Jump to Navigation

Login / Register

St Cago bike polo mallets DZR bike shoes for street and bike polo Velolocuma bicycles

Leaning on or Grabbing the Goals

I already did a good enough job of blowing up the eastsides thread. I should have made this early, sorry.

Let's hash this out.

Opening questions:

1) If you think players should be allowed to lean on the goal, why?

2) If you think players should be allowed to touch the goal but not lean on it, how can the ref discern the difference during gameplay?

3) If you think players should be allowed to grab the goal however they want, then fuck off.

4) If you think that players should not be allowed to touch the goal, in order to verify that they are standing under their own power, what ramifications in play style might this create and are those ramifications really negative?
Just kidding, please explain yourself though.

My views:

Players should not be allowed to touch the goal in any way. It is the only way to verify that they are supported by their own bike skills and mallet skills. Unless you define clear and discernible ways for a ref to identify if someone is breaking the rules, the rules will be easy to break. Making it so that a player can not touch the goal while tending it outlines a clear and discernible way that a ref and goal judges can call a goalie's play legitimate.

Leaning on a goal does not increase the skill of our game. Grabbing the goal does not increase the skill of our game. We want to increase the skill in our game.

In regards to references to the boards: we have to let go of this "vertical/horizontal surface" thing. We don't need it. Just define it on a situational basis: you can not touch the goal. You can touch the boards but you can't rest your foot on top of them. DONE.

The goal is an important area of play and we need to stress skillfulness there more than anywhere. This is a manifestation of one of the most important rules of this game. We need to stay on our bikes people. Learn to fuckin' ride it. Let's play polo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Any conversations you'd like to have that carry over from the eastsides thread, please copy your comment from there and place it here so we can respond in the right place.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

when I started saying this last year people told me like this; dude stop worrying about that it doesn't matter if you are better you will score, even if someone is draped all over the net.

I guess since it has been that long since I was so concerned I just learned to adapt. (Im not dismissing your point though)

But I will try to discuss this to help you out a bit, BUT! only because I like the way you rock your doowop Kruse.;)

If leaning on the goal is going to be effectively called a dab by an official in game play, you have to let the back judge focus on the goal line and the center judge call the dab. There is no way a person can effectively be looking at the goal line and subtle contact with the net simultaneously.

This is just a suggestion to the point that if you cant see it, you wont call it. AND from 50-90 feet out it can be hard to see subtile grabs and leans. Solving this issue is not so simple. But I think this is a start. AND since when has there been officials meetings or discussion prior to a tourney about how to ref and how to ref consistently? umm and o yea meetings/discussion that actually worked?

This is a big nasty one homie and I have always been one against additional regulation, so take my advice with a slice of relax and check the son of a bitch while they hang on to the top bar. lol :) you know im playin yall and if you really know me, then you know im not. ;)

"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'
http://www.scarylarrykbp.org/
http://www.fixcraft.net/
http://321polo.net/

I know that regulation always adds a layer of complexity, but I think we can go a long way with these discussions as they really do work to change the culture of our community. If we can talk things out and get a majority of people to side one way on these issues and act accordingly, we can take the load off of a need for precision refereeing.

Take the mallet under the wheel thing. Most offenders will immediately dab with their infraction. They won't even look to the ref. They know. Especially at top level play. This is because it is part of our polo culture and it's something that we hold eachother to. I'm not saying we don't need good refs, but we've come a long way and been very successful by hashing these things out on an international level and really caring about preserving integrity in the game.

So let's talk about the nuts and bolts and keep crossing our fingers that the reffing will eventually catch up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

IM WITH IT!

"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'
http://www.scarylarrykbp.org/
http://www.fixcraft.net/
http://321polo.net/

If I'm sitting tight in goal, I will likely be touching some part of it with my body and/or bike some of the time (wheel, brake side torso) to close gaps, rather then standing a foot out of it. I will not be using it to keep my balance, because I'm confident I can do that already without a net. Should this be considered a dab? How does a ref tell if a player is touching it to keep their balance, or touching it because they are actually just sitting in goal?

• TORONTO • OTTAWA • VALLEY BOYS •
bikepolo.to

This being said, I do not think players should use the net to keep themselves up, whether it be holding on, or aggressively leaning, but saying someone cannot touch the goal at any time is a bit much, if they get hit by someone, or have to hop to save a ball and touch the metal.

• TORONTO • OTTAWA • VALLEY BOYS •
bikepolo.to

I thought about this too. My opinion here is that you would need to play out a bit further. This will force goalies to cover the back or cover the front but not cover both, and I don't really view that as a bad thing.

I like the idea of giving shooters more places to go than just the bottom bracket, and moving the goalies out and making them ACTIVELY cover one or the other depending on the play is something that I think would, again, improve the skill of the game and make it more fun to watch and play.

I think a lot of the time, people use the goal as a crutch without even realizing they do it.

Getting hit by someone and your body carrying into the goal is a different topic. We can add these sorts of instances into the rules. Everything has a solution. It's as easy as adding an under line that states: "Incidental contact with the goal caused by another player will not be a dab".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

I'll agree with that last comment, in a lot of communities it's totally fine do whatever you want with the net in pickup, just second nature in a tournament situation.

• TORONTO • OTTAWA • VALLEY BOYS •
bikepolo.to

I agree this is an issue. 4 years ago we went to a tournament in Calgary and they were using hockey nets. People in net would just pull themselves back and forth using the top of the heavy net. That is why at the time we made a rule or it you put your hand on the net it is a dab (still is a rule no?).

I think no leaning is way more difficult to ref. Not touching the net rule would make it easier to score but I again think it is difficult to ref. I'm all for making rules that are easy enforce.

For whatever it's worth, I agree with penalizing players who grab the net or otherwise use it to stay up (for the reasons stated). It is somewhat difficult to tell when it's happening, but like every other judgement call the refs should do their best to call it and their call should be final. Even professional referees miss calls sometimes, if a ref screws up a bunch of times then they'll be less likely to be selected for important games (assuming there's someone else willing to do the job).

I disagree with making any contact with the goal a penalty. Worst case, it leads to tons of penalties or inconsistent reffing because it's really hard to play effective goalie without ever brushing up against a post. Even in the best case where everybody adapts their style of play to accommodate it, it would lead to a significant change in game play with the goalie forced to leave bigger gaps. This would make it easier to score goals which I don't see as necessary or an improvement. Just one dude's opinion.

for a ref sitting at center this would be impossible to near impossible to see. this should fall under the responsibilities of the goal judge, that is if there is no ref on skates moving with the play. most of the time at LA 4 i was behind the goal line behind the goal tender, pretty much the perfect place to see this and the goal line itself. sorry had to put that out there.

as far as the leaning is concerned if you move the net with your body when nobody is around you or you are visibly being held up by the frame of whatever goal you are playing with that should be considered a dab i think. as the net kept you from putting your foot down and the whole idea of being a good goal tender is the ability to stay balanced while stopping shots. if you bush it with our torso or forearm? as long as you correct that and break the contact i don't see a problem with that.

but i really, really don't agree with "everybody can do it so then there is no advantage". especially in tournament play. very skilled players are spending countless hours and resources to travel to these things to be denied by a goaltender that can't keep their balance, so they lean on the net. wither the goaltender knows they are doing it or not is a moot point. compare it to a t-bone, even if unintentional a t-bone should get called.

the big problem i can see is that reffing in general is spotty at best. very little consistency between tournaments and regions for that matter. this applies to all rules in the book including this grey area. as Eric said in the ESPI thread all the people that signed up to ref had a beer and wondered off. I can relate to both sides as a player and a ref, as a player even if my games are done I don't want to pick up a whistle because i want to go eat a pile of food, have a beer and a bunch of water, and sit in the shade. as a ref i want to give the players the best officiating i can, which means lots of skating especially on those size courts making playing and reffing like i want to impossible because i have energy for one not both. trained ref's that are high level players that are not playing is the best solution to this problem that i can see and quite a few others i think. but we are no where close to having trained, dedicated ref's for large tournaments because most of the best ref's are playing. and i have no idea how we are going to get there.

my 2 cents.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

players should not be allowed to lean on the goal to keep their balance, though i don't think simply touching the goal should be considered a penalty/dab. seconding nick i play goal tight, often touching my back wheel to the post, if for no other reason than to know i'm as tight as i can get on that side. note that i don't move the goal and am certainly not leaning on it as our goals would go skittering off. perhaps that is how you can penalize, move the goal and it's considered a dab, touch it without moving it and play on, though with heavier metal goals they don't move as easy as abs goals. grabbing the goal or leaning with your arm to balance would be a dab.

-my stomach is a pickle-

A) I do not think subtle leaning is a problem. If you lean hard enough to move the goal, that should be penalized separately as a delay of game.

B) I do not think enacting rules to move goalies further from the net and make it easier for players to score would be an improvement on the game, unless we start allowing huge goalie mallets or something.

C) Grabbing the goal should be a dab.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

You just summed up my thoughts on the whole kit and caboodle.

Crusher in Chief
www.lancasterpolo.com

Secondary Alex wrote:

A) I do not think subtle leaning is a problem. If you lean hard enough to move the goal, that should be penalized separately as a delay of game.

B) I do not think enacting rules to move goalies further from the net and make it easier for players to score would be an improvement on the game, unless we start allowing huge goalie mallets or something.

C) Grabbing the goal should be a dab.

If you need to lean on the goal to keep yourself up, then you need to get the fuck out of goal and find a new position! Or just learn how to stay on your bike! I remember there was talk about players not being allowed to put any body on the goalie if they do not have the ball but can lift their mallets.

Fuck off

Grabbing anything on the court that isnt your mallet, bike, and or teamate should be a dab. I freaking hate when people put a hand on the fence or boards. I know this aint the right place but i couldnt hold my peace

Playing a hand on the fence is common in a lot of place. This is legal.

And how is this any different from using the goal to not dab? it's redundant.

Grab the net shouldn't be a rule for me. And if you want to, you can make a separate section, nets and fence.

well since you asked...
1) If you think players should be allowed to lean on the goal, why?
With one ref at about 90ft away, I think its unenforceable on big courts. Maybe on small courts, but still, with so many refs hesitant to call penalties as is (and I prefer to play sports with as little interference from refs as possible... "let the players play"...), games/reffing will just become more inconsistent.

2) If you think players should be allowed to touch the goal but not lean on it, how can the ref discern the difference during gameplay?
NO TOUCHING OF ANYTHING

3) If you think players should be allowed to grab the goal however they want, then fuck off.
Agreed. If I was reffing, I probably wouldn't have seen the grab, especially at 90ft, with all the action going on, but on a small court, it should be noticeable, and enforced when seen by the ref, or more importantly, the goal judge. Goal judges called the shots when we played with cones, I guess they could be relied upon to make the decision on whether or not someone is grabbing the goal.

4) If you think that players should not be allowed to touch the goal, in order to verify that they are standing under their own power, what ramifications in play style might this create and are those ramifications really negative?
Kinda interesting. I suppose this would push more players out of the the perma goalie position, open up the game to more scoring, and some other things I'd like. But yet another rule to enforce. How about bigger goals instead? Having a better defense and keeping possession of the ball will mean much more when so many shots won't be blocked by someone just sitting there occupying space. Probably won't happen, but whatever.

We're putting a lot on one ref, so why not add two more officials. One person on each end of the court who monitors the goal--not the ball, but the goal. If (s)he sees a lean or grab that merits a dab--in their judgment--then they blow a whistle. And let's not get all whistles-are-resources-and-tournaments-don't-always-have-them on me. When I pay $20 or more to play, there better be some goddamn whistles on the refs and my proposed goal-watching refs.

I have yet to attend a tournament where there are not enough people to execute this. Five people to officiate a game makes sense. Not like all other sports have it right, but having several officials just makes sense to me.

Am I alone in this?

Five people to officiate would be awesome, but in reality it is hard enough to keep up with the need for one ref per court. Five people times four courts is 20 people, times (at least) two shifts per day is 40 people. It works out to about 1/3 of the registered people who aren't playing at a given time, and would mean that those people would have to be at the courts for 9 hours per day (their playing time, plus their reffing time). And you want them all to be trained on the rules, and to be on the same page about what is going to be called and how across the tournament?

Not possible this year, next year, the year after that, or the year after that. No way.

Really I think there just needs to be a cultural change about the role of the ref, and players will need to accept calls, even 30-second calls, with grace and efficiency -- no bitching. We're not even close to that right now.

i agree with all of this.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

Simple, do what we do in the UK, the players in the last game stay on to ref. If there isn't a good ref amongst those players, then they better learn fast. It had the side effect that over time everyone is forced to ref.

That's pretty hard to find 1 guy who make the job right.
Almost impossible to find 3 guys to make it.
5 Is for me completly unrealistic.
Whistles aren't the issue at all.

We are talking about some tourney who last 2 or 3 days, on 3 courts or more (15 people the whole day long...).

Eric and Clement, you're both correct. It's sad that it's hard to get officials. I proposed that solution primarily because as long as I'm not in the bracket or about to play, I'm happy to ref or goal judge. I project that same attitude onto other polo players.

Judging leans/grabs on the goal is tricky. It's not easy for a goal judge to see all that action. Or a ref that isn't close to the action around the goal.

Nevertheless, I want the sport to be at a point where we do have more officials.

I think putting the hand on the net is silly. Obviously there will be some contact but staying still balanced and blocking a shot is a hard thing, it is not so hard if you have a brace.

That being said, goalies get away with murder in the net. If they go down they actually block a decent amount of goals by being down. There is very little that can be done about this but we really shouldn't be making the goalies life easier.

Okay, some consensus seems to be that people don't mind subtle touching of the goal. I would agree with this. Here's where my thinking comes from when banning all contact with a goal:

We've all been at tournaments and watched a goalie play tight to the goal. They're not leaning on it, but they're touching it with their leg or hip or whatever. And then, an intense play comes to them, and they make a play on the ball with their mallet...

And then they make another play on the ball with their mallet...

And then, before you know it, that goalie has gone 5 seconds frantically working their mallet on the ball, with no hops, no stabilizing roll forward or backward, and it's obvious that for those 5 seconds, they went from "just touching" the goal to absolutely leaning on it.

We can not expect drunk goal judges that raise their hand 5 seconds before a match starts to interpret a highly intense moment in a game and signal to the ref that a goalie is cheating. We can not expect a ref to blow a whistle at that moment and stop play.

If we want successful reffing in bike polo, we need to set up rules that dictate GENERAL game play that prevent the need for refs to make split second decisions during intense moments of the game. If we say "hey, you aren't allowed to touch the goal" then a ref or a goal judge, at any moment of the game, can call out a goal tender for doing what is obviously observable and easily evaluated over a longer period of time. If we say "you're allowed to touch the goal, but if you lean on the goal at this intense moment to play the ball, it's illegal", then that is creating yet another onus on the ref that they simply will not live up to.

If your response to this is then "well, we can't regulate it so lets just make it legal to lean on the goal" then I think that's a serious injustice to the game.

It is better to create a rule that is easily enforceable (Don't touch the fuckin' goal) than to ignore a style of play that is unskillful and very advantageous and allow it in the game simply because you don't want to make a rule in polo that changes the way you currently play.

I don't see what is so wrong with moving out the goalies a little bit if we're ensuring that the play is legitimate. It likely won't have a huge impact on how many goals are scored if we're being realistic, and it's the only way that you can fix this problem while making the fix easily enforceable and without increasing the difficulty of reffing.

I know that we shouldn't shy away from creating a new solution just because something "isn't enforceable". There are real solutions if we're willing to try them. Chances are that this would have very very little negative impact.

I just don't want to watch goalies go from "just touching" to "straight up leaning" on a goal in the heat of the moment without an enforceable rule to prevent it. Make it easy. It's really not that hard to move people out a little bit. You can still be touched up with your back wheel against the goal without touching it with your body. Easily. It's how a ton of great plays are made. And they're made with a ton of integrity and skill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

You guys in NA have MATERIAL ISSUE!

You put a TOP BAR and a too HIGH one.

Lower top bar : 10 cm + a 700 c wheel high = No issue at all
No top bar = no issue at all.

The only tourneys i went and saw some cheating goal keeper are the one in Seatlle, Toronto, or all the other with classical hockey nets.

For me material solution is the only answer. As reffin' is almost impossible, no angle for main ref + need good goal refs.
Plus if you add : make the GK a dab penalty is the expensivest shit in this sport. As if in hockey you put an empty net penalty if the GK make a foul. never seen this rule applied efficiently.
Also the major issue isn't really just puttin' a hand on it, sometime you can just get check, you put an hand for a sec and take you balance again and continue usual goal keepin'... The issue is when you find a way to goal keep and hip on the bar, give you a leg for free and almost impossible to see, and for a goal ref too.
Sayin' that you gonna see the goal move if you leaning too much is sayin that you nets isnt heavy enough, or that the rule depend where you gonna play it.

so solutions:
Kick you top bar out
or
Make your nets lower (what here is the need of gettin 20 cm overe the wheels? sein' bunny hop goal keeping?)
or
Didn't do anything and let some lame goalkeeper kill some game by cheating.

(by the way, if you have to ref it, the solution of don't touch anything can be good idea, make an aera as in hockey than nobody can enter, etc..)

Search for padova polorama 2012 pics for nets with low top bar (perfect, no case of cheating during the whole tourey). or for pics of EHBPC 2010 or 2011 for the kind of net you gonna get for worlds this year. Never seen issue with this kind of material.

yup, a great solution. no gray area. no rules to enforce

and those that who said it costs too much when I mentioned it in the other thread - I built a pair of metal goals in como for 50 bucks. that's one team's registration. they aren't as heavy as full hockey nets, but they've lasted through probably 2 years of weekly pickup now, and they are way better than some of the shitty plastic and wood goals I've seen at some qualifiers this year. make a few sets of really nice goals, and other clubs will buy the extras after a tourney

i see your point Clement, for the first time i like the idea of no cross bar in a net.

i would trade the small percentage of shots that wouldn't go in on a non-crossbar net for a goaltender not being able to lean with their body.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

Clement! The idea of having the nets you guys have is a great idea, but like I told Vince, not every club has the funds to do such a thing especially if they don't have a specific court to play on that belongs to them to use. And sometimes the hockey nets that are in the states are the way they are and sometimes mounted to the ground. We can't do anything about that. It's hard enough finding places to throw tournaments with people's permission. Please stop mentioning specific goals and boards, we can't all have that!

Fuck off

I remember back when winnipeg was making goals for the first time. They can be made entirely out of plastic piping and filled with sand or dirt in the back. Total cost per net couldn't have been over $90 bucks. Hell there is even a google doc somewhere that shows you how to make the crossbarless goal.

So any club with 6 players in it would take $30 per person to get serious goals created.
Start small, dream big.

This post is so X3

damn, that's soooooooo true you all should agree with this !

Team Sophie - Switzerland

Just state that a player must have control of their bike at all times (one hand needs to be holding onto your handlebars), boom, now you can't grab the net/boards/whatever (and you'd probably reduce the number of dislocated fingers/busted hands in polo while you're at it).

The horizontal/vertical thing is sound enough for your feet.

The next issue is obviously leaning and that's the real problem... although Clement is correct in saying that us Europeans can't lean on our (saggy) no-crossbar-goals.

Personally I'd like to see this fixed with a better quality of goal made for polo with sturdy (yet collapsable) uprights and a well elasticated (lean on it and you're still going down) crossbar.

"Just state that a player must have control of their bike at all times (one hand needs to be holding onto your handlebars), boom, now you can't grab the net/boards/whatever (and you'd probably reduce the number of dislocated fingers/busted hands in polo while you're at it). "

People gonna lean on board, fence with shoulder... it change the way of playing so few that adding a rule like that won't be efficient. Sometime put a hand on the fence is the only way to avoid crash or shoulder hit on a fence. We should see that as ice hockey, on the board they grab it and that's it.
in padova they made a rule about it, but only half of the ref was wistling that. This is for me a rule that can creat way more trouble that not having any one about this kind of play.

I've yet to hear a good reason for players putting their hands on the boards/fence and believe that the rule would be easy to enforce (and would result in less rules overall and could potentially mean less injuries).

It's trivial to get a ball away from the boards while hopping about, although I do accept that this might be a challenge for newer players...

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

Sometime put a hand on the fence is the only way to avoid crash or shoulder hit on a fence.

I disagree with this as we should not be encouraging players to grab onto anything as they fall, you're better off checking the fence, or hitting the deck.

Using your hands to "catch" yourself will lead to injury during an unpredictable fall/crash.

Fair enough if you feel safer grabbing the fence, but I don't think it is safer.

It also makes an immovable obstacle for other players to deal with and it's often an obstruction that many players get away with (trapping a player to the fence).

Honnestly i don't really care.
My point about grabiin something when you get check is maybe bad. Sometimes it help, sometimes it hurt instead.

My major point is, and that's the only one i really care about when i talk here:
I think this kind of rule change too much the way we play and gonna be hard to ref'. Almost in any place i played pick up, you have right to play a hand on the fence. Going to a tournament when a rule like that is applied is strange, also for ref'. So it result in something the ref' and players care 1/2 time, sometime a opponent gonna yell and the ref gonna whistle, sometime nobody gonna care etc... This happens in Seatlle and Padova. In seattle whbpc you get the right to lean and grab the fence but not playing the ball while grabin' it. In padova you didn't get the right to grab or touch the board with you hand in any case.

By the way, this thread is more about nets... so maybe we should open another one about boards.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that passive bodily contact with the goal - even as an aide to balance - cheapens the game or the position of goalkeeper to a significant degree.

Yes a goalie who is touching the goal will have an advantage in terms of balance over a goalie who is not touching the goal. I don't think that's a problem. I think all goalies should touch the goal with their body.

Hands touching the goal should be explicitly barred, and would be easy to enforce.

Use this style of goal:

- No hands
- Moving the goal when not forced by an opposing player is a delay of game

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Honnestly, leaning the whole game with the hip on high top bar (as TO or SEA nets have) is for me more cheating than a single hand during one sec in a game...

Plus we can't say that the penalty should be a dab, or not without warning. Make the goalie tap out is the more expensive shit you can get on this sport. And you can easily pretend, when your a goalkeeper in such a messy situation, that you didn't understand well the ref, and stay the time you need to defense, then when the situation get calm, listen to him and go tap out during a more sweet moment for your team. So that's useless as penalty. (30 second after a warning out is a better solution if people think they have to rule and ref that).
Plus I don't know any ref yet on this polo earth able to wistle a player in such a situation, mess aournd nets, 6 peoples on bike on 4m2, we don't even have any fuckin number to call this out (if the ref know your name you get more chance to get a penalty...) .

The penalty that makes sense in these situations is a "delayed advantage". These are already on the books as a viable penalty, so that's not a problem (people just have to start enforcing them). Soccer has the same kind of advantage rule and it works well.

What would happen in a delayed advantage situation is the defending goalie would get to stay in net - not the expensive tap out - but as soon as his team controls the ball, it's a turnover back to the offensive team. If the goalie keeps "cheating" and grabbing the net or pushing on it from leaning too much, then his team will never get to control the ball.

I feel like this is enough incentive to not "cheat" in goal (however that ends up being defined), without trying to enforce leaning with a crippling tap-out in the heat of an offensive attack.

We would also need some better way to communicate an advantage is on, from the referee. Maybe three quick whistle bursts - to let both teams know the advantage is on. It would allow the offensive team to put all players forward on the attack, because they do not need to worry about defense. Again, a big advantage for offense, but not forcing anyone to tap out.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

I'd also be happy with not writing a new rule but standardizing nets to not have a cross bar.

I think it's a great solution but one that means expecting everyone to use the same thing. Not an unreasonable expectation but often times people can only use what they have.

If NAH could spend the money they generate on ONE thing, my vote would be to spend it to contract a welder (who plays the game) to build goals spec'd to get rid of this problem. No top bar, no leaning, no grabbing. Keep yourself up. Somewhere around 2.5 to 3 ft high.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

My point would also be:
Why are NAH standard nets so high?

They are the "standard" in NAH because they are what most clubs have available; standard size street hockey goals.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Clement is referring to "standard" NAH nets, like in Toronto, that fit the dimensions found in the NAH rules, not a hockey net.

4. Goals
4.1. All goals will have nets and a solid crossbar.
4.2. Goals will be 6′ wide by 3′ tall.
4.3. The goal line will be marked.

• TORONTO • OTTAWA • VALLEY BOYS •
bikepolo.to

yep

"standard" street hockey goals are 42" or 48" high. That's not what the rule calls for.

I also agree with shorter nets. You don't deserve a goal just because you use big ass white mallet heads that lift the ball every time you take a shot. You didn't even MEAN TO DO THAT! It just randomly bounced off the top tube!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

your just saying that because charlie wasn't able to do lift his top bar to block shots against 'slab of bacon'. There was three of the luckiest goals i have ever seen in that game.

i'm already sketching designs.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

if you need the Designs of Genevian one just ask me by mail.

But Padova 2012 are best in my mind, top bar, low enough to avoid almost all issue with leaning or grabin, but high enough to let some air shot go over the wheel.

Ours works pretty well, maybe find a way to get the nets in a better sharp when you see them from side.

1) Leaning/contact on a goal is not necessarily because a player can't keep their balance. It can simply be closing your rear door, and the fact is that if your rear wheel is on the post, your hip will make contact with the goal.

2) I can think of the most frequent reason I grab the crossbar: To move the goal back onto the goal line. This is rather common with the goals we use in DC. I think that if the goal is out of place, it's in the goalie's best interest to "pull" the posts back on to the edge of the goal line. That will involve grabbing the goal, and we'd probably agree that this should not be a penalty.

3) Goal size. I don't think the NAH sizing is smart. We should use hockey goals. An abundance of amazing shots is not a problem that needs to be solved, so why are we using short goals?

I think the game is better when we don't create new ways of creating controversy. I think smart rules reflect safety, and keep a game moving. Leaning/touching/grabbing a goal may offend many people's sensibilities about game play and style, but I don't think it's cheating. It doesn't offer any absolute advantage. e.g. - If I'm in goal, and I want to grab the top bar, I'm sacrificing my ability to turn my fork. I think that the best way to objectively enforce goal keeping, is to scrutinize a goalie moving a goal out of position.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

How do you goal keep on hockey nets?
It's strange to allow goals that can be almost impossible to block... plus it gonna make NA cheater mallets way too much useful.

The same way you goal keep in soccer. Almost every open shot in soccer is "impossible to block". The way you defend it is to keep them from getting off an open shot.

If you can beat the defenders and wind up for a shot, and also manage to get it in a 1ft x 1ft area above the wheel, you deserve a goal.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

You act like people mean to score above the wheel when they do. Like it takes a honeable skill or something.

It's big pipe and a lucky chip. How is that something we should reward?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

This discussion will be a lot more meaningful when wrist shots are legalized. When that happens, it will in fact be a honeable skill.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Really? i think it is a skill, and people can hone it with 2" OD.

I like 4' high nets, great to lean on when you're tired. ;-) The nets at our rink weigh 40kg and never move a bit, even if you have all your weight on your rear wheel, leaning on the goal post.

Unless we want to hash it out about the lucky shots that go through everywhere on the goal, what's your point? Plenty of chips also go outside of the goal. If a player doesn't intend to chip it in that money upper 90, you seem to have a problem, but you'd be none the wiser if the opposite happened, and they were going for air, but accidentally just hit it through the 5-hole.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

#59

come on nick, that shit isn't too hard if you work on it. i use a classic sized head and intentionally do this all the time- capped side if i want a flat shot, open side if i want some lift.

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

How do you goal keep on hockey nets?

I don't understand what the question is here.

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

It's strange to allow goals that can be almost impossible to block... plus it gonna make NA cheater mallets way too much useful.

Everything has a trade off. High shots, also can go over goals, and lets face it, most shots are grounded. I don't see what the problem is with awesome shots, and why they are a problem that needs to be addressed.

Nothing is impossible to block, and those shots that are the most difficult also take a great deal of skill. To me, that is an acceptable balance of interests for exciting play.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Make them just higher than a wheel to allow air shot AND wheelie block, and just lower to avoid hip on top bar issue. Period.

Plus:
Make nets to high can be dangerous: some players may try way to much to take air shot. By training them or making cheater mallet. This gonna put goalkeeper in a weird situation... we gonna have to put pads and shit like take to block all shots we gonna have to block with body, arms, legs and face (for the missed one).
This can be a way the polo can take, but we should think about it before, this gonna push player to become dedicated goalie etc...

Air shot are cools, but not enough to make all the classical goalkeeping much easier (hips on bar).

There seems to be some enthusiasm about using the structure of the goals to address this issue, which I think is awesome. I like this way of solving problems...

Another issue with goals that could perhaps be addressed with a material redesign is the issue of the goal moving and complicating goal judging, stoping play, etc...

Without a crossbar, they'll probably move less (getting hit less) - especially if there is taught elastic across the top, not a rigid rope... Ideally, we'd be in a situation where the goals moving is so rare, we could just stop play when they stop, or something else easy to enforce.

Some ideas:
- a minimum weight for the base
- rubber along the bottom to increase friction
- shaped base so that the force of a wheel hitting it is directed downwards instead of parallel to the court i.e.: triangle, half circle (would also keep the ball in the goal instead of deflecting it back out after scoring)

Euro players: does this style of goals get knocked around much?

Our nets are heavy as shit, they usually don't move. Make the basis with huge tube avoid a lot of issues.

Polorama nets:
Under the hip top bar:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33260371@N03/7296904842/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33260371@N03/7289060392/

Geneva and some other cities nets:
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/sites/leagueofbikepolo.com/files/imagecache/...

Plan attached to this message.

PreviewAttachmentSize
GVP - plan goals version 2bis.pdf50.27 KB

Both you guys, these are great ideas.

What is the next step on moving forward with a standardized goal across all of North America? Can someone from NAH chime in with how we could go about this? Heavy as shit and elastic top and the fucker won't move very often.

I like the idea of limiting how much it moves so that when it does, we can stop play and address the issue. No more of this "it went over the line even though the goal wasn't there" business.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Rule change. Needs a proposed rule, then player input, then a vote. Vote must be at least 2/3 in favor with at least 5 board members (regional reps) voting.

Thanks. So is there a certain time of the year that these votes must take place or can I get my regional rep to push for a vote and propose a rule at any time? How many regional reps are there, 14? And who votes, just regional reps? I don't understand the number 5, could you clarify?

To me this is a two part process. Get the rule voted on to define a new goal style, and then get NAH to use some of this money that seems to never surface to contract them to be made.

I'd like to help get started on this however I can. I don't want qualifier final games to look like that anymore.

Otherwise: In the future, at NAs and beyond, can people please start watching for this leaning? Leaning against the goal while playing the ball multiple times should be taken more seriously. It is clear that it happens even at high levels of the game and it impacts the game. It's not just for "bad players". I think people need to be more dilligent about being loud about this until we can get equipment made that fixes the problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Certain time: No, but I'd think the time to make the change would be after the close of this season, with the adoption of some version of the new ruleset.

Regional Reps: Seven regional reps. Five of the seven must be present to hold a vote (quorum).

Really though, each region would need 3 to 4 sets of these goals by the start of next season. Is it that big a deal to you? Your real question is can you convince 5 of 7 regional reps to make this change, when we just made the 6x3 rule and a lot of clubs have made custom goals.

I guess going with the hockey goals and inserts at ESPI was a mistake -- players can't grab the tops of 36" goals so easily. Ok, so lesson learned. Putting that aside, and assuming 36" tall custom goals, and enforcement of a grabbing rule, is the leaning issue alone that big a deal to you on goal frames like the ones in Lexington that you'd still push for a wholesale change? Flexible tops are going to have problems of their own, and it still won't solve the problem of a goalie that leans on the cord, then dabs in front of the goal, then can't clear out in time.

(*5 of 7 board members).

Quote:

Flexible tops are going to have problems of their own, and it still won't solve the problem of a goalie that leans on the cord, then dabs in front of the goal, then can't clear out in time.

We already have a rule for this. They have to get out of the way and they aren't allowed to play the ball once dabbed. Of course there will be instances where a dabbed goalie who falls on a goal without a top can't get out of the way, but the instances in which a goal isn't awarded when it should have been will go down. This is not a problem that needs solving to me. Dabbed players must make an effort to get out of the way, within the realm of reasonability. Nothing more needs to be done in that area.

3 sets in the big regions, 2 sets in the small regions. Roughly 30 goals. NAH releases plans for the goals, regional reps are in charge of locating and contracting the work, putting quotes together and the regions that can handle it can ask for donations from within the region to put together initial funding. NAH can assist with funding where needed.

You're right. It's lofty and sounds hard to achieve. That's why NAH needs annual membership and we all need to start spending more money on this if we want uniformity at the top level of the game! I know I'm thinking big here but maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Also, has NAH ever released a budget or any accounting information whatsoever? And if not, that's pretty lame.
.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Assuming 36" tall custom goals, and enforcement of a grabbing rule, is the leaning issue alone that big a deal to you on goal frames like the ones in Lexington that you'd still push for a wholesale change?

You've got a long way to go to convince me that momentary leaning is a big enough problem to go with corded tops. Everyone copy the Lexington goals. I could even get behind NAH putting out some subsidy money for something like that.

Why not? If you're going to try to fix something, try to fix it all the way.

Why do you think people should be allowed to use the goal as a crutch when defending a goal? When a play gets heated, and it gets chaotic, and everyone is trying to stay up and get a piece of the ball, why should the goalie be the only one who doesn't have to focus on playing the ball AND staying up?

To me, that's like saying that a hockey goalie shouldn't have to know how to skate, or he should get to wear shoes with spikes in them. Staying on the bike under your own power has been so imperative to innovation in our game. Why continue to set up infrastructure that will allow people to cheat for years to come?

This was a regional qualifier. And in the final game, dude used the goal to cheat and his team won. The ref missed it, and they will keep missing it. If we have the opportunity to solve it for once and for all, why would that be a negative thing?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Because I'd rather make a simple gameplay rule change than an equipment/infrastructure change. I'm much closer to you on the argument for no contact with the goal whatsoever, ever. It would be easy to enforce by the goal judge and would do more to promote goalie skill than changing the goals.

Like I said, I'm up for either. I'm just trying to meet other people in the middle to stifle the complaint that people like touching the goal when they touch their wheels up to it.

People don't like rules that change the way they already play, even when the way they already play causes a lot of cheating.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

eric_dc wrote:

Flexible tops are going to have problems of their own, and it still won't solve the problem of a goalie that leans on the cord, then dabs in front of the goal, then can't clear out in time.

To have played more amount of tourney without top bar, i can say there is less issue about it. Almost every tourney i went with big nets and top bar i saw some cheating stuff (sometimes you simply have to, the nets are too big, and even if you don't want to lean or touch them, you have to...), and almost every tourney with euro bungie nets i went was without any issue at the end. People don't lean on cord, and the few time they try, they are in a really really bad position to make anything and look stupids, and you can't lean (wich is for me the major issue with top bar).

Even with the super big, steel pipe with sandbags hockey goals at ESPI - probably weighed 30 lbs each - the goals got moved off the line in almost every game, sometimes multiple times. As a goal judge I'd try to yell at the goalie to fix it when there was a lull in play or after a goal, but it would not have been reasonable to stop play to take care of it.

Now the problem may have been exacerbated by the rampant leaning that was going on, or whatever. But trying to stop play to fix goals whenever they come a few inches off the line is going to be a tough sell.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

WE NEED MONEY FOR CUSTOM GOALS PEOPLE! THESE ARE NOT CHEAP AND YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT!

Fuck off

Clubs pay upwards of $1000-2000 for boards. I could build a pair of these goals for less than $100, and they would last much much longer than the boards.

10 ft of 2" conduit: $15
Cut it and weld it.
Fill it with concrete or something heavy
Put a net on there
Done

look up galvanized threaded tubing. you can get it in almost any length. its not that costly...
make a lower goal with or without a cross bar. you dont have to worry about welding cause they make elbows for it. bust out an L shaped goal. cap the no cross bar or make the solid (lower) cross bar. done.

"rubber side down boys"

Anarchy for 2013

"ok Mr. Schwinn fucking Armstrong!"
www.burrobags.com

since when did bike polo cost so much money?!?!

"ok Mr. Schwinn fucking Armstrong!"
www.burrobags.com

its hard to buy anything for polo when all your money goes to booze...

"rubber side down boys"

been honing shots in the air. love the tall nets. even lucky air shots are more desirable to me than lucky wheel blocks. block it with the mallet sucka that's earning it!! honestly that's the way i feel about it. I like seeing lucky shots go above wheel more than i like seeing lucky goalies planted in goal accidently block a laser with their wheels without moving even though they didn't see the shot. I'm also on board with what the majority of NA agrees on but this whole bit about the non cross bar that lies below the 700 c wheel just bores me personally. let's see some goals, not 2-2 games to time.

Never went to a tourney were the non cross bar was under a wheel, always at least 10 cm higher... so enough to put an air shot in. Clearly, having to wheelie for block shot is dope and should be mandatory next years, but most of the nets you play on in NAH are even too high for classical wheelie block, that's why i don't understand the point by nets so high... yes air shots are nice, but this can't be the only argument for high nets (plus decent high net but not so high allow also air shots...). Why hockey nets isn't the standard in NAH so? more air shot gonna goes in for sure, and you don't have to built specific nets. It seems that NAH considered that hockey nets was too high, why?
It seems that there is a limit fixed on height, so why choose one who allow air shot and avoid all the issues we talk about? Isn't that better than having nets who allow sometime (not often) high air shot to goes in?

About goal ratio in games:
If high top bar allow more air shots to goes in, it also make standard (mid air or ground shots) goalkeeping way way more easier. So this is really not sure that higher nets and top bar make games with more goals happens

10cm is not much. I'm not really interested in wheelie blocks, although I agree they are awesome. I just dislike the goalie position in the game and for that reason dislike seeing people sit in goal and block shots with their wheels on accident because the goal is so low

in my city we play with the goals from worlds. i disagree with your statement about goal ratio in games because i have never seen somebody grab the goals to stop themselves from dabbing even in pickup, which i guess makes goalkeeping way way more easier to you? maybe having these goals since september (which isn't really that long) has instilled some sense of responsibility in our players? I dunno, but it doesn't change my opinion that taller goals make for more exciting games because it allows goals that may otherwise be blocked purely by presence of a wheel into the net. if we want to discuss whether or not I agree with people reaching out and grabbing the net to stay up, I'm definitely against it. I just don't see it that often. definitely difficult to enforce, but I'm just chiming in on the tiny goal part of this discussion.

Yep understand.

You can score with 10 cm or lil bit more over a wheel, that's enough in my opinion. Why should we make space in nets almost impossible to cover as goal keeper... what happens if one day some of us become really good at shooting this point or make some cheater mallet who make that easily. Or if we allow wirst shot one day.
If that, maybe GK gonna learn how to block this shot... but we gonna have to pad them to protect their body etc.. etc..
And again, about grabin' or pushing, that's not the issue i see, as you say that's really rare, that's more small leaning and hip on top bar. You can be sure when somebody gonna get in trouble with mallets fighting, it gonna happen and change the way you play. Seattle nets are well built, and don't move when you do that. So...
I went to tourney when some goalkeeper find a way to use that really much and fucked up some game.

Clement we can talk about this more over the summer because I feel like we have many of the same ideas on the topic and the internet sucks for making sense of them.
But when it comes to getting good at shooting shots in the air I HOPE people get good at shooting them, but I think it's because I see this part of the game differently than you. I don't want cheater mallets that put shots over wheels automatically, but the space in nets impossible to cover as goal keeper? I don't think that by rolling into net a player should ever be nearly guaranteed to block a shot. When you say that a big net is almost impossible to cover as goal keeper, that's the point. Sometimes, a goal is just physically impossible to block. It's a good shot and it went in, that's exciting to me. I agree with Alex from DC on pretty much everything he says about leaning on the net/goals and with Kev about air shots. Why is putting some weight on the walls to stay up during a mallet fight any different than putting some weight on the goal during a mallet fight to stay up?

Juste because you are blocking the nets... And this put the major skills that some of us put in handling the bike, stay balanced and moving their mallet at the right place in the same time out. You substitute that by just putin' the mallet at the right place.
But i also agree that in a lot of game, especially in some good one, where goal keepers are active players who take an angle (as 45°) to do the work, this isn't a big deal at all.

Boards and nets aren't the same place on the courts... if you shot the ball in BB of a guy leaning on boards, you don't get any point.

I just disagree man but that's the beauty of things right now eh? I see all vertical surfaces as the same thing.

I get hurt 2 times in same session yesterday by air ball, and Quentin almost broke Nora hand too.

In my opinion we can't make air shot the olny way to score more goal. That's dangerous. Wider nets, or at least nets who don't help goal keeper to stand up easily are an option.

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

In my opinion we can't make air shot the olny way to score more goal.

You are implying that normal ground shots aren't good enough to score on goalkeepers currently, which is just silly. Even in the finals games at ESPI with some of the best goalkeepers "cheating" in goal*, both games went to 5. In the first game a goal was scored every two minutes and ended 5-4. In the second a goal scored every minute and was over in 8 minutes.

Even with "cheating" (leaning on the goal, grabbing the goal), plenty of goals are scored. More than soccer or hockey or almost any other sport involving a goalkeeper.

*This asterisk is important, because nobody in the ESPI finals "cheated" in any way. Grabbing and leaning on goals isn't in the rule book, so doing those things isn't cheating.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Secondary Alex wrote:

Even with "cheating" (leaning on the goal, grabbing the goal), plenty of goals are scored. More than soccer or hockey or almost any other sport involving a goalkeeper.

This is so irrelevant! I don't want to start talking about airborne shots vs. ground shots or how many goals are scored.

I've arrived at my personal conclusion in all this. Either one of three things is going to happen:
1) Progress is made on a rule to prevent goalies from leaning. This means no touching the net or hiring professional refs that will actually call it when they see it (YA RIGHT!)
2) A rule is made issuing new official goals with no cross bars.
3) I'm going to start getting a lot more violent with goalies. The net will be dislodged and moved every minute of the game and I will be devoting a large part of my time to pushing goalies into the nets they are leaning on. That doesn't sound like a fun game to me but if this leaning continues then that is where you're urging the game to go. Turn it into a sloppy shit fest. I'm prepared!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

BoozeKruse][quote=Secondary Alex wrote:

Even with "cheating" (leaning on the goal, grabbing the goal), plenty of goals are scored. More than soccer or hockey or almost any other sport involving a goalkeeper.

It is relevant when people are making the argument that goalkeeping is too easy if you allow leaning, or that we should be moving the goalkeepers away from the goal to allow more scoring.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

How many goals are scored is irrelevant because the game can be adjusted to change in that manner. If games are played to 10 instead of 5, big fucking deal.

I don't care if more goals are scored. I care about having a game that is fluid, consistent, contains integrity and doesn't turn people off because it looks fucking stupid.

And I don't care if I have to spend all of 2013 crashing goalies to get that point across! Goalie-crashin' kruse, breaking the bikes and the bodies of goal-leaners. Games will take an hour to finish with how many times I will crash the goal, and I may lose every one, but I'm willing to do that.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Leaning on or touching goals does not conflict with a fluid, consistent game with integrity. Is it weird that in soccer, a goalie can use his hands? No. We should recognize that being in the goal is a special circumstance. The only real complication I see is in that no definition of "goalie" exists such that special rules apply for the position or actions involved.

I don't know if you're joking about crashing the goalie, but you bring up another "problem" in our rules (or rather our traditions). We are far more tolerant of physical play on the last defender (goalie), even when they are in no way in play with the ball. If you are truly concerned with fluid, consistent, and play with integrity, I think *this* issue is far more important than a goalie being able to touch, lean, or grab the goal.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

If you are for a rule set that allows goalies to lean on the goals, and also forbids contacting a goalie physically, then I'm going to crash you so hard I get ejected from the tournament!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

After a few ejections I'm sure you'll come around.

[Oh GUYS I was only joking.]

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Yikes.

No, I don't particularly want to be rammed into. My vision of goal keeping is not a goalie grabbing the goal for stability. I'm simply suggesting that "touching" (read: minor contact with) the goal should not be penalized (certain positions, resetting the goal, etc).

The no top bar goal idea is interesting, as well as the heavy goals. I think both have different safety concerns that would need to be addressed.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

To clarify:

I think that addressing fluid consistent play is important. The "consistent" part is the challenge. If the ref is off-court at the half, their viewing angle on both goalies (assuming they are both right handed or both left handed) is different. One goalie will be easier to enforce the rules on. The rule improvement here, IMO, should be the expansion of Goal Judge authority, with the possibility of Referee overruling.

Tech fixes and special equipment provide their own dangers. I'm interested in how safe a goal without a top bar would be. I'm imagining two posts that could easily hurt a player (assuming construction was made of metal) or be broken--and thus very much disrupting the fluidity of play.

If the rules are written more explicitly to state player contact with the goal, I'd want there to be some leeway. That's all. I'm not particularly invested in any outcome as long as it's enforceable. Clear expectations are probably 80% of getting the ideal gameplay here.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

I think normal hockey goal design (minus a foot of height), and chop out the front bar. Replace with rope / elastic band. All set.

Frame should still have plenty of rigidity, no front crossbar to lean on, and no solo poles sticking up to impale yourself on.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

durrrr

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

i'm curious...how did you get hurt? did the ball get airborne and hit you?

Yep. Just want to say that if we make goal so high, people gonna Ty more to score air goals, which even they look cool as hell involve more chances of hurting people. So maybe we gonna have to pad goalie as I hockey etc...

About crashing people who lean in net, pretty sure that they gonna get an advantage on you by having the chance to lean on net, plus if you do like you seems to would, you get chances to Ge ref against you with written rules this time.

so if its such common trend to put awesome air goal, there is no interest on blabering about leaning on the top bar or not ? just air shoot the cheating motherfucker.

also i ve rarely play with goals that hold to the ground, with light nets then leaning on it is not a good solution for the goalkeeper. also ,how are you supposed to face all those jumping spd players when they come to you as a goalie ? it s gonna be even easier to make a player who is in goal make a tap out for touching the goal just by hopping around.
drawing the position of the nets on the floor allow to let the ref decide if there is a goal or not even if the goal got move in the last play. no need to stop the game before the end of the play unless somebody drags the nets half way court or something.

i m in favor of not adding fancy rules for nothing, not touching the nets while goal keeping is one of the most stupid rules i had to play with,reffing could never be done properly.

Benji971 wrote:

how are you supposed to face all those jumping spd players when they come to you as a goalie ? it s gonna be even easier to make a player who is in goal make a tap out for touching the goal just by hopping around.

This is going to be one of the biggest point to address if we move to "no touching the goal ever." There will have to be similar "no touching the goalie ever" rules, or maybe a crease instituted.

In the open court if someone checks you - legally, with a shoulder - you can ride out of it to stay up.
On the boards if someone checks you, you can lean on the boards.
In goal if someone checks you, you can't do either. You can hop around a little bit... until they force you to hop into the goal, which is !!cheating!!.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

And "hopping" shouldnt be a required skill to play polo imo, it makes the game ugly to watch when all you see is people hoppin on each other like horny rabbits.

People will always complain bout hacking the goalie and leaning on goal , the fact is its part of the games mechanics ,like people hoppin on spd. I hate it ,should i try to get clipless shoes out of polo? Before this spd trend people were more focusing about making the game fluid and not gettin trap into corners, now they are less afraid to make contact because they rely more on their hopping abilities.
Now i will just get me a pair of those and adapt. And y all should do the same about the game mechanics that are already common to the sport.

People will always complain , in street fighter it was grabbing, modern warfare and the M16 with stoping power,starcraft with zergling rush...i dont know ,get over it !

You don't think watching a goalie grab the top bar and use his/her forearm to lean on the goal at a 45 degree angle is ugly? What if the goalie blocks two shots that would tie and/or win the game while leaning and moving the net? Then is it ugly? Or is it part of the "games mechanics" that we should just accept?

Leaning/grabbing while under attack displays a lack of skill to me.

Staying on your bike has been a part of this sport since its beginnings. I don't see why we should give more leniency to the player that gets in front of the net. Learn to tripod better. Learn to shift your weight when an opponent fucks with your mallet. Learn to roll forward and back. Learn to hop. But stay on your bike without a goal.

Could you elaborate on your comparison of clipless players to players who lean on the goal? Are you simply saying you have a complaint about clipless play that will never go away and similarly people have a complaint about leaning that will never cease to exist? Because that's silly.

Quote:

I don't see why we should give more leniency to the player that gets in front of the net.

Frankly I don't see why we shouldn't. Every sport I can think of grants special rules and exemptions to the goalie.

I guess most goalie sports have one specific player playing in goal, so that's a distinction. But giving the goalie special leniency isn't a strange thing... that's the norm.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

I don't want bike polo to simply follow in the way of other sports. As it has similarities with several, it has striking contrasts too.

Regardless, if there was a permanent goalie--and holy shit if that's anybody's suggestion, that's outrageous--there's no reason to protect them by allowing them to tripod on the goal.The rules and exemptions you're referring to don't compare.

Correct if I'm wrong, but you're suggesting that we allow the player in goalie to lean/grab the net. This would keep them in the play when there's action in front of the net. He or she would otherwise be dabbing and be removed from the play. How do other sports rules and reg--you know what? Nevermind. Bike polo isn't another sport and just because other sports have these rules/ideas applied doesn't mean they're good. It means they're in place.

I suppose to some it seems silly that I care so much about this, but I'm not about to be OK with shots on goal getting blocked by somebody who can't stay on their bike.

Yeah grabbing is ugly, but ive never witnessed that kinf of extended grabing-goaling technics, because either the goals ive played on are topless or low top bars, or simply because the players have better skills . The way i see it this is all a big fuss for nuthing.

Also, doing the kind of stuff u talking bout is only possible with really really heavy or ground fixed goals right?

I compare with my opinion on spd because its all minor stuff, everybody likes spd, few people make the 45 degreez lean stuff ,so why try to change the already on going games mechanics for minor stuff ? Why add more complex rules where there is o need? WHY ?

Why? Because I saw a team lose a game that should have gone to overtime when the goalie had his entire forearm and hand on the goal. He blocked TWO shots that would have been in while he leaned. It all happened in the final seconds of the game. This was at a regional qualifier.

If that doesn't answer your question as to why we shouldn't allow this leaning, then nothing will and we're at odds.

I still don't understand your SPD comparison and generalization of "minor stuff." Changing your bike setup to clipless has no comparison to implementing and applying rules to improve the level of play by encouraging the sport's players to get better.

And I don't think a goalie needs to be leaning at 45 degrees to help stay up. It can be a slight grab that keeps them in a play in which they don't belong because they lack the skill. That's what I dislike the most. Why should my shot on goal be blocked with a mallet wielded by somebody putting a hand on the net? That wouldn't bother you if a game winner you ripped in the last few seconds got stopped by somebody who can't stay on their bike without a mallet AND a goal?

I still cannot understand how a guy leaning/ grabbing with no further control on his bike can be a threat as a goalie. Do u have a video, or could you make one ? I would really like to discuss that kind of stuff over visual material, because as i said i ve still never witnessed that kind of playing.And i ve played 1 to 2 tournament every month for the past 10 months.

The only time i m grabbing the goal is when i m replacing them or when there is no play in my zone and i want to stretch my back. If i see a play coming i get ready by putting my hand on the handlebar. I cannot see how it is an advantage to not control my front wheel while goal keeping.

Also , if the goalie was being recklessy mallet hacked, bunny hopped or any kind of physical contact that made him grab with his forearm ( like he d do if he was body checked against the fence) and still managed to block two shots without having control of his handlebars, hey thats pretty good skills. I d even say that the attacking team should have make a different approach but,as is saif ,its hard to talknabout somethhing this complex without seeing it.

I m all for increasing the level of play, but i dont think complicating the rules will help. I rather think that good play will overwhelm this kind of desperate technics, same goes for people that complain about 3 goalie turtle, its not that hard to break , and i m not talking about heavy crashes :)

I also have a bad story about reffing the lean on topbars at one tournament , at some point one of my team mate leaned with his tight on the really small goals, and the ref asked him to tap out . Meanwhile my other team mate was dabbing , and i was out on defence, attacker had an open goal and scored the fifth,boom ,we out of the tourney. There was no really hard grabing or stuff like your talking about but it shows how random the reffing of this can be.

There's a video. Go look in the ESPI thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEbQP7-1PuU

Jump to 1:30 and watch through 1:40. This is what started the whole conversation. It's no slight against Kremin or his skills; that's obvious and it's been said. His left hand ends up on the top bar and he sticks the ball away from the goal line.

This is not the incident I referred to previously, and that game--as far as I know--is not on film (Where's the Slip n Slide vs. Mitten Polo at ESPI 7).

From that video i dont see outrageous cheating, the top bar is in the way, goalie have to find a quick way to get a lucky bounce off the goals , then he use it to regain balance, like someone could have done off a fence.
I cant see it well but the initial shot did get blocked somehow right ?

Two things. You don't see "outrageous cheating." Is that to say you do see cheating.

How is the top bar "in the way"? It's an inanimate object that players move into/on/toward.

This whole fence vs. goal thing is ridiculous. When you're pinned against the board and reaching to grab it, your opponent can take you out of the play even if you're on your bike. You can still hit the ball, yes, but you're not stopping a goal when you're on the boards. And scoring goals is how you win.

Yeah, Vaughn's rip hit Kremin's wheel and landed with some spin. That's why Kremin was trying to tap it away from the net after it landed, but it was a tricky ball to handle.

No man, i dont see cheating is what i mean.
The inanimate bar is in the way imo because its at the same height or above his handle bar, for this particular move to get the ball out , the more natural way And easy way would be to lean on it.
I get your point on the fence vs bar stuff, what i say is there is a topbar its like a fence, if youndont want it remove it ,bungee cord yahoo we good. Adding new rules is the last thing that should come.

Damn im drunk in italia discussin about rules , fuckin bike polo

No, No and NO! Don't lean on the fucking goal and don't put your hand on it to play the ball, hold yourself up or ANYTHING!!!! Why don't we just use a kickstand then so we don't have to hold ourselves up? This thread has gone to shit and is meaningless. Don't grab or lean on the net and that's that! Why is that so hard for some of you to understand? Grab or lean on the goal= being a dick.. First rule of bike polo!

Fuck off

What is penalty when a goalie dabbed blocks a shot on goal?

Is this an automatic goal? Does the ref or goal judge have discretion on the penalty? If so, what are guidelines on the discretion?

Are goal judges empowered to enforce penalties? What should a goal judge do when theybelieve a goalie has dabbed the net?

I believe goal judges should have a signal (like crossed arms) when goalie is dabbed, and the main ref must make call on penalty. That means the main ref has to see the crossed arms, and see the shot on goal, and make the call. It could be done. Maybe not every game will there be competent ref & judges, but in the final gemes that really matter.

8.4 If a "dabbed" player stops a shot from going into the net, at the ref's discretion, it may be ruled a goal. Example: a defending player in front of the net loses their balance and dabs. The defending player remains in front of the net - intentionally or unintentionally - and blocks an incoming shot. If there is no doubt in the referee's mind that the shot would have resulted in a goal, the referee can declare a goal. If it is also determined that the defending player intentionally blocked the net when out of play they will be awarded a two-minute penalty.

12.2. Infractions that can result in a warning / tap-out:
...
12.2.2. leaning on goal

The rule could be lawyered to death. 'Can result in a warning / tap-out' is wide open to interpretation.. Rules can be helpful, but sure are painful to wordsmith.

Goalie uses net to balance during a play = dab. Shot blocked by dabbed goalie = goal. Main ref needs help from goal judge to call this stuff.

The guidelines on the boards: using horizontal surface, grabbing fence as opposed to pushing off...those are a different animal than using the goal in front of an offensive play.

Im sure this has been addressed at some point and it`s certainly a little off topic from this thread. But anytime I see these issues being debated regarding rules and their implementation I can`t help but think that the entire reffing system is still flawed (to some degree).

Player refs are simply not adequate if the sport is looking to legitimize a solid form of officiating. I realize at this point player refs are essentially unavoidable, and the best option. However in the future I think that completely impartial third party refs who are trained in the rules should be used to officiate larger events.

Using refs of this sort would mitigate leniency toward certain rules, as well as any level of subconscious and or conscious bias toward an individual player or team.

* also, goal judges could be used in a similar fashion as linesmen in soccer (and I think hockey). Goal judges could have the ability to make a call in scenarios where the ref may have missed something (but the main ref has the ability to overrule) while their main focus is whether a goal is a goal

I still think that >90% of people can get on board with allowing incidental contact, but strictly enforcing a (yet to be explicitly laid out) rule against grabbing and obvious leaning.

I like the idea of letting both refs and goal judges call a delayed advantage for grabbing or leaning.

Maybe make an extra effort to communicate to refs and goal judges that this needs to be called. If people are willing to step up and make the call then we're totally capable of enforcing this. I know we've come up short in the past, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

I think the argument that we either put up with people hanging off the goals, or we resort to drastic rule changes, new equipment (not that there's anything wrong with that) or wholesale violence on goalies is a false dichotomy. There's a very achievable middle ground.

trichotomy***

Pretty level headed response here, and I guess I'm done being pissed off about this, but if there are goalies in tournaments that are hardcore leaning with no repercussions, I'm seriously going to start crashing them out super hard.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

I do see where you're coming from and am glad you brought it up. It's a significant challenge that should be addressed in the next rule set and it's a situation where we should start expecting more from our refs and goal judges.

I think those who have stepped up to ref have done an excellent job with the support they were given, but we can and should always improve.

BoozeKruse wrote:

if there are goalies in tournaments that are hardcore leaning with no repercussions, I'm seriously going to start crashing them out super hard.

Technically not legal, but I doubt any refs would call you on it. Have fun!

Kinda let down bud. You seem to have come over to my side^^ and I liked your fresh look at this. Don't give up Kruse!!

"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'
http://www.scarylarrykbp.org/
http://www.fixcraft.net/
http://321polo.net/

Your focus on improved reffing is wise. I'd love to play in one of your tourneys.

Rule mongering and threats of violent play are weak solutions.

Rule Mongering? What the fuck does that even mean?

Calling for a rule to fix cheating is rule mongering?

A focus on improved reffing is futile. They're drunk, they're tired, and they really don't care that much. I'm simply calling for a rule that's easy to enforce because it's very black and white. You call that "mongering"? You hurt my brain.

I'm crashing you out, too!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Rule mongering is starting debates about rules to support your vision of reality. It's a fantasy. Rule books and reality are two different things.

I was inspired in the Phoenix ref's meeting when the N.O.D. said something like "please be sober. These people came all this way for good polo. Don't you think they deserve a sober ref?"

If you think improved reffing is futile, than you should stick with pickup. If you want this sport to be more professionally recognized, you had better focus on getting good strong refs on the courts. Professional sports have hard strong refs who take no shit from players.

Crash me out? Take a number buddy.

I've never agreed with anything you've written on this site, ever.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Material solution is the best when it's easy to make and make the ref job lighter.

I agree with all the other stuff, make a commucation between GJ and main ref possible, use (way) more delayed penallty are good solutions. But i really think we have to make ref job as light as possible, and if material can avoid a lot of messy situation, we should be able to change court set up for that.
When we began polo in europe, in tourney courts was 20 cm board high, now we have to create whole walls to secure check, this is a major change who impact a lot on budget, but we made it. Make solide net without top bar, or make them a lil bit lower isn't a big issue in my minde. And for community who already have nice fuckin' "top bared" net but too high, as Toronto and Seattle, Or some other with hockey nets, i would say i wouldn't create and enforce a whole ref' system for that.
I don't see Kemin move in ESPI as a huge advantage, with not top bared nets or kind of lower one, he could have reach to the ball without having to put is hand on.
These kind of nets implicate a way of play, naturally. Sometime because players find an advantage in it, sometimes because they have to ( size of the nets implicate more contacts with them). For me that's all a material issue.

Remember when these were the "standard rules"

-Two teams of three players.
-Any type of bicycle is allowed. Handlebars MUST be plugged. Also see my How To: Build a polo bike.
-Mallets must resemble a croquet mallet with a wide side and a round end. Modified ski poles and plastic pipe are the most common materials. The handle end of the mallet MUST be plugged. Also see my How To: Build a polo mallet.
-The ball will be a street hockey ball. Also see my review of Franklin Street Hockey balls.
-Goals will be a pair of orange cones spaced one bike length apart.
-If a goal cone is disrupted it is the responsibility of the player who disrupted it to fix it.
-Start of a game: Each team will be stopped behind its own goal line and the ball will be positioned at center court. Play will begin with a “3 2 1 GO!” from the sideline.
-Players may not play the ball with their feet at any time.
-Scoring a goal must be made from what started as a hit. A hit is made from the end of a player’s mallet. A “shuffle” does not count as a goal; if the ball is shuffled through the goal, play continues uninterrupted.
-After a goal is scored, the team who scored returns to their half of the court. The team who was scored on takes possession of the ball.
-Call out the score after each goal.
-Passing “backward” through the goal (from behind the goal line to in front of it, through the goal, a.k.a. “goal offsides”): When the ball is passed through the goal in this way, a goal CANNOT be scored by the first player to play the ball. Any subsequent player to play the ball may score. If a ball is shot from in front of the goal line and does not go through the goal but bounces off the back wall and comes out through the goal, the ball is in play and can be scored. A ball that crosses a goal line backwards must be “hit” before it can score.
-Players must not touch the ground, or “foot-down”. Each time a player goes foot-down, that player is out of play and may not play the ball until they ride to the side line at center court and ring the bell. Then they may return to play. Only one side of the court has a bell, not both.
-Contact rules: “Like” contact is allowed. Player to player (body to body), except grabbing or pushing with hands. Mallet to mallet (generally, hitting another player’s mallet is poor etiquette if that player is not attempting to play the ball or in front of the goal, playing goalie). Bike to bike.
-Everything else is NOT allowed: Mallet to player, player to bike, mallet to bike, etc.
-Throwing of mallets is not allowed at any time, in any situation.
-Some games are timed and end after 10 minutes. Some games are not timed.
-Most games are played to 5 points. Some games are played to 3 points.
-Trash talking is allowed.

"ok Mr. Schwinn fucking Armstrong!"
www.burrobags.com

remember when there was no bicycle polo?
remember when cars didn't exist?
remember when there was no internet?

you flood threads with your "sentimental/nostalgic" but still irrelevant moments and end up just irritating the people participating and reading the thread.
these people are trying to move forward with polo and polo's rules.

if you want to stay so attached to the precious past,
then have fun playing on your 48x15 fixed brakeless bike, in the middle of a parking lot with no boards, with some pvc mallets. and stop posting on their thread.

pass

I'M GOING TO CRASH EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck off

I think that is stupid. I am going to crash you.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Or slowly step on their wheel until it's a potato chip... >:V

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Build stronger wheels! Bruce threw his mallet in mine at full speed on a breakaway and it was fiiiine.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Secondary Alex wrote:

I think that is stupid. I am going to crash you.

Not stupid, just simple. If you grab the goal and are stopping my shots, I AM GOING TO CHECK THE FUCK OUT OF YOU. Nick's statement still has not been answered in a professional manner. Just don't grab the goals or lean on them. Even if it was not in the rules, it's common sense. If you don't want me to be a dick, then don't play poorly knowing that you're way better than that! ...case closed...

Fuck off

If you check me like that, im gonna lean on nets.

Then don't lean on them, its as simple as that! :)

Fuck off

How will you know when he's leaning on them haha

Who would be open to allowing goalies to sit on top of the net with mallets in each hand?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

No Goal Grabbing or leaning. Wheels may touch the posts. Fuck your cheater mallets , own up to your cheating ways whatever they are and lets play some hi octane , this level polo that requires no reffing coz there are no dicks playing.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

This thread has jumped the shark.

FUCK BIKE POLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

See you all in Milwaukee ;)

Fuck off

No grabbing the goal.
No body contact with the goal.
No body to body contact allowed in the crease.

Maybe allow incidental body contact with the goal, only if it's its quick.

Enough of this crashing into the goalie bullshit. Making players dab so you can gently rub the ball in is boring as shit.

A player is Not suppose to put body on the goalie, but the goalie is NOT suppose to grab the goal and play the ball either. See where these two combine? No call for grabbing the goal means no calling for body. Is that what this sport is going to come to? Then the whole game becomes a shit show and we start fighting other teams just like hockey.

WHO'S READY TO FIGHT?

Fuck off

count it.................but only coz i'm right

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

hahaha.. oh Machine, we all love you man!

Fuck off

You've must not have been to the midwest....
Kamikaze crashes into the net to take out opponents with tight defense, it's bullshit. And I saw plenty of it at our championships.

The body game isn't very fun to watch compared to finesse.

I see real differences between "body game" wich can be awesome, and messing with goalie to score.

As we play now, with net short in lenght,strong turtles defense and better balance ability all around(especially SPD player who can put mess around nets for long time without falling), messing with goalie tacticals become essential.

Are you talking only about frontal crash, bike on bike on the Goal keeper, or about all the strategies who implicate a player who don't play the ball but disturb the goalie gameplay?

Typical strategy seems to be, make the goalie dab in any means possible. Bike to bike, body to body, etc...

I have no problem with hooking the goalies mallet, that makes hopping an important skill. Body to body could still be used on the 2nd goal tender in a turtle situation. But if you make it harder for the goalie to stay up, by allowing body to body, you end up inviting contact with the net and bike on bike contact.

If you are having a hard time against a turtle d then you need to change up your strategy. Drawn the second goal tender out and then make a solid shot into the back of the net. While crashing the net is a successful move, it wouldn't be needed if goalies weren't leaning on the net. Well I guess it's still a good choice for players that can't shoot the ball...

I'm not serious about kamikaze crashing goalies. I am serious though that if we are going to give goalies crease protection, which I'm for, there needs to be rules preventing goalie contact with the goal, as you stated above. In other words, x2 to your original comment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

yeah checking a goalie is bullshit. is it not enough to have your mallet hooked, sometimes when the ball is no where near your goal. i'm all for harassing a goalie but checking them while in the goal is a bit far.

looks like someone has started a goalie crease thread!

"rubber side down boys"

sounds good!

"rubber side down boys"

New solution: A shark tank* at half-court that must be jumped before all goals. If people aren't skilled enough to jump the shark tank, this game is going to just start looking stupid and I will be bored.

*Note: No leaning on the shark tank.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Check out 3:30 to 3:45 of this video . http://vimeo.com/30232901

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

there were two glaring dabs where the player didn't tap...the one you just pointed out and in the canucks vs daddy game alex loses his mallet, dabs and then without retrieving his mallet or tapping proceeds to run interference but wrecks himself and finally retrieves his mallet and eventually taps. those are just two examples and both on video during what should be the highest level of play.

in the video though according to a lot of players that shouldn't be a dab...apparently you should be able grab onto anything and stay up with no penalty...

hell while we're at it why not abolish tapping all together, right? because a player with a foot on the ground is at a disadvantage sprintwise so it evens out or if none of us have to dab its the same advantage for everyone or blah blah blah...bike control is an important aspect of this sport people.

[quote=
in the video though according to a lot of players that shouldn't be a dab...apparently you should be able grab onto anything and stay up with no penalty...

[/quote]
It was agreed at the reffs meeting on day one of the worlds and iterated there after that this would be a DAB. If you needed to adjust the net you had to call out to ref or goal judge that you were about to do so. I think it may not have been made clear to the Europeans because Clement did it once too , and I personally consider himself and William to be legit , top class slayers. I called it both times I saw it but both times I was acting as a commentator and not as a ref or goal judge.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

Yep i did it and even listened you make live coms' about it.

Clearly, the top bar is in the way of your mallet, as kremin in ESPI. Who give a fuck. with "standards" euro nets, you can reach the to ball easily. I won't let the ball goes in because my mallet gonna get stuck on the top bar.
When you reffin', the only part of the court you can see well is the fuckin' and boring middle of the court, where nothing really happens. Nets are far, and always full of players. A rule like that is often unconsistently reffed, as in Seattle, and when it's reffed, the time you take, as a goal keeper, to understand what happens, to understand that the ref is talking to you (no number, no name etc...), the penalty become useless. we shouldn't care about this.

my point: your nets are high, had top bar you have to deal with it. This gonna be natural reflex for players to play with them, and as this rule is never really the same in tourney, and when it's in the ruleset not really well enforced, you gonna get trouble. So forgett about it, let the game continue this way with sometimes some tweaks or poor gaming (whole game leaning on net hip)... make rules and rule system about it is for me clearly loose time.

My "foul" is in the game against Beaver boys i think, would like to find it back.

uolmo .Clement. wrote:

Yep i did it and even listened you make live coms' about it.

Clearly, the top bar is in the way of your mallet, as kremin in ESPI. Who give a fuck. with "standards" euro nets, you can reach the to ball easily. I won't let the ball goes in because my mallet gonna get stuck on the top bar.
When you reffin', the only part of the court you can see well is the fuckin' and boring middle of the court, where nothing really happens. Nets are far, and always full of players. A rule like that is often unconsistently reffed, as in Seattle, and when it's reffed, the time you take, as a goal keeper, to understand what happens, to understand that the ref is talking to you (no number, no name etc...), the penalty become useless. we shouldn't care about this.

my point: your nets are high, had top bar you have to deal with it. This gonna be natural reflex for players to play with them, and as this rule is never really the same in tourney, and when it's in the ruleset not really well enforced, you gonna get trouble. So forgett about it, let the game continue this way with sometimes some tweaks or poor gaming (whole game leaning on net hip)... make rules and rule system about it is for me clearly loose time.

My "foul" is in the game against Beaver boys i think, would like to find it back.

Bullshit- I have never in my years grabbed or leaned on a net to play or ball or even hold myself up if I am falling over. If you can't hold yourself up and stop blocks, then get the fuck out of the goal. You shouldn't be in it if you can't handle it. Like I said before, if you hold the net and stop my shots, I am going to check you and you're not going to like it. Soo yeah, there it is!!!

Fuck off

Cool for you.
It was one case, same as the one that kremin did, a ball who didn't pass the line but stays stocked behind a wheel. that's not don't knowing how to block shots without grabing top bar ( wich is maybe harder than usual goal keeping for an avarage player), that's more how you can reach to this ball, by making you mallet goes between the top bar and your bike.
I like check by the way, and as i said before... if nets are high, with top bar, you can check what you want, in most of case people gonna lean on net or even grab them and don't go to tap out.

i wont' be happy until there's instant replay

memphisbikepolo.com

but who throws the red flags? is it the coaches? do all the players have them?? what if a red flag falls out of my pocket by accident while I'm getting checked in the crease?!

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Consistency is what we need, not finger pointing. I just like to give examples where i believe the players were not intentionally at fault but where the rule set had been changed at short notice . I reffed the lower court in Seattle for a whole day at the worlds and made sure to tell the slayers that any foot or hand down on a horizontal surface was a DAB. eg grabbing top boards , hand on top of goal , foot on top of boards.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

just checking, how about this? :-)

  • lazy goalie.jpg

________________________________________
I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones.
- John Cage

totally legit

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

Wondering how people felt about the nets being treated similarly to the wall. Can't lean on it while playing the ball but otherwise contact is fine. Is it important to write the rules this way? No sense in calling a dab on a player who is fixing the net when play has been removed from your zone. one less duty for the Ref or goal judge who might not be able to quickly hop over a four foot board.

Sorry to drag this out of the grave but for the sake of ref calls and spectator assistance it seems reasonable.

____________
The only reason anyone does anything.
For the lulz.

Agreed.

People who hate the occasional lean or touch should go find a time machine to 2005 and organize themselves a track standing competition.

I completely agree.

I often adjust my own goal, as it's quicker to do it than for the goal ref (especially at courts where it's not easy for the goal ref to get on court.

I think it's worth putting in the rules though, otherwise it's not clear, and can lead to bullshit situations.

But then the question is, how do you define, "playing the ball".

What if the ball isn't near the goal, but a player comes in to hook the goalie? Can the player in goal hold onto the goal? Can the attacking player hooking hold onto the goal? I'd say the answer to both is no, but the ball isn't really relevant to that.

If a goalie and a crease was defined, it would make it a lot easier (for example, only when no other player, or ball, is in the crease)

I think maybe saying that you cannot touch the goal while the ball is in your defensive half is okay. No one is going to come hook you when the ball is that far away. If the ball is closer you shouldn't be worrying about adjusting anything. You're officially in the play, in my opinion. What do you think about that?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Nick Kruse wrote:

I think maybe saying that you cannot touch the goal while the ball is in your defensive half is okay.

Cannot touch with hands? Arms? Sometimes I touch the goal with my butt when trying to hop my back wheel in tight, but I cannot grab it. Yet.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Incidental butt touches aren't a big deal to me. It's just that some people are very good at butting up to the goal very closely and using it to hold themselves up. I think goal judges should eventually be able to make this call or signal to the ref to make it. In the above comment I was referring to hands/arms.

I don't think that anyone should be able to lean on the goal and use it as support for an extended period of time regardless of where the ball is, because it encourages the act and when it matters, its hard to tell whether someone is doing it. Quick adjustments or a push off after the ball leaves the defensive zone isn't something to worry about, I think. To me it's mostly about what is effecting the game and the play surrounding the ball.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

I think this makes sense. You're right that no (sane) player is going to hook a goalie's mallet when the ball isn't on that side of the court, there is no strategy to it. But once the ball is on your side you should be thinking about defending your goal, not shifting it around using your hands.

shotgun your bike!