Jump to Navigation

Login / Register

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

2013 Rules Improvement - YOUR input needed

Nick's 2013 Rules Update Proposal

Change Log

Okay, so I've been working a bit this weekend on updating the rule set to create a document that I envisioned for the 2013 season. This is not official at all, but I want to at least end up with a rule set that I am proud of and confident in, and leave it for people to build off of for the years to come.

I worked off of the version 2 draft of the NAH rules and made changes. I tried not to alter the game the way that it is currently played, and only add things that were discussed recently with my involvement in the "rules committee".

If you are interested, please read through the document and the change log and let me know any concerns or comments you might have on the draft I have created. I want to hear from everyone who might see a hole or something that needs further clarification. I want to end up with something that is air tight. Let me know what you think.

Also, please ignore the formatting for now. Google docs does some weirdo things when importing word documents, I guess. Or maybe I just don't know how to do it properly.

My thoughts... (Please take into consideration that Im doing this on my phone so I could have fucked up)
2.2.7.1 wording, one sentence
2.3.3 numbering (2.3.3.1)
2.6.2 wording, I wouldn't use grabbed, I would say something like "clothing lose enough to get caught in the opposing players equipment"
3.2.5.1 I think addng something about hitting the broad side of the offensive players mallet, not just the broad side of a mallet. What you have works, its just a little dicey.
3.3.4 simplify, "play restarts when the ball or an offensive player crosses half"
4.2.2 the last part of the second sentence could use a little rewording.
5.5.2 add bike to go with mallet. Ramons did it jokingly at the Midwest bench but it could really happen. You might have to add a sub clause about getting to your bike when someone's bike is on it.
7.1.1 could use definition more than "slashing is when someone slashes"
7.2.2 wording, couldn't you simply say "neck and head" instead of "body above the level of the shoulders."

321polo.net

I know its not the gameplay rules BUT I think its really important that the NAH qualifying structure be included it the ruleset. It is nonsensical to ask someone to refer to a hard to find blog post[1]. Every rule or guideline NAH wants us to follow should be easy to find and in one place.

[1]http://www.nahardcourt.com/?p=98

I agree. And I think that if you add this you should add something about how the four teams who will tie for ninth in Midwest and Cascadia should play out to see who gets the ninth qualifying spot. I like consistency.

321polo.net

I'd be more for a separate document but also ensuring both documents are listed on rules page on the NAH site. These are rules to play the game.

It would still be easy for people to find if it were listed there right next to this document.

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

In terms of rules dictating game play, it's clear too much was removed. But I should clarify one goal that was behind the last draft, and it kind of echoes Nick's last comment here: We wanted to distinguish between rules and procedures. The rules are for players to peruse and use. The procedures are for the people overseeing the game - organizers, refs, scorekeepers, announcers, etc.

Which is to say, a player needn't be overly concerned with the refs activities prior to releasing their team to pursue the ball. Fundamentally, the players need to know is that the ref is in charge (herein lies the real problem). The ref, though, needs to know wheels to the wall, whistle starts the game, etc.

Personally, I don't see any reason both rules and procedures can't be in the same document under different sections. Anyway, hopefully this helps provide some clarity as to why the latest draft was pared down to such a degree.

ben schicago wrote:

Fundamentally, the players need to know is that the ref is in charge (herein lies the real problem).

This, This, This. All day. Everyday.

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

Good God! I've been sayin' it. I've been sayin' it for ten damn years. Ain't I been sayin' it, Miguel? Yeah, I've been sayin' it.

Yes, I think we need to have refs who have been through some sort of training or testing or whatever so that the calls are the same across the board. There were some interpretation issues this weekend at SEQ.

COUNT EVERYTHING!!!!!!! SHAFTS, SHUFFLES, SHOTS, WRISTERS, RAD BALLS, OR WHATEVER. Polo is the only sport that dictates the manner in which a goal is counted. GET RID OF THE GOAL JUDGE calling anything other than the ball crossing the goal plane.

SKID ROW // ACT LIKE YOU
http://www.skidphoto.com

Sure, worthy argument but this is for finalizing a rule set for the 2013 season already partially underway. We aren't deciding new ways to play the game in this thread -- rather you're helping me find holes in the language and making sure that this rule set describes the game the way it is currently conceptualized and played.

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

Nick Kruse wrote:

Sure, worthy argument but this is for finalizing a rule set for the 2013 season already partially underway. We aren't deciding new ways to play the game in this thread -- rather you're helping me find holes in the language and making sure that this rule set describes the game the way it is currently conceptualized and played.

well, change the language that says a scoop shot is not a shot. it's a simple fix. shuffles and rad balls not so much.

Lets keep this thread about ironing out any issues with the current ruleset.

Derailing it with talk of new controversial rules isn't constructive at this point (as much as I might agree with you).

Then the thread should have been titled "finalization" not "Improvement"

SKID ROW // ACT LIKE YOU
http://www.skidphoto.com

Okay, thanks for your help.

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

edit: never mind, i reread the part about not altering the game as it's played from 2013. point taken.

Not to be a dick, but I was under the impression the 2013 rules were finalized--according to the NAH site, anyway. Are the rules adjustable in mid-season?

If not, then maybe we should concentrate on 2014, in which case wrist-shots might be a good conversation to continue. Plenty of clubs have tried it, to no adverse effect that I'm aware of.

teflonsean wrote:

COUNT EVERYTHING!!!!!!! SHAFTS, SHUFFLES, SHOTS, WRISTERS, RAD BALLS, OR WHATEVER. Polo is the only sport that dictates the manner in which a goal is counted. GET RID OF THE GOAL JUDGE calling anything other than the ball crossing the goal plane.

yo, dog. you ever hear of that soccer game that those snobby euros call football?

nope I only watch NASCAR and WWE

SKID ROW // ACT LIKE YOU
http://www.skidphoto.com

i love you.

What the heck is a rad ball?

shotgun your bike!

A wheel shot.

Rad is German for Wheel, and is the home of Radball:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcWfics6ntQ

2.3

No mention of what bicycles are allowed (two wheels, upright seated position?)

3.1.7

What if there are 3 lefties, and 3 righties. Needs a process to resolve that.

3.1.9

Whose left and right, the players, or the opponents.

3.2.7

Can you include that the goal line, not the goal, is relevant, so if the goal is shifted, the line needs to be crossed, for a goal, regardless of where the goal is.

6.3.1

I think the contact initiated bit isn't entirely clear. How do you define initiated? For example an offensive t-bone, where a defender rolls into the path of a player, who then rides into the side of them. Was it initiated by the defensive player blocking his path (bearing in mind we have no right of way). Or by the player riding into them.

For me this is the best ruleset I've seen.

Great work Nick. I don't care if this becomes official or not, I'll be using this in all tournaments I organise.

Thanks for your help. I will address all these points in this thread when I get a minute!

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

John H wrote:

2.3

3.1.7

What if there are 3 lefties, and 3 righties. Needs a process to resolve that.

I see 2 possibilities to resolve that (see picture):

A) if one righty and one lefty do the joust it shall be forbidden to cross the center line before the ball contact is made (maybe even before the second ball contact). This rule would automatically result in an approach from the side indicated by the arrows.

or

B) The jousters are starting from the center line and approach the ball parallel with their mallets facing inwards. No mallet contact shall be allowed prior to the first ball contact.

Both options could work well so some testing is required to find out what's better.

  • LR.png

I see what you are saying, but those are both radical changes to the way the game works. I don't think that is what Nick Kruse is trying to achieve here.

This is very much a corner case. 3 lefties and 3 righties is unusual enough. Then this is only an issue if the teams can't agree. I've never seen this situation happen.

So I think rather than changing how the game works, I'd suggest a simply coin toss, or something similar, might be enough (if the players on court can't agree).

Well, of course it's a very special case 3l vs. 3r. I agree, that it is nicer if the teams can agree on something. ;)

edit: I was just thinking out loud how a (save) joust in that case could possibly look...

John H wrote:

6.3.1

I think the contact initiated bit isn't entirely clear. How do you define initiated? For example an offensive t-bone, where a defender rolls into the path of a player, who then rides into the side of them. Was it initiated by the defensive player blocking his path (bearing in mind we have no right of way). Or by the player riding into them.

Danny Majard and I were wondering about this as well during Vienna RADhaus Masters last weekend.
Any more information on this, John?

I'm pleased that no mention of "goalie" is made. It seems a lot of discussion occurs around what you can do to a goalie, but the term "goalie" is never defined. If you do add specific language in, may I suggest that you use phrasing with "goalkeeping" as it is an action, and does not define player roles in a game.

More input later.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

The only way to truly define goalkeeping or a goalkeeper is to define a crease. I'm not against doing so but I will not put in any rule that mentions such a thing or person without a longer discussion and everything. I'd say that's a good 2014 issue. Good job with recognizing that!

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

RE: Ref

1.3.4. The referee signals all dabs according to §§3.2, 6, 7, and 8.
1.3.5. The referee signals all penalties according to §§5, 6, 7, and 8.

I think these are areas where goal judges could have their role expanded. Specifically, in being able to call dabs and penalties nea goals (where lots of action takes place). Being that in 1.1 you'd already establish that the Ref has the final call on all matters of the court, they could still overrule or make a final ruling on a penalty observed by a goal judge. Just a thought.

RE: Movement of goals

2.2.6 addresses if a goal is moved, that the goal line will still dictate a good goal, but sometimes when the goal is moved, it's the physical goal itself that obstructs the goal line. I see three sub points that should be added.

2.2.6.1 - Should a goal be moved and obstruct the goal line, and this prevents the ball from crossing the goal judge will determine if a goal will be rewarded.

I think our goal judges are capable of doing this, and it should be spelled out.

2.2.6.2 - A goal that is moved out of place should be returned to it's original place at the first safe conveniance of the defending team.

It has to be someone's responsibility, and putting that responsibility on the defending team to return their goal to it's place makes sense when the rules explicitly protect them by still only observing the goal line, and not the goal itself.

2.2.6.3 - Only a player, referee, or goal judge may move the goal back into location.

Maybe this could be worked in above, but non-players should never be entering the court, and if a goal needs to be fixed, and the team is not on their defensive end, we should leave that to goal judges.

RE: Bicycles.

Just noting that your number formatting got messed up.

RE: Joust

3.1.7 makes the first use of the term "jousting," but does not define it. Consider rewording the earlier statement something like:

3.1.5 Once the whistle is blown, time begins and players "joust" for advantage; race for possession of the ball.

There needs to be something about lefty/righty jousting and how to amicably determine how to start a match without showing bias.

3.1.9.1 ???

More later.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

2.2.6.2

I don't like making it the defending teams responsibility to move the goal back.

In theory a team could constantly move the goal, on the basis at some point a defender will move it back at the wrong time.

Also what if a defender dabs while doing it? That creates an unfair situation, where they either have to dab, or we suddenly allow a situation where you can dab, and play on. With the big hockey goals it's really hard to do it from your bike.

It think it's better not to get the players involved, it keeps it simpler, and we have rules in place to deal with the goal being out of place.

2.2.6.3

Usually, yes, I agree it should always be the goal ref. But on some courts, it's not possible for the goal ref to do it. As such there should be another possibility. I do agree with the spirit of the rule, that we don't want non authorised random people on court. And I don't think the ref or the scorekeeper should be doing it, as they have jobs to concentrate on.

I'd suggest that it's unrealistic to have 2 "goal-adjusters" for each game. But maybe the goal ref or ref can have the authority to allow someone else on court to fix it?

My reasoning for making it the responsibility of the defense is that is for two reasons:

1) If we leave it to a matter of who moved it, then neither party will accept it.

2) It's in the defense's best interest to move it. While the goal may get moved, it's still the goal line that matters, so even an offense attempting to move the goal isn't gaining advantage. I think that balances it out and makes it clear who is responsible.

Just thinking out loud.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm saying it shouldn't be the players concern at all. Having them move goals around could just create shitty situations.

Oh, I definitely agree on this.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Players should be focused on playing. The observant goal ref will be watching the goal line, and at the earliest convenience should return goal to the proper position. Players should not remove themselves from play.

drop elastic/inelastic from the shots part. it's immeasurable with any sort of equipment we have access to and i'll guarantee that most "shots" you think are elastic to the naked eye are actually inelastic... but we count them anyway.

edit: that is, if we're being nit picky. seems like there's probably better language that could be used.

Yeah but if you're getting technical, no collision has ever been perfectly elastic. All we're doing is giving the reader an idea to google if they don't already understand the concept. And when they google that distinction, they find things like this:

and this:

I'm open to changing the wording though. I am just hesitant to only define a shot by describing what it is not. What do you think about:

RULES wrote:

A shot is defined as contact between the circular end of the mallet head or shaft of the mallet and the ball which is seemingly instantaneous, fleeting -- like human existence relative to the dawn of the universe.

EH? Help with wording.

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

I worry about someone trying to nitpick the "elastic collision" wording when I gently nudge in a breakaway goal with my capped mallet end, and they claim it was a "push" (inelastic) not a "tap" (elastic).

Is there some wording we can use to avoid that debate?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

that's exactly what i was thinking of.

nick: if someone has to google your rules to get an idea of what you're talking about... you're doin it wrong--the first few google results for both come up with pages that don't explain it in plain english very well. with that said, i'm thinking about what wording could be better.

Am I crazy in that I think that even a "push" with the round end should count? I mean, now we're talking about a shuffle with the round end.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Urban Editor wrote:

Am I crazy in that I think that even a "push" with the round end should count? I mean, now we're talking about a shuffle with the round end.

that sounds like wristshot sympathy right there.

I think "pushes" with the open end of a mallet deserve some special consideration, and language to make sure scoop shots are properly regulated.

A push with the capped end of the mallet should not be illegal, in my opinion. I cannot think of a situation where a capped-end push would create an unfair advantage or "broken strategy", and it allows too much room for arguing whether a particular capped-end shot was a "push" or a "tap".

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

let's say I make a 'capped' mallet with a 1" deep indent in it (but no hole!) and can balljoint with it. Could I balljoint into the goal? What if I make a capped mallet with a 30 degree angle on the capped side. Could I throw the ball into the goal by putting my mallet in contact with the stationary ball, pausing, then whipping the mallet head up?

Section 2.71.828 - Equipment

A capped end shall be defined by the surface entirely within the plane perpendicular to the axis of the mallet head. No part of the mallet head may extend beyond the plane of the cap on the side opposite the shaft mounting location. A cap shall be flat upon manufacture. Slight concavity as a result of deformation from normal wear on the mallet is allowed. Any opening in the cap must be less than 1" in diameter. Caps with holes greater than 1" in diameter will be considered uncapped for the purposes of ball handling and shooting.

Coming up with equipment definitions and limitations are easy to make and easy to enforce. Limiting which kind of round-end shots count and which don't is more difficult and less necessary.

Edit: My definition above would make angled "pointy" heads illegal, at least in terms of having the pointy end capped (because it wouldn't be perpendicular to the axis). I'm fine with that. I don't know if people still use those.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Secondary Alex wrote:

Coming up with equipment definitions and limitations are easy to make and easy to enforce. Limiting which kind of round-end shots count and which don't is more difficult and less necessary.

You say that, but I've never seen anyone measure the openings in a mallet head at a tournament nor have I seen a ref actually have someone remove their water bottle cages even though both are explicitly called out in the ruleset (new NAH ruleset and MenacESPI ruleset).

I agree with your point that equipment definitions should be easier to enforce than obtuse rules regarding what sort of round-end shots can count, but I thought I'd throw in some anecdotal experience regarding the current state of affairs.

That is a good point... right now very little of the equipment being used gets checked for rule compliance. But I think the lack of equipment rule enforcement is such because the infractions being overlooked haven't made a competitive difference. I think if someone were performing scoop miracles using a potentially oversized side cut, then someone would call him on it and that side cut would be measured. In that sense the amount of enforcement is very much self regulating; if someone is getting a perceived competitive advantage from some unconventional equipment, then their equipment will be checked for compliance.

The same will be true of the hypothetical situations Pete mentioned above. If someone starts ball-jointing goals with a "cupped" cap, then people will call bullshit and have the equipment checked.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Northsides 2011 in Toronto involved mandatory bike checks and wristbands showing your bike was checked. Lewis enforced the rules. I saw bottle cages and exposed chain rings removed from bikes as a result of the bike checks. I imagine there were other things Lewis made people fix those were just the two I saw.

Okay, round two: what if I use centrifugal force to keep the ball trapped while pushing the ball in an arc with the capped end? The ball stays on the capped end for ~1s and moves 1m.

I do not think you or anyone else can perform that maneuver with enough consistency or efficacy to qualify it as a "broken strategy" and warrant a rule.

With an open end, yes it is an issue and one that should be addressed by the "Scoop shot" exclusion. With a capped end it is not a reasonable concern.

Edit: I read your situation as the ball being in the air, as a wrist shot. If the ball is on the ground and is simply being herded by the mallet head, then I do not see a problem with that as a method of ball control which could result in a shot on goal.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

To me this is just an example of ticky tacky hypothetical stuff that would require a ridiculously intricate ruleset to define differences that, from the outside, appear absurd in their similarities.

Rulesets of all sports I've read so far are concise and lay the game out in a way that allows for concrete interpretation. Differentiating between a push with an open mallet or closed mallet or any kind of mallet in between is just going too far.

Shots are a striking motion. Its simple, precise, and elegant. Done.

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

Truth. Also, the ref is the final call on things, and some things can be left to their discretion. The ref probably doesn't need a super scientific definition.

They just need eyes, and good judgement on something like this.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

My issue with this exception to "pushing with the capped end" noise is that the only person who ever knows which end you shot with is the person who took the shot.

You really expect the ref to be able to tell which end you shot with?

And my point is that unless you are doing weird snake-chamer, wrap around, or obviously lifted scoop shots... why the hell does it matter?

If you cannot tell from the trajectory of the ball whether it was a capped or open end of the mallet, then it was not an illegal shot.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

My issue with this exception to "pushing with the capped end" noise is that the only person who ever knows which end you shot with is the person who took the shot.

You really expect the ref to be able to tell which end you shot with?

If it looks like a strike count it. If it looks like it was a motion manipulated with the wrist, a good ref will likely call it a wrist shot. Capped end or not.

I think we are in agreement. If it's not some lifted scooping wrist shot, it counts.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Sorry for the mess of reposts. I'm typing from my phone.

To an extent, yes. But you can also wrist shot along the ground. Which is still illegal. A long push with the capped end is going to look pretty damn similar to a grounded wrist shot.

If it looks like a strike count it. If it looks like it was a motion manipulated with the wrist, a good ref will likely call it a wrist shot. Capped end or not.

1. Shooting
1. Shooting is defined as striking the ball with the circular end of a mallet head or the shaft of the mallet.
1. An inelastic collision between the circular end of a mallet head and the ball, in which they “stick” together for a period of time, is not a shot.

??

Maybe it should be 'striking or tapping' to clear up more ambiguity? In general I feel like almost all players intuitively understand what constitutes a shot in this ruleset though.

Yeah, but a good ruleset should be designed so someone who has never seen the sport can pick it up and play it.

Are there other sports we can look at, where "pushing" is illegal? Cue sports?

You're not allowed to "push" a ball in golf.

Quote:

14-1. Ball To Be Fairly Struck At
The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.
http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-14/

Ohh thank you for this!

I will use the word strike. Something along the lines of:

A shot is when a player strikes the ball with the round end of the mallet head or shaft of the mallet. If a player 'pushes' the ball rather than strikes it, the motion is deemed a shuffle.

Or something. That's just a quick mock up. Thanks everyone!

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

Why are round-end pushes not legal?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Good question but its my understanding that they are not. Do you agree that that is the common understanding in the competitive game?

Edit: Oh and also because doing that with an open mallet end is pretty much the same thing as a scoop and differentiating between a push with the circular end of a mallet head that is capped and one that is uncapped is not something I think any ruleset should aim to do. Especially not without standardizing the mallet. Otherwise, that rule becomes insanely complicated and simultaneously opens the door for goals that are right now only championed by the "anything goes" crowd, I.e. cheap wrap arounds from behind the net, etc..

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

I would hardly call most of the Eastern Seaboard and Menace part of the "anything goes" crowd, quite the contrary.

It's e.g.

wut?!

does "most" refer to the majority of players, the majority of top players or the majority of internet posts?

for either of the former i'd love to see some evidence. for the latter, who gives a shit?

the comparison was between the statement "anything goes" and where scoops are allowed. i.e. just because someone advocates for scoop shots, doesn't mean they're for an environment of anything goes, there are people who want scoops but don't want shaftys to be legal.

scoops have been allowed in most tournaments on the eastern seaboard for the last two years. those tournaments haven't been populated by groups that have an "anything goes" attitude, but scoops were allowed anyway and had no significant effect on play that I ever saw or read about.

just like the hyperbole around "slingshot" goals being allowed during ESPI 5. the whole weekend there were two made and had virtually no impact on play. the same goals nick calls cheap or whatever... where's his evidence?

any more questions?

I was not even aware of any discussion, much less a consensus, on whether a capped-end push would be viewed differently from a capped-end strike.

I agree that scoop shots are a different animal and deserve language dedicated to them specifically. I have always viewed the rule as being (in plain terms):

"Anything off the round end counts, except for scoop shots."

I think it is easier to define a scoop shot and make that an exception, than try to define the subset of round end shots which are legal.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

It's even easier to just make wrist shots legal, then if the ball comes off the round end... Bob's your uncle.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

The resistance against "anything goes" is just people being attached to "first to five." Kill first to five.

You're not allowed to "carry" a ball in squash.
The wording they use is "without prolonged contact on the racket" which is clear and concise, captures the spirit of what they (and we) are trying to prohibit, yet subjective enough to give the ref some discretion.

Preying mantis on the court and I can't be beat...

John H wrote:

Yeah, but a good ruleset should be designed so someone who has never seen the sport can pick it up and play it.

I disagree, anyone who has never seen the sport can play and should play with a drastically pared down ruleset.
My (sort of hypothetical) point is that we're writing for an audience: tournament-level polo players. In general, we can assume that they understand some concepts without having oodles and oodles of complex description, and for these concepts we only need to use enough detail to avoid ambiguity and prevent scummy weasels from trying to play rules lawyer with the officials.

I do see what you are saying, but my point about it being designed for someone who has never seen the sport, is so that for those tournament players who don't know all the rules, there are no ambiguous situations.

I believe very few tournament players know the rules 100% when they play. I make sure to read the relevant ruleset before each tournament, but I doubt many players do.

In addition, it's not just for tournaments, we have schools, and other organisations, who want a ruleset, to teach their kids, we have beginner tournaments, etc...

Only London has those things :P

I'm a fan of the word "strike." I think it's good for polo.

If we're trying to find the wording to describe non-scoring techniques, then we should just define those techniques.

E.g. - "Wristing" is the use of the round end of a mallet to lift the ball without breaking contact and then directing it's exit trajectory. Wristing may be used to pass the ball, but no point will be rewarded for a wristing a ball across the opposing team's goal line.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Thanks for taking the time to do this Nick. I'm a fairly new player (less than a year) and just starting to get more into the rules and things. Reading the most recent NAH rule set (v3 I believe), I was at a loss. A rule set should explain all aspects of the game so that anyone can pick it up and know how the game play goes. It seemed like the rule set I read took for granted that everybody reading it has played polo competitively for years. This rule set was much more comprehensive, but I still had a few points I was unclear on. So here are my notes, from the vantage point of one who doesn't have years of polo tourneys under their belt. (Sorry in advance if some notes are more of a "wait, is this legal" type of thing.)

3.1.7 - the rule pertains to the joust without "the joust" ever being described, or letting it be known that "start of game will begin with a joust"
2.5.1 - a little more detail to clear up ambiguity of "any surface". opponents bikes, defenders bikes (and rear wheels :) ), and court (goal post, boards?)
2.9.1&2 - switch them up. info about Who and When a mechanical can be called seems logical before information on how to call it (IMO)
3.3 & 3.3.4. - "Resuming play" and "the play restarts" Is this in reference to the clock starting after a penalty? If it is, its not clear. If its not, what is it in reference to?
3.4.3 - thank you for not including pointless terminology re: "golden goal"
4.1.1 - I don't even understand what this refers to... maybe clarification is in order? Is this for a situation where a shot is deflected off the cap/open end of an opponents mallet? I have never experienced any type of "stick" between a ball and mallet. Are we getting into intent? Someone on a break and they direct the ball with the capped/open end of their mallet and go for the shot, miss, but it goes in? The shot they intended didn't happen, but they still got a goal from contact with the acceptable side of the mallet. That gets to be hairy... cause maybe they were going for a fake?...
4.1.2 - so, no wheels shots? i.e. bouncing a shot off your wheel cover into the goal. Or what about using a goalie rear wheel to bounce a ball into the goal. Both take skill. I would argue that they are valid tactics for goals and its pretty clear that the intention is to make a goal... Maybe I'm just taking it personal since I have been known to take advantage of a goalie's rear wheel :)
4.3.1. - maybe include something that clarifies downward pressure -> to propel or maneuver the ball
5.5.3 - include a footnote to the "dabbing" explanation in 6.1.
8.1.1 - "with any part of their body" so holding includes when an opponent leans into another player (or two players lean into each other) to obstruct their path ( to clear a path for a player on a breakaway for instance?) or is that something else?
8.6.1 - how long is an extended period?

shotgun your bike!

What are we to call this new rulesesat? Nick's rules?

I find the definitions of infractions most useful. I believe they need to be clearly tied to penalties. For example: toppling = dab, egregious pushing = power play.

There has been a concept with toppling whereby the toppler must dab after the topplee. It's been applied for other infracts like tripping or pushing. I enforced it once last weekend. Perhaps an adjustment to the dab penalty? A related concept may be if you are toppled or tripped, then you don't need to dab. I'm dubious of the concept in execution and somewhat prefer foot down = dab even when "not my fault."

I believe an appeals process would be good. Sometimes the ref is indeed wrong. Appeal to head ref, tourney organizer in that order. (Requires these roles are formally assigned in some way.) We had a bad final result last weekend due to a bad ref call when appeal would have amended it on the spot (except we're all rookies at this and formal processes are like school not cool yo.)

For the record, I disdain open internet banter about rules syntax. It's what we have today, so fine. Ideally, this discussion would be exclusive among people who have a minimum experience reffing and are chosen to have this discussion. Specifically people who will be asked to ref in the future, or lead others in reffing.

1. A foot down is a dab. Always.

2. Making someone tap out is not a penalty.

3. If a player topples another player and creates a major disadvantage in game play it's a 30 second penalty. If it doesn't directly affect play either use a delayed penalty and/or award a ball turnover.

"2nd to last team to touch the ball before it leaves the court gets possession of the ball"

The current ruleset doesn't say where they get the ball, but at the SW Qualifier, the team that got the ball back got to take it from half-court. I have no problem with the way this was reffed, but I think the rule could be improved upon by spelling that out in the ruleset. More than codifying this more thoroughly, I think we should seriously look at adding some kind of marking, maybe not on the ground but on the boards that we could use to mark where a team gets the ball back that isn't so generous. At larger tourneys where we are building courts from scratch, if there isn't a tall fence behind the usual 4' boards, this could be a big advantage for one team over a simple deflection of the ball. I'd like to see something halfway between the tapout, and the goal line on either side of the court. I'm cool with goals and timeouts reopening at half tho.

Also at the SW we weren't doin ball changes until a natural stoppage of play. Again, no prob with the enforcement at this event, but these balls were practically melting onto the ground. Perhaps a revision that allowed for a ball change when the team requesting has the ball only in their offensive zone past halfcourt. Allowing for this on D could surely be an unfair advantage. And it will be hot at NA's for sure...

Lastly, I think we could benefit from defining the term 'goalie' in the ruleset. Perhaps the closest defensive player within a bike length of the goal. I know, bikes come in different lengths but it sounds ok to me. Maybe nail this part down before we really look at creases, which I am also in favor of for many reasons.

On the whole, I think this ruleset is great. While it mite not be an instruction manual for a brand new player, it's all pretty clear to me.

Kruse Rules

Yes!

San Dimas High School Football Rules!

Thank you all for the comments -- really good stuff.

I've gone over each post and made changes, in many cases I copied your exact wording. I'm handing this off to Joe from Mankato to format correctly and put into a PDF. If you see anything last minute that you think is REALLY important, let me know.

Here is the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qHvdB1C-yAhCUqDKvVTR1354Pmk7ybvD30g_...

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

Grass Polo wrote:

3. 25 Meters Hit

(a) A free hit at the ball from a spot 25 meters from the goal line of fouling side opposite the middle of the goal; all the fouling side players to remain behind their back line until the ball is hit, or hit at, but not between the goal posts. Nor any of the side will ride out from between the goal posts when the ball is brought into play. None of the players of the fouled side will be nearer the goal line or back line than the ball at the moment it is hit or hit at. (b) In carrying out Penalty 3 if the free hit would, in the opinion of the Umpire, have resulted in a goal but is stopped by one of the fouling side player coming from between the goal posts or crossing the back line before the ball was struck, such shot will count as a goal to the side fouled. If the player who stopped the ball did not infringe these rules, but another player of his side did, Penalty 7 shall be exacted.

Good lord.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Seriously.

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

I think my only comment on this one is 2.5.1: Helmets. The rule about only helmets approved for cycling is too exact. Players today are wearing hockey, lacrosse, hurling, and cycling helmets (or modified cycling helmets). Can't we stick with "players must wear some hardshell helmet" or the likes?

Maybe even "Players must wear a hardshell helmet approved for sport use."

"This includes but is not limited helmets intended for use in the following sports: Cycling, lacrosse, hockey, hurling, skateboarding/snowboarding. Any helmet not listed here may be inspected by the tournament committee and, if deemed unsafe, barred from use."

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

I agree but didn't feel like arguing about something that most people ignore anyway. I will change it if no one protests on this thread.

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

Cool. Wording could be something like "Helmet approved for sport use (as Alex said above) at Ref's discretion" This would encourage the equipment checks.

The two reasons I would say that this should be expanded to included things like hurling helmets are for applications to insurance companies, especially if a sponsor is paying for event insurance, and because I am selfish and like my hurling helmet, even though if I fall on my head I am probably going to die.

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

Nick Kruse wrote:

Thank you all for the comments -- really good stuff.

I've gone over each post and made changes, in many cases I copied your exact wording. I'm handing this off to Joe from Mankato to format correctly and put into a PDF. If you see anything last minute that you think is REALLY important, let me know.

Here is the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qHvdB1C-yAhCUqDKvVTR1354Pmk7ybvD30g_lFZPJKw/edit

wait, are these official changes for the season? so northsides gets a different rule set then east sides?

I don't know if it will yet, but who cares really. Fundamentally, people will play the same in the rest of the qualifiers as they did at eastsides. Its not as if people modified the way in which they played bike polo because the first ruleset had holes. It's just that the way they played wasn't described by the ruleset.

I'm trying to push this through as quickly as possible so that this aspect of our game can move forward on track. It is clear that bureaucracy harmed the process last time. I'm doing this direct and being open so as to get it fixed and I'm going to lobby hard for this ruleset taking over for the rest of the season.

It was a discrepancy that this is a bit late. But it's a solution.

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

Nick Kruse wrote:

It's just that the way they played wasn't described by the ruleset.

Could you expand on this? I'm unsure what you mean.

Umm I just mean that I think players at eastsides, especially the ones that were in contention to qualify, all had the same understanding of the game regardless of the document that dictated the rules of the tournament. This new set just describes that understanding in a more specific way, therefore getting it implemented for the rest of the qualifiers, while not ideal, is an okay thing to do from the perspective of pragmatism and with the knowledge that NAH and everyone involved are still in the process of working out kinks. I think its okay to have leniency in situations like this.

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

Thanks!

First, let me say, you did a good job on the rule set i think it's, giving with what you had to work with, a fantastic job. But i completely disagree with the notion that it's ok to change the ruleset mid season. While yeah, i know how polo is played, and the rules on paper are only there to add a sense of legitimacy or whatever, it's really kind of greasy to give me a different ruleset because my qualifier is in a different month.
And for the record, as i've stated, i don't care. BUT our city wasn't given leniency when we were given the ok to be considered eastside, but had to wait for next year, while other teams weasled their way around existing rules to get into a qualifier that was more convenient for them. If rules will be ignored, or given leniency, or made exceptions to, why have a ruleset? why have rules? this isn't 'Nam.
So it's pretty fucked to see rules shift through out a season.
But you know. I don't care.

There's nothing in this ruleset about creating or enforcing regions, yer barking up the wrong tree. Maybe there should be, but that's beside the point, the NAH ruleset has always concerned what happens on the court.

Speaking of which, i'm really glad i'm playing Northside this weekend with this newer ruleset, rather than the one that was way different than anything we'd ever seen, had lots of weird additions, tons of greasy holes, and introduced at the last second before Eastside. Doesn't sound like it was really enforced at the Eastside tourney anyway.

It's weird Krist, there are plenty of good reasons to be a critic of NAH but yours usually just seem like axe-grinding... maybe you're just bored ... these rules threads can be pretty fricken boring.

Yeah i'm fairly sure you're right.
This rule set is easily the best one written.
Mostly my axe to grind is about inconsistency.
And i'm bored, and sleepy.

Big Fan of the Kruse Rules! Heres hoping NAH implements them. Even if they don't I intend to implement them wherever possible. Thanks Nick and everyone who has been/will be helping with this.

Some issues from SEQ this weekend where rules could use more clarification:

- "significant" movement of goal position. Ex) Play was stopped if goal moved just an inch or so while there was a one-on-one situation at goal... this encourages the team about to get scored on to just bump the goal.

- high sticking. Ex 1) players scooping a ball were called for high-sticking when no one was near them; Ex 2) players trying to intercept a scooped ball by sticking their mallet into the air when no one was near them were also penalized

- hands on horizontal surface and fences. Ex) playing ball while holding onto fence was allowed this weekend because it's not mentioned in rules.

- court requirements. Ex) tap-outs were not designated on fence side of courts, so players would just tap out wherever. Also, is there a requirement to have a vert wall for court boundary? If yes, are boards required, or is fencing enough? If no, can a line simply be drawn to create a court?

-carrying. Ex) I cannot hold the ball in my mallet like ice cream, but if I scoop ball up and swing it back and forth using centripetal force to keep ball seated while moving down court, this is ok?

-ball turnover after scoring with mechanical. Ex) Team A needs to call a mechanical but gets scored on before they are able to get control of ball. Team A makes mech repairs after being scored on before played is resumed. Still Team A's ball correct?

- We've only been stopping play if the goal moves enough that it's impeding the play (i.e. turns 90 degrees or is preventing defenders from defending the original goal line). Anyone who intentionally moves a goal in order to prevent from being scored on should get at least 30 seconds, IMO.

- We're definitely calling Ex. 2. Haven't really addressed Ex. 1 here

- Was it effective to hold onto the fence and play the ball? We sometimes grab the fence to avoid a pileup, which is I think legit. Can't see wanting to do it just to play the ball.

- Seems like common sense that tap outs should be marked, but it doesn't specify in the rules. It also doesn't specify about boards, but maybe it should.

- The way I read section 4, yes this is a scoop and is legal.

- I'd say so, yes.

We did address example 1 here in DC.

A ball was scoop passed to me, and I was pretty much by myself. I hit it above my shoulders. I was called for high sticking.

Most importantly, it was the right call, and I knew it. In fact, the second I hit the ball in mid air above my head, I knew I high-sticked, and I only wondered if I had got away with it. I didn't.

I attempted this, not because I was trying to break the rules, but out of old habits. I think the line of above the shoulder is good, and if it takes penalties to let old habits die, then that's okay.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Example 1 was calling a high sticking on the person delivering the scoop pass. IE the follow through from a scoop went above handlebar height, so that's a high stick.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

dixietiff wrote:

I cannot hold the ball in my mallet like ice cream, but if I scoop ball up and swing it back and forth using centripetal force to keep ball seated while moving down court, this is ok?

Yes, legal. "Magic" good--gravity bad.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

I appreciate you putting up with me down there this weekend!

Movement of the goal was very much my fault, for the minor movement that got called. I read the delay of game section after right before the matches, and missed the previous section about goal judges being responsible.
I tried to call it only when I saw the other team cause the movement, thus resulting in a valid turnover.

High sticking- above the shoulders is above the shoulders IMO. otherwise you open the door for 'well there was no one around me when i initiated the movement, and he rode into my mallet' arguments. As for example 1, i don't think that should have been called, as it would fall under the movement of a shot, but thats a good discussion point.

Hands on the fences/boards- i don't see this issue with this after much thought. it does you more disservice than good. Its only worthwhile when pinned against the fence, and you're left control-less.

Carrying- this is a good example, and would make the game really dumb, really quick with some practice, IMO.

No idea on the last one. I called it, and perhaps incorrectly as keeping possesion to the team whom was just scored on. Treated it like an extended lapse after a scored goal.

SEQ was a perfect example of why we need more, and better educated refs. But overall the entire of the tourney did a great job of respecting the refs, despite some bad calls.

lancasterpolo.com
agile for my size.

Horse wrote:

As for example 1, i don't think that should have been called, as it would fall under the movement of a shot, but thats a good discussion point.

Agreed, with some ref discretion regarding recklessness.

Quote:

Carrying- this is a good example, and would make the game really dumb, really quick with some practice, IMO.

Agreed. I don't like the idea of carrying the ball down the court, gravity or no.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Hey, I'm not complaining here... anyone willing to ref games in that heat gets kudos from me!

You did what you could with the ruleset provided. I just want the ruleset to improve and thought this input might help.

Here is my explanation for the rules the way they are written, or my thoughts on things you've pointed out:

dixietiff wrote:

Some issues from SEQ this weekend where rules could use more clarification:
- "significant" movement of goal position. Ex) Play was stopped if goal moved just an inch or so while there was a one-on-one situation at goal... this encourages the team about to get scored on to just bump the goal.

I view this as a reffing issue more than a rules issue. To me, "significant" should mean an amount that will cause dispute on whether the ball "crossed the line" or not. If it moves 2 inches and then a shot crosses the line, there probably isn't going to be much dispute, right? But if it moves a foot to a foot and a half to the left, and a shot comes from the left, there's going to be dispute. This is the time in which this should be called but I like that the rule is concise in its current form. I think that with proper training, saying "significant" is okay. Let me know if you disagree.

Quote:

- high sticking. Ex 1) players scooping a ball were called for high-sticking when no one was near them; Ex 2) players trying to intercept a scooped ball by sticking their mallet into the air when no one was near them were also penalized

Personally, I think that high sticking should only be a penalty if you injure somebody. Responsible high sticking to intercept air passes is something that I really enjoy in the game. I think that if you don't ever hit anybody with your mallet, you should never be penalized for it. But this is not what was voted upon in the initial rules committee that was put together. The way the rule was interpreted at SouthEasts was the correct interpretation of the rule the way it was written. Everyone but me was kind of in consensus about this. I'm very much open to more discussion about this and it's something I'd like to see reversed.

Quote:

- hands on horizontal surface and fences. Ex) playing ball while holding onto fence was allowed this weekend because it's not mentioned in rules.

The rules committee deemed that hands on the boards is not an issue. It was left out of the ruleset intentionally. I am in agreement on this point. This is not something I personally care about, but moreso, it wasn't something that the group we assembled cared about much either. I think that as long as the intention of the player is to move out from the wall in a timely fashion that this should not be something we focus on calling nor put in the ruleset. I am also open to discussion here obviously, if it is something that the community cares about. We just kind of took the impression that no one really did care about this.

Quote:

- court requirements. Ex) tap-outs were not designated on fence side of courts, so players would just tap out wherever. Also, is there a requirement to have a vert wall for court boundary? If yes, are boards required, or is fencing enough? If no, can a line simply be drawn to create a court?

This is a great point and something that needs to be added. More court requirements.

Quote:

-carrying. Ex) I cannot hold the ball in my mallet like ice cream, but if I scoop ball up and swing it back and forth using centripetal force to keep ball seated while moving down court, this is ok?

I agree this would be lame, but it is okay by me. I think there are defensive strategies that fairly counter this type of behavior.

Quote:

-ball turnover after scoring with mechanical. Ex) Team A needs to call a mechanical but gets scored on before they are able to get control of ball. Team A makes mech repairs after being scored on before played is resumed. Still Team A's ball correct?

Yes, it should still be team A's ball. I'm also in favor of reforming the entire structure of a time out in our game. I think we need to eliminate the idea of conceding half for anything other than a penalty. A time out is not supposed to be a penalty. If you're collided with or something malfunctions on your bike, you should not be punished for needing to fix it because it happens to everyone. I think we should brain storm on how to make time outs in our game better and more fair. But as it sits, yes this is team A's ball.

Let me know what you disagree with or what you think about these remarks. Not everyone is going to agree with the rule set 100%. I don't agree with any professional sports ruleset 100%, even. But I think if we talk about a few things we can come to reasonable compromises on a lot of this stuff.

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

Legalize high sticks!

Edit. I guess I should clarify. There are lots of things that you can do that are potentially as dangerous as playing an airborne ball, but are only penalized IF contact occurs. We don't penalize for playing the ball near an opponents wheel unless the wheel gets taken out. We don't penalize for monster swings unless someone gets smoked in the face.
I'd be fine with a discretionary penalty for hazardous mallets above the shoulders, but to get penalized for playing an airmail pass in open court feels silly.
I hate the idea of asking myself "Is it worth giving the other team possession and half court to stop this pass, or should I just let it go and hope the receiver flubs it?" in the middle of the game.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said here, but in reference to high sticking...

I think a good ref always needs to consider each transgression, whether there was an advantage, or whether it was dangerous. If a ref insists on calling a turnover (or worse) on something that is neither of these things, then they are just being overly-officious, in my eyes.

You can of course argue it the other way, that if you do call everything by the letter of the law, that in the end people will get used to it, and not do it, and that not calling it undermines the ruleset.

But either way, I agree the high sticking rule needs to be changed to only be relevant in terms of contact.

or big dangerous swings that nearly hit someone.

i ve seen not that high sticks contact and didnt get call as well ,its all up to the ref discretion sometime, its good to clear the ruleset but at some point its up to te ref skillz and stuff

nearly isn't hit though.

Same as nearly t-boning someone, or nearly checking someone in the back isn't against the rules either.

I think it depends entirely on the swing, but sometimes nearly hit is enough (in my book). There are certain plays which should be discouraged.

I'm not talking about holding a mallet vertically to block an aerial pass, or a little extra backswing on a shot. Those things should not be penalized unless they make contact with an opposing player.

But if a ball is sailing through the air and you try to overhand smash that thing into the net, you should turn the ball over. That's a dangerous play.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

is there gonna be a rule for elbowing people in the back? i heard that was the new pro move out west...

all these rules are meaningless if someone can get frustrated and intentionally hurt another player and no one does anything about it.

Jav, unfortunately said move was away from the play and therefore missed by the single ref. This really highlighted our need for multiple officials, which we'll be implementing at our qualifier later this month. I think that BM taught us a lot about what we need in terms of reffing and how we can achieve these goals.

We're flying JT out here for the Cascadia Qualifier, and he'll be running a crew of 6-10 refs. Goal judges will act as base umpires or linesman, and have the power to call penalties on their end of the court. These refs will use hand signals to communicate penalties, we're still ironing this detail out. This will allow the head ref (JT) to focus on the big picture, while the other two refs are able to catch things off the ball (elbows to the back) in their zone.

Are rules in hockey useless because Lucic gets away with being a goon on occassion? No.

Rules and reffing are separate and equal in their importance. Yeah, you can't have rules without a ref. Yeah, you can't have a ref without rules. Duh, bro. But how does your comment help find a solution to the other half?

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

Nick Kruse wrote:

Are rules in hockey useless because Lucic gets away with being a goon on occassion? No.

Rules and reffing are separate and equal in their importance. Yeah, you can't have rules without a ref. Yeah, you can't have a ref without rules. Duh, bro. But how does your comment help find a solution to the other half?

Nick I think he was implying an ommitance in the rules, thus suggesting a "rule improvement".

I agree with you jav. Elbows are the original cheap shot, its a bummer they didn't make it into the rules. Sometimes things that happen in Los Angelis become like, cool, and that shit just s p r e a d s s

I agree that there is room under the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty to include general violence and maybe a direct reference to elbowing.

It is a bummer that more clarification here didn't make it in but anyone could have posted about it back when this was meant to serve as a thread for people to bring up things they thought were important. I added almost everything everyone said! I would have loved to put it in the original time. It's just hard to catch all the holes. There is potential for so many.

I think we'll definitely have to look towards including such a clarification of "violent acts" or something in the next modification that allows a ref discretion in issuing a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct in such instances.

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

Is there a rule saying the rules can't be added to? I don't see why a "8.8 No Fucking Elbows" can't just be added in there. The newest ruleset has been modified after a qualifier has happened so it doesn't seem like a big deal. As a matter of fact, now is the PERFECT time, before the Cascadia qualifier so the Pro refs have a chance to get familiarized and the infamous elbower doesn't have a chance to strike again.

P.s.
Someone mentioned to me that they thought said elbower exhibited such negligant playmanship that they should be disqualified from the NAH your completely... But that's a whole different discussion

The elbow discussion is actually an interesting one that I was looking at from a different angle earlier tonight. As far as I am reading it the current ruleset and 2011 ruleset (didn't have time to keep looking for 2012 or anything else) do not explicitly ban the use of elbows. The way I interpreted the rules from 2011 till now was that elbows were not allowed. I believe I felt this way because the 2011 rules and I believe the 2012 rules (but I couldn't find them quickly) stated something like "Shoulder to Shoulder Contact and the use of fore arms is permitted." I interpreted this to mean that all other forms of body to body contact were forbidden, with a few clear examples of how forearms/shoulders could be abused.

The current rules don't include any mention of what is allowed, just what is not allowed (unless I am missing it). This seems to have created another vagary in the ruleset. What do people think? Have I been wrong all these years? Or are elbows generally illegal?

I definitely follow you. It was an oversight or perhaps assumed to be such a no-no by everyone who looked over the initial drafts that it was left out in a more specific form. It is definitely something that needs to be added in an explicit way in the next version.

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

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. I read the rules multiple times without noticing that. I only found it when someone on the Winnipeg forum talked about how elbows were legal. My head went "what, elbows have always been illegal, what is he smoking" only to find that the rules don't mention it. It's as though we suffer from an understanding of the rules that leads to a failure to spot everything missing. You see all the good clarification on the stuff that was debated but don't notice that the things you assume are in there are not.

@ Javi, I'm not sure if yer takin a shot at the organizers of BM4 or the offending player, but I'm gonna respond anyhow.

First off, Crandall should have been penalized and ejected. Unfortunately, neither occurred. The ref, myself, and other organizers here didn't see it happen. We heard all about it from trusted ppl, but we were more focused on tending to Nick and making sure the tourney finished on time. Quite honestly, I still regret not taking direct action, but in the moment, we were rushing and I had never been in that spot before, let alone facing the final game and worrying about getting the boot from the park, while a friend was injured. This isn't an excuse, just an explanation. Obv, if ever in a similar situation again I know what I would do differently.

thanks Joker. I know you took care of Regan and I'm bummed I wasn't there to have his back as well. and honestly, what you just posted is all i wanted to hear. that more should have been done.

Every little controversy gets its own thread on this site, but a homie gets laid out with a cheap shot and can barely walk for a week and all i heard here was what a great job the ref did.

Nick sorry to hijack ur thread. I guess my point is that this is beyond refs/rules and goes to how we collectively as players/spectators/organizers respond when someone crosses the line into violence.

Did Crandall apologize?

Don't be a dick is the first rule.

He did.

It's easy to apologize after the fact, when the dude can't walk and you get to finish the tournament. Sorry is not enough.

"Oh sorry i intentionally scooped your front wheel while you were going full speed and you broke your neck." isn't gonna pay your hospital bills.

If we want to pretend that this is the NHL and goons will be goons, then retaliation is gonna be rampant.

I'm done posting about this. again sorry Kruse for mucking up your thread.

I agree. There should be repercussions from committing flagrant, unsportsmanlike personal fouls.

How about instead of fearing the repercussions we realize that in all seriousness we are just playing for fun and not multi-million dollar contracts and a lot of us can't afford to be injured? How about we all learn to keep our cool and not assault other ppl just cuz we're in the heat of the moment?

I don't know if this was already mentioned, but I read through the rules at Northsides and there is nothing said about playing the ball with your feet.

Ohh thanks! I'll note the shit outta that.

Edit: Take another look at 8.3. I think this is already covered.

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

Minor editing note: looks like there are two sections labeled "8.2", Kicking and Holding. That threw me off for a second.

Is this the wrong time to go down the foot-off-the-pedal-block rabbit hole?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Equipment and facilities
2.7 Three lines painted or otherwise drawn onto the court will define the position of the goal:

The goal line, which connects the goalposts. This line defines the threshold the ball must cross in order for a goal to be awarded.
Two additional lines extending from each goalpost and running perpendicular to the goal line toward the back boards for at least 6 inches but no more than 2.5 feet.

No need for and the perpendicular lines/they should not be there
They will just cause confusion. Only seen this happen once .
Example . Sarah REP21 for the SW was goal judging at NAH qualifier in Fresno . Goal was moved out of position , shot was made from steep angle and landed in the net but did not cross the goal line ie went in the net from the side of the goal line where the post would normally have been.Sarah(Danya) called it correctly as NO GOAL after a lot of crowd involvement she stood her ground and REF Dillman let the decision stand.
Great goal judging and reffing

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

Strongly disagree.

This is very useful, and there is no reason not to do it.

Why confusing? most of the time it's under the goal. There is no need for it to be 2.5 feet long, it shouldn't protrude beyond the back of the goal.

But it's a clear way for the officials to see where the goal should have been, and judge based on that.

And i stronglier disagree.
The goal line between the goal posts should be a different colour from any other line on the court. If you want your wine fangs, which serve absolutely zero purpose when a straight line is marked from inside post to inside post or front of post to front of post , then paint them dribbily red or go to Cafe Rouge and have them installed for the evening and let me know how they look
Wow i sound like a complete tool bag . No offense meant

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

I think one reason for the "fangs" is that the lines are usually just spray paint, and spray paint fades. As it fades seeing exactly where the ends of the goal line are could get harder, especially when the goal gets dislodged.

The fangs are only there to provide some extra contrast to say "GOAL LINE ENDS HERE". I think having them be a different color is a good idea.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

whtfng!!

Games Format
5.1 Goals

A goal is awarded when the entire ball crosses the entire goal line after originating from a ‘shot’. A shot is defined in §4.1. A shot may deflect off of any surface except the broad side of a mallet head before crossing the goal line and be deemed a valid goal.

Should read "......except the broad side of an offensive players mallet head....)

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

You must be reading off of an older copy of the rules. The set coming from nahardcourt.com is here: http://www.nahardcourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/nah_ruleset_v3_3.pdf

and this is already written the way you describe.

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

Sorry Just clicked on the link above

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

Games Format
9.1 Mechanical Timeout

A timeout can be called by a player for mechanical issues by yelling “Time Out” to the referee.
Any player having the mechanical problem has the option to call a timeout or "mechanical" only after their team takes possession of the ball. After fixing the mechanical problem, the ball is turned over to the other team and play will restart according to §3.3

Should include that when team needing a mechanical has possession and ANY member of the team shouts "Time Out" play is stopped and ball is turned over...... to avoid this.

Example.Sarah REP21 reffing in DPI 4 (sonofagun) a member of my team called a "time out" before we got possession of the ball but mechanical was "fixed" before we gained possession. When we got possession opposing team(Forget me Nots) assumed we had called a time out and gave up playing. Jouche scored a game changing goal and we won the game.Ref counted the goal (quite rightly) but I feel that there was so much confusion that I would have wanted to replay that point if any in my career. (PS> LISTEN FOR THE WHISTLE)

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

I actually think only the ball carrier should be able to call timeout.

But that's a separate discussion.

Ball handling 4 .1 and 4.2
Scooping

A scoop is when the ball is cupped in any hole in the mallet head using centripetal force and is maneuvered, whether it be on the ground or in the air.

Scooping is permitted.

CLARIFICATION IS NOW REQUIRED NOW THAT SCOOPING HAS BEEN TAKEN TO A NEW LEVEL(ART) WHERE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE BALL IS NOW NOT ONLY BEING TRANSPORTED IN THE MALLET HEAD BUT THAT GRAVITY IS MOST DEFINITELY PLAYING A ROLE IN THIS TRANSPORTATION OF THE BALL AND NOT JUST CENTRIPETAL FORCE.(watch if the length of the mallet head comes close to perpendicular to the ground coz thats gravity)This is going to be a hard one to ref this season.
Sorry next part of the section explains all.

.......me jealous .....not at all ...... i can do that........kinda not at all. FANTASTIC TO WATCH guys. Keep pushing the limits................OR start playing Bike Lacrosse

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

On the new version, scooping is section 4.4 and section 4.5, carrying, clarifies this exact point.

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

Mallet handling Penalties
High Sticking

A high sticking penalty will be assessed in the following situations:

A player attempts to contact an airborne ball with their mallet at a height above the shoulder.

The mallet is brought into contact with an opposing player’s body above the level of the shoulders.

Should read "The mallet is brought above shoulder level anywhere on the court"
We are trying to avoid head, neck and face injuries not penalize the action after the fact.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

Given that there are really not *that* many facial injuries in polo, I would say to anyone who is worried about getting cracked that FACE CAGES are a cheap and effective option. I've been smacked in the face relatively few times in my five years of playing and all of them were not even hard enough to draw blood. I know some people are unlucky and have received high velocity mallet whackings, but really, let's not totally change the game because of an infrequent and otherwise preventable thing.

Also MACHINE! You are the most armoured player in bike polo today, people could be two hand slashing you with little to no effect.

Henry , i have had so many mallets in the face since being caged in that if I hadn't been wearing one a lotta peeps might have lost their teeth.......... (in saying this I am just emphasizing my point)

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

I know we could all drop anecdotes for days and that doesn't change your point, but last night I got seriously cracked in the facemask for the first time. It was a full-on swing from someone trying to blind-backhand baseball smash an aerial ball 10 feet in front of the goal, mallet head vs hurling helmet direct impact.

The helmet did an awesome job and I barely felt a thing (no contact with the face), but if I hadn't had a full cage that WOULD have been broken teeth / nose, at least.

The guy who did it doesn't read internets and probably doesn't even know "high sticking" is a thing (though he does now). But fact is maybe 30% of my club plays with face protection, and if that happened to one of the other 70% they'd have been pretty fucked up.

Reckless high sticking is a behavior that has to be shut down, no questions. There needs to be clear rules so that I don't have to wait until I get smashed in the facemask to tell other players "Dude, you can't do that." If we take the attitude of "it's only a penalty if you hit someone", then you're gonna have a lot more people getting hit.

For the record, I think knocking down aerial passes should not be a penalty. But swinging the mallet trying to hit balls in the air, especially around other players, has no place in the game.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

I will start a new thread about 2014 shortly and I expect this to be one of the main discussions. I think writing the rule such that swinging above the shoulders is not permitted but reaching for airborne balls above the shoulders IS permitted might be a good compromise.

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

Disagree strongly on this.

Why penalise someone off ball, away from players, who for some reason raises their mallet (getting someone's attention, for example).

Penalise effects, not actions.

Quote:

Why penalise someone off ball, away from players, who for some reason raises their mallet (getting someone's attention, for example).

Agree with that. Away from other players, do what you want. There's no danger.

Quote:

Penalise effects, not actions.

I do not agree with the sentiment that it should not be a penalty unless you hit someone.

In my example above, a player in my club took a full force swing, in traffic, mallet parallel to the ground / perpendicular to his body, in an attempt to hit a shoulder-high ball near the goal. There were 3 heads in his swing path and 1 ball. As probability would dictate, he hit a head, not a ball. If I hadn't been wearing a facemask I'd have lost teeth.

The "punish effects, not actions" approach would suggest that, if I'd had better reflexes and somehow managed to dodge the exceptionally reckless swing, there would be no penalty. I think that's a terrible, terrible enforcement strategy.

Open field blocking of an air pass: no penalty.

Holding mallet straight up in the air to knock down an air pass when maybe someone is nearby: probably not dangerous, ok with not being a penalty.

Swinging parallel to the ground at shot-like speeds when other people's heads are in the area: take a seat, 30 seconds at least.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

For me, I think the High Stick rule should be the same as in hockey, and I'm not just referring to when a player makes contact with another player via mallet. In hockey there is a stoppage in play (our case turnover) if the puck is played with a stick above the crossbar of the net. No need for a 30sec. if someone isnt hit but the reasoning behind it is a mallet *could* have hit someone. A turnover is enuff to reduce the incentive to make what is realistically a very low-percentage play by plucking the ball out of the sky. Maybe we dont have frequent facial fractures due to high sticks, but I think we can all agree getting a head injury (cage or no cage) would really suck, no matter how rare. Ppl dont always know if someone is nearby, and if the ball is in the air anyone close by tends to look up for it and not see who is near. Going for it with a glove is much safer than a stick in my opinion.

maybe high sticks in vicinity of players? if it endangers another player at all, it should be a penalty. i thin people will agree that the idea of rules is to make things fair and safe, so anything that violates that should b penalized, and only if it's violating those two things.
mallet above shoulder in the vicinity of other players that at the refs discretion may endanger another player is a penalty.

I think field hockey has this (no high sticks within a certain range of other players) as a rule. Well, it did when I was playing in the 80's. We used to be allowed to intercept a ball in the air with our hand, but only to drop it, not to add any change of direction other than down. This was after the rule of balls-below-knee-only (insert old man jokes here) was eliminated and the new passing method of flicking the ball over the heads of other players began. Although even that had a caveat in that you could not lift the ball higher than knee height when other players were too close - as per the high stick rule. Something to consider as I have bounced a few balls off face cages when scooping up a ball when too close to other players. I have stopped doing this.

l'autre_Paul wrote:

I think field hockey has this (no high sticks within a certain range of other players) as a rule. Well, it did when I was playing in the 80's. We used to be allowed to intercept a ball in the air with our hand, but only to drop it, not to add any change of direction other than down. This was after the rule of balls-below-knee-only (insert old man jokes here) was eliminated and the new passing method of flicking the ball over the heads of other players began. Although even that had a caveat in that you could not lift the ball higher than knee height when other players were too close - as per the high stick rule. Something to consider as I have bounced a few balls off face cages when scooping up a ball when too close to other players. I have stopped doing this.

good points. glad someone is on the same page here! i got a bloody lip recently from a player focusing on trying to show he knows how to scoop with out knowing how to control the ball.

§3.1 – Bike contact

Seems to be all kinds of bike to bike contact is illegal, i enjoyed the like for like rule. If im stationary with someone (perhaps at the wall/corner etc) i might turn their front wheel with my front wheel in an effort to get them to move away or fall. Would that be illegal under this ruleset?

Yes, it would be illegal. Like to like contact leads to t-boning, dolphin slapping, etc. I firmly believe that the removal of the like to like rule has lead and will continue to lead to fast, exciting, and clean bike polo.

i think, slow and stationary bike to bike contact should be allowed, especially as everyones bike handling improves. It takes skills block someone and get out of a block, the slight bike contact that occurs in this situation shouldnt be called, if shoulders at speed are allowed as is mallet hooking, i dont see why slow speed and stationary bike contact should be illegal as the falls that are created in these incidents are far less dangerous than body to body contact at speed.
I know this is the NA ruleset, but we are using this ruleset for the Europeans this weekend
Another rules question seen as im here, would hitting someones mallet with my front wheel be illegal?

Johnny166 wrote:

Another rules question seen as im here, would hitting someones mallet with my front wheel be illegal?

if their mallet is stationary, and you hit it, yes.

IF WE ALL JUST GET AS MUCH AND EVEN MORE ARMOUR THAN I HAVE THIS WOULD BE THE SICKEST ASS SPORT ON THE PLANET ALONG WITH BIKE POLO THAT WE ALREADY PLAY TODAY.
LETS DO IT AND WHACK THE FUCK OUTA EACH OTHER WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PENALTIES.
IN FACT I'D LIKE TO THROW A FULL ON "ARMOUR THE FUCK UP" TOURNAMENT AFTER THE WORLDS.
FIRST 6 TO SIGN UP GET TO USE THE ARMOUR IN THE FIRST 20 MINUTE GAME BEFORE IT GETS SWEATIER. SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS . WAS DOING A POLOJOEL................HEAD DOWN KEEP CHARGING.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

Machine wrote:

ASS SPORT

We've now used the NAH rules at the UK Champs, and the Euros this weekend.

We had a really positive reffing experience. Calls were made, including for the newer offences such as toppling and pinning. Refs were reading the ruleset before reffing. The calls that were made were generally well received, and there was a lot of respect for decisions.

We even used the NA style rejoust on golden goal, in the double elim (ties allowed in Swiss). Even though that's one of the first time most EU players will have used that rule I didn't hear many complaints, and I think most teams appreciated the chance to take a break, and gather themselves.

I'm glad to see both sides of the Atlantic using the same ruleset, I think it's an important step for the future.

There was some feedback, we ignored the high sticking rule, and people felt the arm contact rules weren't clearly defined (elbows?), but both of those have been raised above.

Awesome, thank you! Look for discussion about both of those topics in the coming week or two.

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

Some other bits of feedback from the Euros:
Loads of people in Europe don't realise you can hit people on their steering arm (above the elbow), I'm not sure where this crept in, it's possibly not a problem with the current rules.
Time-outs without any limits (in duration or number) led to some 30+ minute games (but the tournaments still ran on time, so it's possibly a non-issue).
The tripping wording needs revisiting (some confusion and it's not very black and white currently), many people had different opinions on what should/shouldn't be called (and could back it up under the current wording).
No-one asks the players if they are ready after goals/restarts, this should be removed in my opinion (as it's a neat way to trip up inexperienced refs if you concede a quick goal after a restart).
No-one knew what to do if the ball bounced off of a post when there was a shifted goal (which would normally be a goal) as it isn't covered currently.
No-one seemed to know how to accurately call delay of game penalties against the boards vesus pinning on the boards (trapping).
There were a couple of scenarios where an extension of the game time would have been useful for 30sec penalties (or similar)... currently there is very little risk towards the end of the game (you may as well play dirty and risk going out for the last few seconds of a game).
No-one knew if cheap shots were legal now (I assume they are as the shot ball crossing the line restarts the game and they aren't otherwise defined)?

Cheap shots are legal? Shit, I wish I'd known that.

jonomarshall wrote:

No-one asks the players if they are ready after goals/restarts

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_fast_break

fast gameplay is exciting both as a player and as a spectator! who wants constant restarts? compared to basketball we already concede half. do we really need to mar the fluidity of play further by some drawn out restart after a goal not to mention adding who knows how long to each round...

+1.
Rule 3.3.3 is redundant to 3.3.1
it's been discussed on here before, if you or your teammate aren't yet ready for the team in possession to start play, pause at half court before you cross back to your side.

Once the defending team crosses back to half, that should signal readiness to the other team.

That's Jono's point, you guys are all agreeing on the same thing.

The rules say: §1.3.3 – The referee signals all stoppages and starts of play according to §§3.2 and 3.3.

And because most of the time that doesn't happen, that means there is now a loophole, where if you get scored on after the restart, you can say "the referee didn't signal the start of play"

JonoMarshall wrote:

No-one knew what to do if the ball bounced off of a post when there was a shifted goal (which would normally be a goal) as it isn't covered currently.

this is a pretty good point.. i still think a shifted goal being scored on could either be a goal or not, and could decide a game. this is a pretty common problem since most goals are pretty easy to move with a small bump from a handlebar or knee or something. (the goals at bench minor were so light, a nice hard slap shot would move the goal back an inch or two each time the ball went in or hit a post.) tough angled shots may go in that otherwise would hit a post or be wide. also some courts don't have the access for the goal ref to easily hop over the wall quick enough to fix it in time, and rarely do people attending goal who knock it out of whack stop to fix the goal before they go dab. and if they do it's usually a pretty spotty job.

schmangdon wrote:

a nice hard slap shot would move the goal back an inch or two

As if you would know anything about that

Shifted goals are one thing, we have "§3.2.7.1 – If the goal shifts position, the goal line remains the defining threshold the ball must cross for a
goal to be awarded." to cover most scenarios.

But, the scenario Jono mentions where the goal is on the line, and stops the ball crossing it, is an issue. My instinct would be to give a goal, but that's not in the rules.

JonoMarshall wrote:

Some other bits of feedback from the Euros:
Loads of people in Europe don't realise you can hit people on their steering arm (above the elbow), I'm not sure where this crept in, it's possibly not a problem with the current rules.
Time-outs without any limits (in duration or number) led to some 30+ minute games (but the tournaments still ran on time, so it's possibly a non-issue).
The tripping wording needs revisiting (some confusion and it's not very black and white currently), many people had different opinions on what should/shouldn't be called (and could back it up under the current wording).
No-one asks the players if they are ready after goals/restarts, this should be removed in my opinion (as it's a neat way to trip up inexperienced refs if you concede a quick goal after a restart).
No-one knew what to do if the ball bounced off of a post when there was a shifted goal (which would normally be a goal) as it isn't covered currently.
No-one seemed to know how to accurately call delay of game penalties against the boards vesus pinning on the boards (trapping).
There were a couple of scenarios where an extension of the game time would have been useful for 30sec penalties (or similar)... currently there is very little risk towards the end of the game (you may as well play dirty and risk going out for the last few seconds of a game).
No-one knew if cheap shots were legal now (I assume they are as the shot ball crossing the line restarts the game and they aren't otherwise defined)?

my understanding is sheap shots aren't ever legal. game resumes when the ball crosses the line or a player. if no player crosses the line and someone takes a cheap shot, then it's not a shot, as time has started when a shot was taken. unless the ball crossing the line makes contact with another player before it goes in the goal which would make it an owngoal. the shot has to originate during game play, not before it. or am i way off. it sounds simple to me.

it's like a paradox.

"On a right-handed joust, players will joust to the left of the opponent. On a left-handed joust, players will joust to the right of the opponent."
is unclear, but "left of the opponent" sounds (at least to me) more like a player veering to their own right (problematic) than a player veering to their own left (ideal).

To be honest, I think 3.1.7, 3.1.8, and 3.1.9 are a little complicated. I'm a lefty who jousts, but I think it would be okay for the rules to be written primarily to a right-handed perspective.
maybe the rules could describe a "right handed" joust, then add a small clause afterwards, along the lines of "flip these directions if both teams agree to a left-handed joust before the game begins"?

I like 4.1.1.1's use of "inelastic collision".

Use of "mallet side" instead of "left" or "right" could eliminate the ambiguity there.

+1 on lefty joust if both teams agree, otherwise defaults to right handed.

Question (as this was raised in pickup last night).

I'm not entirely sure how this is to be reffed:

§5.5.2 – Knocking or relocating an opponent’s dropped mallet in order to make it more difficult for them to
recover it

This rule seems to imply intention?

So are the following a foul or not?

1) Knocking away the mallet, to gain access to the ball (which could still make it more difficult to recover)
2) Knocking away the mallet, because it's in the way of your bike (which could still make it more difficult to recover)

I think the rule could be rewritten in a clearer way, depending on what it's designed to penalise.

I think if you proposed this rule is SF the game would change fundamentally. There would be no balls or goals, only mallet smack keepaway.

Well, I'm not really proposing a rule, I'd just like to understand how this is meant by the authors of the ruleset.

What if it just said you can not touch an opponent's dropped mallet?

Aside from incidental contact with it, you aren't allowed to manipulate its position. If they drop it and you just so happen to be in a position where you must ride over it or the ball just so happens to get caught up with it on the ground, then it's not a penalty if you happen to touch it in efforts to get the ball.

But if it's off the ball or not incidental, you get the penalty.

I don't see a need to be more descriptive than this. A referee should be able to tell the difference. I will note that this should be modified a bit.

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

A dropped mallet can be quite an obstacle, might as well be an extra goalie in some cases. If it's in the way of the ball, why shouldn't be allowed to move it out of the way?
I don't even know why this is such a big issue. If a player hits a dropped mallet and it has nothing to do with the actual game, it should be reffed as unsportsmanship conduct, which is already in the rules.

Are you guys just constanstly dropping mallets and smacking the shit out of them?

*Somebody please think of the children!!*

Seems to me that in both these instances, if you are still in play, knocking a mallet with your own mallet doesn't benefit anything. If a mallet is in the way of your bike, roll over it (don't mallet yourself of course). If the mallet is next to the ball, play the ball. If you smack the mallet chances are you are going to inadvertently hit the ball in a way that you weren't expecting. If you hit the ball, you at least have an idea of where it going. If you are heading down court and smack a downed mallet, well, you put yourself out of play for a moment when you could have been receiving a pass, screening, etc. I look at it the same way as excessive screening. Yeah, you're screening me, but you are just as much out of the play as I am... The biggest issue I can foresee is a dropped mallet in front of a goal; if it belongs to the offense then they're going to want to move it asap. If its a defensive player, well, they are down one defensive tool, but hopefully they didn't drop it right there on purpose either. haha.

I always interpreted this rule to be an extension of "don't be a dick". If you and someone else went down together and their mallet ended up behind your front wheel, or whatever, don't throw it three feet away from you and/or them.

shotgun your bike!