|29th June 2010||#156|
| || |
D.D makes some interesting points about blocking and the forever anti u.s opinion of EU's use of goal keepers.
First up, how to use a keeper is a teams choice - end of discussion.
The debate about blocking is more complex and not an easy matter to rule in our current game.
Off the ball blocks have def become a apart of our game (some more than others). So do we start calling these 'tactical' blocks an obstruction of play? In which case instruct the blocker to tap out or give a foul ball hit to the blocked player? Opens up a whole new game of rules and a big change to how we play.
Although, one rule I would def like to see introduced or tested is that a player who is forced to foot down by another player doesn't have to tap-out. Instead the player who caused the foot down (ie made the foul) has to tap out only. This way 'tactical' foot down fouls are penalized more fairly. I know a ref would prob need to step in at times to call these fouls, but thats what a ref should do, call fouls and goals.
I'm sure many of you would disagree with the above opinion, but Ive never understood why someone can cause a tactical foot down foul and the fouled team doesn't receive any play advantage.
Note, a standard self made foot down still counts as a tap out.
Re. scoring...again in my opinion, one should only be able to score from the 'business' end of the mallet head ie a clear shot. This means a player has to shoot from any kind of ball joint or cup. Also, no intentional shot of anything else counts...ie Aidan's last goal off his rear wheel shown in that Amsterdam game should not count.
Basically, as we evolve the game, new rules will come in. However, we need to make sure rules are in place to keep the game safe, fair and moving. Which means we will probably need to rely on refs a lot more.
But this is all just my opinion.
|29th June 2010||#157|
| || |
a defending player can not cross the directional line of the ball made by the attacking player
Just remember that rule real hard to play against.
|29th June 2010||#159|
| || |
I admit, he tries hard not to foot down when a player tries to take him down. Therefore, I admit what causes one player to foot down might not cause another player to foot down. This is where the grey area of what is an intentional foul. Maybe, if a player is penalized harder for causing an other player to foot down we might start seeing player doing 'polo dives'.
|29th June 2010||#161|
| || |
|29th June 2010||#165|
| || |
the no goal limit rule made for some strange and humbling situations. We beat a NYC team 9-2. Doug, Zack and Paul beat a mixed team 12-0! DTGP got beaten by Chicago 13-3 or something. I think if we'd met a top team (MKE, Chicago, Seattle...) we'd have suffered the same fate.
The interference rule was barely enforced. Lots of people tried scoop shots but few succeeded
|29th June 2010||#168|
| || |
Is there anywhere that has the full results? ie from the knock-out stages
|29th June 2010||#169|
| || |
check www.twitter.com/leagueofpolo for scores from the knockout rounds
the interference call was barely applied during elimination rounds because the top teams rarely use this tactic, teams who did well relied on passing, not blocking the defenders on the other team.
wrist shots were barely used in the big games, partly cause they're so hard to do at high speed. don't worry there were no 270s.
|29th June 2010||#173|
| || |
|30th June 2010||#177|
| || |
i like the sound of this non-interference rule, but i like simplicity too.
'don't be a dick' seems to round it all up nice. :D
|30th June 2010||#181|
| || |
it's off ball blocking when you are the attacking team. ie. Your team mate has the ball and, rather than finding space so you can get passed to, you block the defenders out so thay can't attack the guy with possession of the ball.
It's pretty similar to obstruction in football terms
|30th June 2010||#184|
| || |
It can't be obstruction. There is only 3 of us, one is in goal, on is attacking the attcker the other is trying to get in an offensive and defensive position to receive a pass or pave the way for their team mate. No other sport we mention is only 3 players. Other rules from other sports just aren't applicable, the scenarios will never match up.
|30th June 2010||#185|
| || |
true, this is bike polo and nothing else.
but precedents have been set for fair play elsewhere, which shouldn't be completely ignored. It is a bit odd that offensive players can hold off defensive players in order to create a route to goal for a team mate. Can't decide whether that should just be an idiosyncrasy of polo or should be stopped.
|1st July 2010||#186|
| || |
Obstruction rules are hard to enforce, but it make the game better.
Playing in Bench minor what great cause a lot of people respect this rule, or few one get jailed for using it too much. The most easiest way to understand it is for me:
Don't get intentionnaly in the way between a defensor and the ball.
And like in basketball, only non-moving screen should be allowed.
Why this rule can be a great rule for polo:
1-Bikes are big elements on small courts. In other ball sports, most of the time, the player has olny his body to move, so it's way easier to pass through screens. In bike polo, we are less moving, make a U turn is maybe 4 times longer than in hockey or soccer, and it takes much more space.
So screen in polo are more expensive than in other sport, cost a lot to speed and movingabilty (<- i think this word don't exist in your language...).
Others sports enforce obstructing rules, why not us?
b-Make screening harasment when your team has the ball possession is the easiest thing to do. If we considere than in this game there is 3 things to manage:
2)drive mallet (in all situation, defense, attack, technical moves)
3)have the vista of the game
Driving bike is maybe the simplest thing to do (we all began polo with the ability of driving a bike, people who don't know it, or doing it bad stop polo or never began).
Screening only requiere the 1), you see an opponent, you get on his way. No need to have any kind of the 2 other quality.
c-Screening making the permanent goalkeeping an essential way to win. When your comming back for defense your open goal and the opponent can block you the way to do it, it looks like shit... a lil' bit. So you let a permanent goalie
d- In tournament in europe, 80% of the team (maybe 95%), play with Permanent goalie, wich make the game less open than if you can pass the ball to 2 teamates. If you playing screening, you have one goal, one with the ball, and one who block opponent. It make the game less intersting in my mind.
Im only talking about screening for a team with the ball, for defending I think that things are differents.
|1st July 2010||#188|
| || |
In all tournaments i've played with Hugo in Europe i've obstructed my opponents a ton to let Hugo get a good shot.
But i've stopped doing it for a bunch of reasons
1) it's boring. watching a striker go up and score on a goalie does not exciting polo make. i'd rather see tight passing and smart plays.
2) it encourages off-ball contact. The player being obstructed, in my opinion, has every right to try to plow through (shoulder vs shoulder) the player obstructing him/her, in a sense it expands the "on ball" area.
3) you don't need to be a good polo player to do obstruction.
This was called about 5 times at Bench Minor (50 players) and about 5 times at ESPI 5 (150 players). The best argument against it is that it adds an additional rule. Obviously i like it but it's not that important, i can live without it. I think the best teams don't run obstruction anyway.
Finally, i think you all should check out the penalty system from ESPI5, which is going to be modified for NAHBPC. So much better than having refs trying to enforce penalties while the game is going, and distracting all 6 players in doing so.
|1st July 2010||#189|
| || |
|1st July 2010||#192|
| || |
Agree in all points with kev.
For me, if a guy screen me, i think that i have the right to do everything to pass through, check, t bone, agressive bike on bike etc...
Most awfull screen here:
You get back to your goal after an interception, trying to save a goal comming from a 2 offensors attacking.
When you arrive at your goal, the offensor who didn't have the ball and who is positionning between you and the ball driver go into the goal to block you the access for goalkeeping.
It offers for the opponent an half open goal.
Espi V penalty systeme gonna be the system for the euro i hope. without the screening and scoop shot rule.
Last edited by uolmo; 1st July 2010 at 16:44.
|1st July 2010||#194|
| || |
Rules: These are arranged in severity, starting with tapouts and ending with game ejections on the bottom. I’ll go ahead and describe what these penalties mean first, and then you can read what you have to do to earn them, you naughty little turd.
1. Tapout: hit your mallet on the wall at either midcourt location (a cymbal or something will probably be there). If you miss it, you need to circle back and hit it right, or you will still be out. If a goal is scored, don’t worry about making the lonely roll over to the tap-out wall. It’s cool.
2. Ball turnover: For penalties like delay of game, this is just like after a goal is scored. The penalized team will wait until other team either crosses midcourt with a player or the ball.
3. One min penalty: This is for when players are intentionally breaking rules (slashing, roughing, obstruction) or accidentally being reckless (most hooking, or high sticking). When the ref sees one of these rules broken, he will whistle and call for the offending player to exit the court. The timekeeper will keep track of when they can reenter the game. After call is made the teams will be playing 3 on 2 for that whole minute unless the innocent team scores during the power play, at which time the rule-breaking team can go back to using 3 players. Play does not necessarily stop at a penalty, players should assume that the ball is active while the ref is informing a player to go to the penalty box. Play only stops if the ref deems it necessary and the ball will be turned over to the innocent team. Play will continue as if a goal had been scored, giving the innocent team half court etc..
4. Two min penalty: This is reserved for slashing or roughing calls that draw blood or otherwise serious injuries (up to the refs discretion- if you get little cuts on your leg or hand from random shit and you’re not wearing appropriate gloves or padding, you will be mocked for being a big baby). This will be served just like the one min penalty, but that player will have to be out for 2 mins instead, and consequently the team will play a man down that whole time (unless the other team scores to end the power play).
5. Ejection: This is reserved for fighting and people being complete asshats. You are simply ejected out of the game. Your team will play the rest of the game 2 on 3. Good luck with that.
And now the rules…:
|1st July 2010||#195|
| || |
The biggest difference between what London pioneered for EHBPC2009 and the refs at ESPIV was that the refs at ESPIV had whistles, and used them. When there was an infraction, the whistle was blown, play stopped, and one of the penalties was imposed (change of possession, 1 minute or 2 minute penalty). On average i'd say this happened once every four games, though in my opinion it should have happened every other game, there were definitely a few things left uncalled. One ref in particular preferred to give verbal warnings, his perspective on this was that a warned player never repeated whatever offense.
The disadvantage with this system is that play stops.
The advantage is that there is no bickering while play is still going, and you don't have a situation where all 6 players are trying to understand WTF the ref is saying ("who, me?") while playing is still going on. I've seen this cause all kinds of problems, especially since refs are rarely mic'd.
Personally, i think that it should be 30 secs for minor penalties, 1 minute for majors, 2 minutes for something really major, because 2 minutes almost guarantees a goal for the other side. I think that'll be the system for NAHBPC, but it's not confirmed yet.
|1st July 2010||#196|
| || |
|2nd July 2010||#199|
| || |
i think removing bike on bike would keep obstruction/interference in check.
and uolmo is on to something with the basketball rule analogy, for those who don't watch/know the game here's the jist-
if a player is in a blocking position and has his feet planted and stationary and the offensive player runs him over, it's the offensive player who gets the foul. if he doesn't have his feet planted, he gets the foul.
wouldn't that make sense for polo? especially if there was a stoppage/turn-over rule. if someone is carrying the ball up court and is fouled off it (this could be made to footdown, or fouled illegal and they lose the ball), they get the ball back in their own zone as though after a goal. if the defender is planted, and is caused to foot-down or fouled hard, their team gets the ball. as skills develop, possession is more and more valuable and rules like this make a bit more sense than when everyone was just whacking and chasing
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Rules for CP||Velocio||Current Projects||18||3rd May 2014 00:08|
|Rules||Velocio||Announcements, Help & Testing||19||28th May 2012 09:38|
|Official NA Hardcourt Bike Polo Rules||hurricanejosh||Bike Polo||119||24th February 2011 16:47|
|Polo Rules: Shot blocked by a footdown||Mike[trampsparadise]||Bike Polo||76||20th April 2009 10:01|