Jump to Navigation
LOBP is now in archive mode... read more at leagueofbikepolo.com/goodbye.

Restarting Play After a Goal

Okay, so this got brought up in another discussion about game restarts.

Do you think the referee should get verification that both teams are ready or do you think that the team that just scored should be responsible for not crossing the line until they are ready for an attack from the other team?

Or do you think something else?

I don't think the ref should be responsible. If you're not ready to defend your half after you score, don't cross to your defensive half. Hang out in your opponents' half and let your teammates prepare to defend.


"Counter the 'hot start' by letting your team get back on your own defensive side and into position before you cross."
~Danny Wood (paraphrased)

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

why would we kill "transition" offense and defense? we should be applauding teams who keep the game fastpaced! MORE BIGGER FATTER GOALS IN TIMED GAMES! we definitely should not be encouraging refs to allow teams time to set up their double and triple stacks! next time you get an open look on the net maybe you should wait and ask the defense and the goalie if they're in position?

right now the defense has the advantage if they choose...one player doesn't cross half and allows the others to turtle up. I would say forget this mandatory cross half stuff. you take the ball completely around the back of your net and it's live! if you want to wait and let the defense concede half but also set up completely including double and triple stacking be my guest, if you want to attack while they have a defender still on your half that's your gamble, if you want to take advantage of that dabtastic player who wrecks after scoring please do (after a bucket in basketball if you have some idiot showboating or flying into the crowd you capitalize on their lack of defensive awareness and you pounce!). I can't believe this is even a discussion...game on means game on! lets not purposefully mar the fluidity of the game.

you want to add time to tournaments? try to to get a ready from all three defensive players after each goal via goal judge...that shoudln't be a problem, right? imagine with me a whistle of readiness, a quick goal and then the team scored on arguing that they weren't ready...only 2 of the 3 signalled ready...blame the goal judge...no goal.

One thing that has always bugged me about the idea of immediate "game on!" is the inconsistency of where the ball ends up after a goal.

A hard slapshot off the back of the pipes can bounce immediately back out 15' from the goal, or a little tapper can get tangled in the nets and take a few seconds to dislodge.

In the former situation the scored-on team could immediately charge down the court on a breakaway aided by a fortunate bounce, and in the latter situation the scoring team would have time to re-set. There's a huge difference in advantage awarded in those situations, and I don't think those kind of differences should be owing completely to chance and goal design.

If there were a way to design and standardize goals to make where the ball ends up more consistent, then I would have less objection to the "game on immediately" idea.

- Also -

You're talking about allowing offensive teams to charge when a defensive player is still on their half. This also served to destroy the delineation for the defensive team - when can they start playing D? If it's as soon as the ball comes out of the back of the net, then we'll start seeing full court press defense.

I score on you, then I body up on you in front of goal waiting for you to pull the ball out, then try to immediately steal it back and score again. Nevermind that you don't really have control of the ball as you're awkwardly fishing it out of the net it's tangled in... as soon as it crosses back over that line, I'm hooking mallets and checking to try to get you to accidentally own-goal it back in.

So we can't play D as soon as the ball comes out of the net, we've got to give the scored-on team at least enough time to control the ball. But there is no explicit, quantitative way to do that without having a "safe zone" for the scored-on team to prepare, and as such they must wait for the safe zone to be clear of defenders. That's what we have now.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

you would have to take it behind and then around the back of the net...collect it from wherever it is on the court and take it behind and around the goal. word it so that the scoring team's players are inactive until crossing to their half. this would encourage faster gameplay (less time per game also) and get rid of whining about "hot starts" and prevent some of the set defense tactics of double and triple stacking. it'd be like quick inbounding in basketball (minus the full court press) or like a throw-in or quick kick in soccer or like a no huddle in football.

The reason I don't like the basketball comparison is because basketball players can't reliably make 1/2 or 3/4 court shots while undefended. Polo players can. You're talking about not letting the scoring team play defense, and potentially not giving them enough time to get a player back in front of the goal.

I think it will be boring as hell if people start ripping 2/3 court shots at empty nets, because it's "game on" and the defense hasn't had time to get a goalie back.

Legalize Hand Throws - 2014

Yeah, don't make the ref call "ready" because otherwise every time they don't the scored on team will have a legitimate reason for the goal to be disallowed.

I think it's fine as it is.

But, there should maybe be a defined max time that the scoring team have to get into their half. Too often you see players wait ages, and hold up the game.

Waiting a short amount of time, but I'd say after 10 seconds the ref can call game on.

I think it's fine the way it is now... the ref should be looking out for players trying to delay the start of the game though.

Another concern of mine is: you were scored on, can you shoot as soon as both teams say they're ready (that is, shoot from your half of the court)? that would mean shooting before time starts counting again.... would this count as a goal?

I just wanted to add that at the Midwest qualifier, Aaron, my teammate, hung out on our opponents' half after almost every goal we scored. It was brilliant and totally within the rules. He never did it for more than 10 seconds. It let us set the pace of our games and ensure that we had a dude in net.

So I'm not sure why more teams don't employ this strategy and then look at the ref as if it's his/her fault for their lack of preparedness.

i agree this is a good tactic given the current ruleset (like double goalie, in some cases). And like double goalies, I've also seen teams who use this tactic get booed a lot.

What? I'm not in the slightest suggesting double goalies. I'm suggesting if you don't want to get beat by a heads-up player, don't cross half to signal that you're ready to play.

Christian read what he said again. He's agreeing with you. He's jut comparing the crowd reaction that of it in the case of double goalies.

I agree also. Aaron got this from Pierre. I say we call it "the Pierre".

Oh...I should stick to looking at LoBP when I'm sober...

I like the way this rule is written just fine. Hanging back for a few seconds after a goal is all ya gotta do. I think more ppl actually get booed for taking advantage of a slow return and stuffing one in than delaying the change of possession. Hanging back just makes sure both teams are ready with or without ref intervention. If a team is really bein jerky about hanging back, by all means penalize em for delay of game.

There's things in all sports that are not fun to watch but are sound strategy none the less. Intentional walks in baseball, bunting, fouling a poor free-throw shooter, spiking the football before the end of the game, etc.

The fact that Polo doesnt have very many of these instances is pretty awesum actually.

one player from scoring team could be req to race back go around their own goal before the scoring team can defend.the now offensive team (last scored on) team can attack right away. just an idea but the curent rule is fine. we did this when we played on the big court. we dont need anymore rules that are not enforced anyway, at least 80% of them.

Deaddog- sacbikepolo

one player from scoring team could be req to race back go around their own goal before the scoring team can defend.the now offensive team (last scored on) team can attack right away. just an idea but the curent rule is fine. we did this when we played on the big court. we dont need anymore rules that are not enforced anyway, at least 80% of them.

Deaddog- sacbikepolo

So, we had some discussion around this at the London Open. Some refs were calling it to the letter of the rules, which say:

§3.3.3 – The referee establishes both teams are ready by receiving a verbal acknowledgment

So if a team decided they wanted a "timeout", they weren't ready, and the game couldn't be restarted. Teams had to be called back at times.

I don't think this is the intention of the rules, and is in the best interest. I also didn't see this called at the NAs at all.

I called one of these at the Open. The player was camping in the opponent's side, fully stopped. I forced him to keep moving, as the rules explicitely say that the players must return to their halves.
For reffing's sake I don't think we should have a timed interval. The ref is usually already overwhelmed with tasks. We could ask for the defensive team to take the ball behind its own goal but that's not entirely needed. If we just ask for the offensive players to keep moving towards their half, they can pace it enough to get set up and not delay the game too long.

Keep the actual rule and tactic to let one guy against team who capitalize on shitty back to back goals.
Just need to add a rule who say that the ref can launch a countdown of 10 sec screamed loudly when he think one of the team take to much time. If that-s the defensive one who let a guy for too long, the can get a delayed penalty. If thats the team who get scored on who take more than the 10 sec warning, then give the ball to the one who just scored.

The tactic of let somebody in opponent side can be dangerous if the ref didnt notice it.

About the Jason analogy of baksteball, this isn-t a good one. Bakset is a sport with tons of goals, so making a restart every time would make games so long. also Hockey and soccer which have lower goal number have proper restart.
Not liking the double goalie isn-t a good reason to like cheap goals in the back (who make the game looks a stupid back to back thing, like it was years ago)...

Yeah, I'd agree with that. Cheap goals are nice when you score them, but they are also mega lame.

I'd write it like:

§3.3.3 – Teams acknowledge they are ready to restart, when all three players on the scoring team return to their defensive half
§ - All scoring players must return to their defensive half within 10 seconds of the goal.

Do we want to enforce people restarting within 10 seconds? I mean from an scheduling point of view I'd love that, but do we want to give the team who scored on a chance to have a chat, which might take longer than 10 seconds?

I would like to see something around 10 sec for the team who restart. a large 10 sec i mean, the ref just notice that everyobody is ready in his half, then if he see that ofensive didnt begin to play he launch the 10 sec countdow. small chat should be around that long, otherwise ask a time out, organised team should have worked the way they communicate to be efficient, we shoudln-t have to witnesses 2 minutes talks between goals everytime...

Yeah, that works for me.

§3.3.3 – Teams acknowledge they are ready to restart, when all three players on the scoring team return to their defensive half
§ - All scoring players must return to their defensive half within 10 seconds of the goal.
§ - The team with possesion after the goal, must restart the game within 10 seconds of the other team declaring themselves ready.