe, I want to see a unified rule-set, but we're still stuck at the point where people are writing their own rule-set.

I definitely don't want to do that, and consistently argued that we stick as closely to the NAH rule-set as possible. However, if we have a representative system, whereby individuals are mandated by their own communities to come together and thrash out the details of the rules, then surely I'm doing the right thing by asking my own community to debate amongst themselves.

I don't see the problem, Bill's asking for a mandate from the LHBPA before he opens the question up to the rest of the polo community... He's just following procedure, innit?

yes, you are doing the right think asking your community. For that you can start a new thread, noy taking the existing one away.

I know that LFGSS is not a European Bike Polo Forum, but it is the closet we have, we should use it for the beneficent of everybody

and you don't need to quote all my post, I know you are talking to me

yes, you are doing the right think asking your community. For that you can start a new thread, noy taking the existing one away.

I know that LFGSS is not a European Bike Polo Forum, but it is the closet we have, we should use it for the beneficent of everybody

and you don't need to quote all my post, I know you are talking to me

Ha! I obviously didn't make myself clear. I didn't want the thread moved, or closed, I just wanted an LHBPA debate. I'm not trying to make the LHBPA's (or anyone elses' - I actually don't really care either way - as a ref, first to 5 is better, shorter games = less time reffing, more time drinking) mind up, but I do want to be clear who, and in what form, is saying what.

Jono, I understand that anyone can pay the £5 and be a member of the LHBP, but realistically how many Germans, French, Italians, Swiss... will do that?? not many

what we need is a European forum where all this rules can be discuss openly and in public, but you are suggesting to put them in a subforum where only 50-60 people has access, I dont get it.

We have that forum and structure already and you're asking us not to use it? You're also stating that non-London polo players won't want to join the LHBPA to use it? I agree that a European-wide forum would be neat but we don't have it?

I don't see where the solution is here...

agree, seems a little backward to open a discussion about rule changing that will more than probably affect NS tournaments and UK wide polo. Plus the LHBPA is London's polo association, mixed messages?

It doesn't have to affect the NS Series or UK polo rules (finger's crossed the UKHBPA happens and takes up those London-initiated projects). The LHBPA is the London association, yes, but we have kept membership open to everyone (one big polo community) to try and be transparent and take advantage of everyone's differing opinion...

It seems to me that the LHBPA is being attacked (a little) for the lack of organisation on a UK/Euro scale? But I'm happy to have the rules thread out in the open (it will probably go off topic and get lost in forum 24 and Bill will be non-the-wiser).

unlimited goals would be great! maybe this is something that could be trialed at upcoming tournaments eg bristol?

sorry them, Bill. I got the impression after reading port 8 of this, now, thread

Could it be the right time to get Velocio to help us set up a European forum?

that would be awesome, but then again he could just say. no they can just join lfgss!

sorry them, Bill. I got the impression after reading port 8 of this, now, thread

My apologies also, I didn't make it clear at all! My bad.

What are the reasons for having first to 5 at all?

At Swiss Round stages, wouldn't timed games make the seeding more accurate rather than less? A team who loses 5-0 in their first game is theoretically less shit than someone who loses 10-0 but in first-to-5 they'd both be 'the same'. Or am I misunderstanding?

I generally enjoy timed games more, even at throw-ins. There seems to be less fucking around...

Because it's tradition. That's the only reason.

Sweet, all for timed unlimited games. Why just finals though, can we do it across the board at a tourney?

For the sake of current discussions about rules/formatting, can we bring up the topic of no draws in swiss rounds too? I personally feel it works much better. We trialled it at Cambs NS last year, seemed to work well (apart from me not telling anybody about it) and gives a better seed result . Maybe a topic for another thread...

Tsk, stupid tradition...

Yep, draws in Swiss (at least in the Challonge implementation) are massively shit, they really fuck things up for both teams, it's a valid strategy to score an own goal if it's a draw with seconds to go (and get an easier team next round).

Unlimited goals will also help Swiss, as it will better rank the 5-0 teams (at both ends of the table)

I know that LFGSS is not a European Bike Polo Forum, but it is the closet we have
I'd debate it in the open, not the closet.

sweet, all for timed unlimited games. Why just finals though, can we do it across the board at a tourney?

For the sake of current discussions about rules/formatting, can we bring up the topic of no draws in swiss rounds too? I personally feel it works much better. We trialled it at cambs ns last year, seemed to work well (apart from me not telling anybody about it) and gives a better seed result . Maybe a topic for another thread...

+1000

Unlimited goals will also help Swiss, as it will better rank the 5-0 teams (at both ends of the table)

And in the first round of Swiss, I tend to have this all-or-nothing approach because I know we're going to concede five goals, but if we take gambles and get one back it's not so bad, maybe. If it were timed, rubbish teams would have more motivation to defend, which again increases accuracy.

Swiss rounds. Don't get me started.

I like the idea of unlimited goals.
I think it would be good to trial it at a tourney so we can all give real feedback.
I'm sure the Cambridge BM would be good for it as BM's lend themselves well to unlimited.

Yep, draws in Swiss (at least in the Challonge implementation) are massively shit, they really fuck things up for both teams, it's a valid strategy to score an own goal if it's a draw with seconds to go (and get an easier team next round).

Unlimited goals will also help Swiss, as it will better rank the 5-0 teams (at both ends of the table)

I don't know if you've noticed, but Challonge assigns 1pt per win and 0,5pt per draw by default, meaning that a team that wins one match and ties 2, will have the same amount of points as a team with 2 wins and 1 loss. I think this is what fucks up the results so much. Because equal results are then sorted by a tie-brake score based on the Median-Buchholz system (which is a headache in itself), when they shouldn't have had be equal in the first place.
Have you tried setting up in a way that it gives 3pts per win and only 1pt per tie, like they do in the rest of sports? It might be the solution......

I alway set it to 3:1, but it still fucks it up, and gives strange pairings.

....And to contribute to the actual topic of conversation. I'm not 100% convinced on unlimited goals mainly for 2 reasons:

1. I fucking love the excitement of golden goal games. (not that they would cease to exist, but they would be a little more rare).
   
2. A match of two very disproportionate level teams gets so incredibly boring. There is a point in the match, specially if it's something like 26-0 when nobody really feels like being in the court anymore. "Can this be over with already!"
   
   

Bonus reason:
For tourney organizers. You know that the match lineup can never go any faster. You can never catchup on time, you can only get more behind on your schedule. Which means that last match of the day (i.e. the final) might have to be rescheduled for another time, or played in the dark.

Regarding point 2, This would only happen very rarely happen, certainly not after a few rounds of Swiss, but I agree it is an issue.

Bonus reason, well, that would force people to actually schedule tournaments properly, with plenty of spare time, and not always try to push it.

OOoooooooooof