Jump to Navigation

Login / Register

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

High Sticking

I saw this rule implemented and promptly ignored this qualifier season. This is one of the rule disputes that I believe we can actually meet at a compromise on so let’s get some good ideas flowing. I think it’s possible to write this rule in a way that mitigates practically all danger associated with rampant face injuries without making defense against airborne assaults impossible. This one’s easy. If you have an idea, give it in the form you would like to see the rule written.

Current Form
§7.2 – High Sticking
§7.2.1 – Ahigh sticking penaltywill be assessed in the following situations:
§7.2.1.1 – Aplayer attempts to contact an airborne ballwith their mallet at a height above the shoulder.
§7.2.1.2 – The mallet is brought into contactwith an opposing player’s body above the level
of the shoulders.

§7.2 – A high sticking penalty will be assessed when a player swings their mallet above their handlebars in a dangerous manner. For example, a high sticking penalty may be assessed when a player swings at an airborne ball or follows through on a shot and either strikes or risks striking an opponent {or spectator?!?} in the head or upper body.
§7.2.1 – The type of penalty assessed, as per §5.1, is at the referee's discretion and depends on the hazardousness of the play.
§7.2.2 – Wear a facecage or duck!

This. Please no more calling a high stick in the middle of an open court. What a buncha bull!

Just make facecages mandatory.

eyes up
feet down

Current Form
§7.2 – High Sticking
§7.2.1 – Ahigh sticking penaltywill be assessed in the following situations:
§7.2.1.1 – Aplayer attempts to contact an airborne ballwith their mallet at a height above the shoulder.
§7.2.1.2 – The mallet is brought into contactwith an opposing player’s body above the level
of the shoulders.

Seriously can you not wait for the ball to be at your shoulder level to play it? Even in an open court situation is this truly hindering your ability to play?

Make face cages mandatory???!!!?!?! Sure, then what? You rule out high sticking as a penalty because my face is protected?

As it is written seems to be the best. I do not think that there are that many shots coming downward from over head height that need to be blocked. They have to start and end below that height to become a goal so make your play when you can.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Aerial passes tho...

So block them prior to them passing that height or catch them on their way down? Sounds like a positioning problem to begin with and a long straight pass in front of or behind you that is out of reach would be untouchable as well. Whats the call there?

1.2.4-3 No passes may be made out of reach of a defender

If someone catches you out of position and makes a pass you can't touch that's on you.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Eh. I think the primary purpose of a high sticking penalty should be safety, and my proposed wording takes care of the safety issue in a comprehensive and straightforward manner.
The current rule is constraining play far beyond what's necessary for safety, and in that sense I think it is a poorer rule.

For your analogy to work, there would have to be a rule against (for instance) reaching in front of your front wheel or behind your back wheel, and that would clearly be bogus.

What is your aversion to blocking airborne passes though? Assuming we make full swings at airborne balls illegal, do you really believe there is danger to mallet play above the shoulders that is defined not as an actual swing but rather a "lift"? I can move my mallet above my shoulders in many ways that pose no danger to those around me, would you agree?

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

I agree with you here Nick, even though your face is protected your neck is still vulnerable. I think the rule is ok as it stands, I think it is reasonable to ask players to wait for the ball to fall to shoulder height.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

I don't think that this rule constrains the game. In fact it stands to speed up the game. If I know that I can't contact the ball above my shoulders with my mallet I'll find another way to do it.

Get closer to the ball faster before it gets somewhere I can't reach it
Catch it with my hand and set it down?

It also seems to me that this rule would help keep tabs on a player waving their stick around in the air not looking where they are going. That shit is mad frustrating being hit by someone who wasn't playing heads up or in this case with their head way too up.

"For your analogy to work, there would have to be a rule against (for instance) reaching in front of your front wheel or behind your back wheel, and that would clearly be bogus."

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Or I agree? I was trying to make a joke maybe you are too Whatever.

The more grey areas that are created make it harder for it to be enforced accurately every time then the cart that follows is that refs stop caring to enforce and when that happens everyone wants to blame the NAH for fucking it all up. Some of this shit has to be black and white. I don't think this is a spot we should add a more confusing or questionable type scenario. Don't fucking play the ball above your shoulders. Go faster if you have to, protect the strike zone better, I'm certainly not gonna put myself in a spot where I cop out and say "if only i coulda played that high ball"

Frankly when I have spent so much of time effort money blood spit tears to get to these tournaments that I hold so dear to me I want to know that I can count on a standard that is going to be executed the same every time.

Nick K

I agree that you can move your mallet above your shoulders in many ways that do not pose danger to those around you.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

A big ol blind side shoulder to shoulder check at the time of arrival would probably defend against an airborne assault.
Stopping in front of someone that is not watching where they are going might work too.
Intercepting the pass at an appropriate height.
Getting between the receiver and the ball.
Man to man coverage
Hands up
Punching the ball
Ride a very high wheelie and get that front wheel in the way

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Could I count on the high stick call every single time if I intentionally put my head in contact with an above shoulder mallet?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Well NK, since you asked, I am in favor of a high stick rule anytime the ball is played with the mallet above the bars (willing to settle for shoulders). To me the bad outweighs the good of playing a ball with the mallet when it is in the air. Use yer hands ppl! I know it may seem silly if u get called for playing a ball in the air when no one is around, but ppl dont always know when someone is about to sneak up on em, and sneaking up on ppl is part of the game. That person shouldnt have to worry about a high stick in the face cuz someone else isnt looking around. Whether batting a pass out of the air or going for a really cool tap out of the air into goal, I feel it should be a penalty. Not a 30sec (unless someone gets hurt or very nearly does) but a turnover to dissuade the tactic. Playing it with the glove is far safer, in my opinion.

Quote:

Playing it with the glove is far safer, in my opinion.

i don't have a strong opinion on this high sticking rule. But i never use my mallet for a ball in the air, i'm always punching the ball with my glove. That said, it's usually my right (mallet-wielding) hand, which means that as i reach up to punch, my mallet is somewhere up there too, potentially more dangerous cause it's on some weird horizontal, above my shoulder, angle, rather than straight up in the air.

See I usually play it with the hand that doesn't hold the mallet, in order to get a better hand on the ball. Or simply switch the mallet to the other hand. I've modeled this reaction on both Rory and Pistolero, for example.

Cripes, so now we're riding with no hand on the brake and using Rorybear as a role model for safe play!?!?

I just think you guys are trying to prevent something that never has, and never will, happen. People get hit in the face by two ways in polo: follow-throughs on shots, and by wild swings at airborne balls.

People don't get hurt by simple defensive interception of airborne passes to a cherry picker. So why take something that isn't dangerous and eject it from the game? In my opinion, a shoulder height rule just encourages turtle defenses, discourages a strong forecheck (which already has plenty of other rules, or lack thereof, discouraging it), and takes something away from the game that I think is really fun to do, really skillful and really entertaining to watch.

The ability to bat down airborne passes is the perfect balancing counter to the ability to make airborne passes. I feel that keeping it legal to do so helps the game be balanced. "Use your hand" is a poor way to write this off. The ball is hardly ever within an arm length.

I can't imagine we are creating a more dangerous game by initiating a rule that states it is illegal to swing at airborne balls but not illegal to bat them down.

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

Well I guess we disagree then. I'd rather let an airborne pass fly by than unintentionally hit someone in the face. I also like the way it lets the ref off the hook for deciding whether the ball was being batted down cuz it was a pass or, was being one-timed as a shot above the shoulders.

I guess the rule is fine by me as it stands, and I liked how it was enforced at the SW qualifier.

Players up-wordly stick checking my stick as it is on my handlebars is one of the ways I have most been high sticked.

A player pulling a stuck mallet out of a precarious location wildly is another way I have been high sticked.

A hooked mallet that suddenly comes loose is another way I have been high sticked.

A player with their mallet on their bars making a body check is another way I have been high sticked.

Shoulder height rule does not encourage turtling. I have never noticed a double goalie team doing this out of response to constant airborne attack. There are a metric fuck ton of ways to counter an airborne attack. The perfect way to counter an airborne attack would be preventing it from happening.

I can't imagine we are creating an easier way of doing things by making a rule change that allows for something in certain scenarios but not in others.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Nick RVA wrote:

I can't imagine we are creating an easier way of doing things by making a rule change that allows for something in certain scenarios but not in others.

I don't think this is a fair way to word it because batting down an airborne ball and swinging at one are different things, they aren't the "same thing in different scenarios".

Regardless, thank you for your opinion. I hope to hear more from many others and I am by no means dictating that the way you'd like it is not the way it's going to be. Only voicing my personal opinion which has little bearing on how this thing will eventually turn out.

I'd like to add that the way I envisioned it is that the second part of the rule would still be present. IF you hit someone it will be a penalty 100% of the time, no matter HOW you do it. It would just include a handlebar height rule with the stipulation of a swinging motion.

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

I think it is a perfectly fair way to word it because as it is written currently, yes it is the same thing in different scenarios.

The grey areas are what make shit mad fucked up and fury inducing. There are not enough confident refs to make all the black and white calls and there are certainly fewer who will feel empowered to make a call that may be based on their opinion of what had happened. When players can't count on getting consistent calls it makes them wonder what is the point?

I think that the current ruleset is dialed as is. It's concise, to the point, not too wordy, not confusing. I would like to see at least one season a single complete season where the rules are simply enforced. Then hit the drawing board with all collected data and opinions and facts to make improvements. Ask ourselves the questions like could all the refs this year handle the most basic ruleset we could offer, were these rules issues truly issues, what areas of the game were enhanced or hindered by the rules? The premiere north american event has not even happened this year and the discussions are what changes for next year. NAH take a fucking break! Seriously chill the fuck out and have a beer or get high or whatever it is you do. Be content that the current ruleset is dope and let it ride before we start tearing all the hard thankless work to shreds. Thank you!

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

More opinions, please!

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

create a survey on here or fb. if you have been hit in the face by a mallet, how did it happen. i have yet to see someone hit in the face from the airborne stuff. its always follow through.

Mentioned elsewhere, but a few weeks ago I gut hit full-force in the facemask by a player trying to baseball-swing at an airborn ball. The airborn ball was a ricochet off the wheel after a hard shot, kinda lazily popped up to shoulder height about 2 feet in front of me and to my right.

Bad guy riding same direction tried to do a cross-body blind swing at the ball to hit it toward the goal. As-fucking-expected he came nowhere near hitting the ball, but got dead center UHMWP vs Facemask contact.


.D---^
..*..^
^....^
^....^
^
^

<<<<
GGGGG

Swinging at airborn balls cannot be allowed. Knocking them down with a stationary mallet is no big deal.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Having shaft shots allowed and a high sticking rule seems a bit at odds to me.
Shaft shots encourage high mallets and swings that chop down towards players faces, shoulders, collarbones etc basically the type of swings that the high sticking rule tries to prevent

If you are aware you cannot strike the ball above your shoulders why would you still do it?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

There was a few shaft shots scored at the Euros, the ones i saw were struck from above the shoulder, there was a few discussions "what shaft shots are legal now?" i never heard anyone say anything about high sticking, if there was mention of high sticking im sure it would have led to a disagreement about the height of the mallet, people dont appreciate their goals being wiped from the scoreboard

There are lots of things people do not appreciate. I don't appreciate people not reading the rules before they go to a tournament.

I'm hollering about the NAH ruleset and if it is going to be a penalty if you contact the ball with a high stick why would you still do it?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

People and refs dont read all the rules before tournaments, they have an idea about most of the major points. In an ideal world they would have them memorised.
Allowing shaft goals creates situations where refs may have to make a call for high sticking- most refs who arent well versed in the ruleset will be reluctant to disallow goals for high sticking
"Why would you still do it?"- people do a lot of things that could be called by refs in order to score goals. Bike to bike contact that isnt incidental, shooting at balls that have a high chance of causing a mallet under wheel situation etc etc ........
The Euros were played under the NAH ruleset and the Worlds will be too, thats why im offering my opinion

Some people will risk a high sticking call in order to attempt a shaft shot at goal, if there was no shaft goals they wouldnt try such a shot, saving the ref from having to make a contentious call and stopping a dangerous play occurring on the court

Just saying you can't be mad if you didn't read the rules. I would assume that players going to the premier euro event would read the rules.

Just asking why would a ref that has not read the rules be allowed to ref. Why are refs that are not well versed in a ruleset reffing. Wait, maybe this should shed some light on why we shouldn't go adding and changing things that do not need it.

If a high stick goal will not count regardless of shaft shot or shuffle why would you still attempt it? That is what im trying to figure out. That shit is not gonna count so why are you doing it? Why?

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Common legal saying: "ignorance of the law is not a defense."

I'm seeing a lot more airmail passing and I am seeing people swinging at those balls. There are also situations of the follow thru on big shots going above the bars.

Mallets need to be kept out of faces.

Strongly in favor of a high stick rule at handlebar level. A tall player's shoulder is at face level for most players.

If a ref makes pointless highstick calls on players in open court then the tourney director needs to straighten out the ref. That's not a rule problem it's a ref problem.

polojoel wrote:

I'm seeing a lot more airmail passing and I am seeing people swinging at those balls. There are also situations of the follow thru on big shots going above the bars.

Mallets need to be kept out of faces.

Strongly in favor of a high stick rule at handlebar level. A tall player's shoulder is at face level for most players.

If a ref makes pointless highstick calls on players in open court then the tourney director needs to straighten out the ref. That's not a rule problem it's a ref problem.

no, a ref problem is a ref who picks and chooses what rules he enforces. a ref calling this, which you may see as pointless is a ref calling a rule how it's written. and thats no a ref problem. thats a good ref.

different point. what part of the mallet are we considering the mallet above shoulder level? i mean if i flinch with my mallet hand to cover my face, technically the mallet is above shoulder. if we're getting wild about rules, which seems you nerds are, we need to get real specific about shit.

My suggestion is a 3-5 strike rule against each team, per game. High sticking is part of big shots, some people just can take big shots without ever nearly hitting someone, but most people are probably not aware of how close their mallet comes. If a team is warned, repeatedly, the penalty could probably be an immediate turnover of the ball and half.

I think the hardest thing about any part of this rule is the penalty. How does it apply to even when we are telling new players, or is it a tournament only thing? I don't see people at pickup calling it but when you consider the penalty in a tournament is a strategic disadvantage, I'm sure players will practice more so their game tightens up and shots are made when the swing happens, not whiffs.

Does anyone else think that a whiff could be considered high sticking? What about the proximity of other players, will that factor into high sticking penalties more?

mallet above shoulder in the vicinity of other players that, at the refs discretion, may endanger any other player is a penalty.

One of the most dangerous players on the court is that stupid fucker who is oblivious to where they are, not looking where they are going, gawking into the sky at the ball they intend to tomohawk or bat down or even delicately lay to the ground the ball.

I know the way this rule is written stands to keep someone who is most prone to hurting themselves and others BADLY off of the court. That guy when he strikes causes collisions where people cannot protect themselves. Those collisions get bad quick.

Nobody has an airborne attack so incessant and never-ending that every other possible way defend this couldn't handle.

This rule helps keep that fuck off the court.

If a rule that promotes player safety in more than one way while still allowing for a fast high action game exists why would we change it? There is no need. It does not hinder this game in any way.

You have to go out of town to get inside jokes.
============================
themeans.xxx
themeansbikepolo.com
fixcraft

Awesome play. Is there something in there you think is high sticking?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Ummmmm... its hard to see in the video because the camera didn't catch the top of the frame, but she picked it straight out of the air, well over the shoulder.

Not that it really matters since the situation is just as legitimate an example if it's hypothetical, but:

It certainly looks like she's reaching straight out in front of her to corral the ball right at, if not a little below, shoulder level.

Personally I think that's a great play and would be disappointed to see it made illegal. Moreso if you ask a ref to make a call whether that is above shoulder level or not.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

the way the rules are written right now look pretty good. but I think high sticking calls in the middle of the court are nonsense. you should know when your alone, and can high stick. and if your not, you should be taking a little off that follow through to ensure the player next to you is not going to get hit in the face, or face a penalty if you fail at that. Im not going to wear a face cage because people can't control their mallets.

7.2.1.1 – Aplayer attempts to contact an airborne ball with their mallet at a height above the shoulder.
another thing to consider is the difference between sticking your mallet up above your head to stop a ball to keep it in your possession, apposed to taking a overhanded swing at a ball in the air. two totally different situations. one is rather safe and one is not. im not a fan of scoop passing but i can see why people like it. still think it just promotes more high sticking and wild swings in awkward directions. but there's other reasons for why you could be playing the ball in the air i guess, not just scoop passes.

Mr. Kruse I got a question, who's shoulders are we taking about then you get a smaller person playing against a taller person? everyone play their own shoulders or is it the to the height of the smallest person in play? Just curious what people think.

Keep your standards low, and morale high.

The reason for the rule (keeping mallets out of peoples' faces) dictates that it should be the shoulder height of the shortest person on the court. But that is just so silly. I really don't want to write a rule like that.

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

It's also a hard rule to play by. We would have to find the shortest player before each game starts and measure ourselves against them so we don't swing our sticks too high. Unless you only intend to penalize upon contact in which case we would be able to tell if it is above the shortest person's shoulders when they get hit in the face.

Yeah, silly. So the question is: what is the point of a shoulder height rule if you are measuring to your own shoulder and if it's unrealistic to play to the smallest person's shoulder height?

Valid point, but I at the same time think that describing the "height of the shoulder" gives people an idea of the area we are trying to avoid. You probably won't hear arguments concerning the exact inch that a person's mallet was raised to -- a shoulder rule more just sets the rough limits we're trying to impose and when people know that they tend to understand there's probably a buffer associated with it.

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

I was thinking. Hypothetical:

An offensive cherry picker breaks loose for an airborne pass and his teammate sees him and sends him one. The defenseman knows he's beat and won't be able to get to it in time, so he raises his mallet above his head. He gets called for the penalty, and the game resets with all three of them behind half and the ball on the other half, thereby serving the exact same purpose as if he had just been able to bat it down with his mallet in the first place.

So can supporters of the shoulder height rule explain to me how the penalty in fact reduces the number of occurrences of high sticking in this instance? Because this is the exact instance that people of my opinion are trying to keep legal. The way the rule is written is not going to stop me from lifting my mallet every time because I benefit from doing so even if I get called for the penalty. To me, this seems reason to either increase the penalty as a deterrent (the first rule that would have a definitive timed penalty associated with it).

Or we can just write the rule in a way that makes batting down passes legal, considering it's not a dangerous play in the first place.

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

we cannot allow an indefensible offensive tactic...if airborne offense is legal then airborne defense must be legal. banning scooping isn't happening anytime soon so batting down scoops remains the answer defensively. banning airborne defense will just promote dump and chase scoop plays...I don't think any of us think that's the most exciting polo to watch. yeah defensive pressure can stifle most passing but every loose ball being a potential breakaway sounds awful.

"if airborne offense is legal then airborne defense must be legal"
x2

intentional penalties are unsportsmanlike, and should be called for a penalty that way. i would hope not being a dick would keep you from cheating and breaking rules. if not, an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty should.

How do you know whether a high stick was an intentional penalty or a genuine attempt to knock down a ball?

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

kristxw wrote:

intentional penalties are unsportsmanlike, and should be called for a penalty that way.

Eh... sketchy territory there.

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

Nick Kruse wrote:
kristxw wrote:

intentional penalties are unsportsmanlike, and should be called for a penalty that way.

Eh... sketchy territory there.

really? it's not. you see someone do a dick move, like you described, it's unsportsmanlike. it's not diffrent then telling if someone moving a mallet is unsportsmanlike. if youlook like a dick doing something, chances are you're a dick. should be called.

The penalty you describe sounds like a buzz kill overzealous ref. Boo.

Perhaps language such as "when in proximity to other players" or "unsafely swinging mallet above the handlebars" would help. Anyone got the hockey language for high sticking?

NHL wrote:

High-sticking - A “high stick” is one which is carried above the height of the opponent’s shoulders. Players and goalkeepers must be in control and responsible for their stick. However, a player is permitted accidental contact on an opponent if the act is committed as a normal windup or follow through of a shooting motion. A wild swing at a bouncing puck would not be considered a normal windup or follow through and any contact to an opponent above the height of the shoulders shall be penalized accordingly.

Hockey players do not have the ability to play the puck above the shoulders. But hockey also has rules like Offsides and Icing that affect airborne passes to cherry pickers, etc... and this makes their game different from ours.

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

But hockey also has rules like Offsides and Icing that affect airborne passes to cherry pickers, etc... and this makes their game different from ours.

this...so much this...SO MUCH!

Thanks

Note height of "opponent's" shoulders solves a problem discussed above.

The rule goes on to be much more complex.

A hockey player may deflect an airborne puck at ANY height with his stick so long as his team doesn't retain possession. A hockey player can score a goal with a swing above the height of his or anyone else's shoulders so long as he doesn't injure anyone and so long as the stick makes contact with the puck below the crossbar of the goal. A hockey player will not be given a penalty unless the puck touches his stick or unless his stick touches an opponent's face.

It depends very much on situation. They by no means uniformly barred play on the puck above the shoulders nor the ability to move their stick above their shoulders or anyone else's. In hockey it is situational and it could be for us, too.

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

Actually in the NHL, it's a stoppage of play if anything occurs OTHER THAN the opposing team gaining possession after someone has played the puck with their stick above the crossbar. Witness:

http://youtu.be/PZ-SgSIOzN4

Now im not here to debate hockey rules, but the reason they often use their gloves instead of their sticks is cuz of this rule.

In Polo I think if a ref has to decide whether they were batting down the ball, or trying to shoot it out of the air, or has to decide whether it was 'dangerous' or not, well that is too subjective for me.

As for the scenario you described earlier, I would call a delayed penalty on the defense.

I think the rule is fine as written, and again, I liked how it was called at my qualifier.

Alex Dash wrote:

Actually in the NHL, it's a stoppage of play if anything occurs OTHER THAN the opposing team gaining possession after someone has played the puck with their stick above the crossbar. Witness:

http://youtu.be/PZ-SgSIOzN4

Now im not here to debate hockey rules,

Read the NHL rules. In regards to batting down a puck above the shoulders, everything I said is 100% correct. The crossbar rule only matters with regards to if the puck goes in the net. They use their glove instead of their stick so they can retain possession.

Regardless, my point was that in hockey the rule depends on the situation. I don't see why we can't do the same. Hockey gets along just fine with a situational high stick rule.

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

The rule yer quoting is in regard to if someone hits someone else above the shoulders while going for the puck. The rule im quoting is rule 80, look it up.

Yeah, I already know this. But we're not talking about goals in this thread we're talking about playing the ball in the air and intercepting passes.

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

Yeah so am I. U can't bat the ball out of the air in the NHL, and as our wonderfully worded ruleset currently stands, we're not supposed to either.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26493

nevermind.

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

more goonies references or there's gonna be Hare Krishna...that's Hari Kari, mom.

that's my mom's most favorite piece...you wouldn't be here if it wasn't (in Groucho voice).

x2billion
http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-... http://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2010/03/14/swinging-at-airborne-...

polojoel wrote:

Perhaps language such as "when in proximity to other players" or "unsafely swinging mallet above the handlebars" would help.

Yeah, hey, maybe something like this!?:

jeffj wrote:

§7.2 – A high sticking penalty will be assessed when a player swings their mallet above their handlebars in a dangerous manner. For example, a high sticking penalty may be assessed when a player swings at an airborne ball or follows through on a shot and either strikes or risks striking an opponent {or spectator?!?} in the head or upper body.
§7.2.1 – The type of penalty assessed, as per §5.1, is at the referee's discretion and depends on the hazardousness of the play.

You're smart, sexy and an all around good person.

didn't i just say that? do people automatically skip what i say (for obvious reasons)?

Good things bear repeating.