Search results for:

John, what about a swim who hit someone? Would the defensive player be consider as the one who shouldn't be there?

Agree with Jon about high stick, just call Mallet to body and warning on players who almost hit another one should be enough these days. Maybe that the shaft count was a step backward also, people will try to score more often on air ball.
An high stick rule who don't take care of context or style of the move is stupid. A player who try to catch a lob pass by reaching his mallet as a T over is head will probably never gonna hurt someone seriously. A player trying to swing an air ball at chest high right under his shoulders can really hurt somebody .

Thanks for your feedbacks.

See some good points in them, mostly if you don't think there is a need to create back an advantage position, or if for you 30 seconds can do this job, then i get why you don't see the need of this kind of penalty.

John H you said 30 second is for restoring advantage. Im pretty sure you will have trouble to remember one 30 seconds made for that (or maybe some happens in london league). It seems that when 30 sec' is used that's for calm down a bully player in a lot of cases. And i agree that 30 sec' can be used this way, but again i feel that they have another taste than givin' back advantage, and still pain to enforce.

@jono
Sorry for being point by point with this answer. But that's one of the first time i really get some direct critics about my idea (and not about the 30's), so i take time to answer them this way.

"-Another type of call will confuse refs."
Maybe. but that's not hard to enforce and not hard to understand, pretty sure that a ref who can get that won't be a good ref anyway.

"-Another rule will annoy/confuse players."
Kind of the same. And this penalty come to me naturally in game when i was reffin' for prequalies in Lyon. As french in my language it was pretty simple to explain to the player, who weren't suprised at all even if that's penalty isn't in the rulebook now. You can see that in the example in posted before. So there is a good chance that this call can be understand by players: "you. Stay here before they cross. Game on.".

-Another type of call will mean timed penalites are not used.
Thats kind of a 4 seconds timed penalty if you want. And sometimes you don't have to used the classical 30 s timed penalty, so no big deal. Timed penalty aren't usefull every time you need more than ball turnover.

-"Players held at the side of the court means the ref needs to know the location of players pre-foul (or has to have a more detailed understanding of the advantage to be restored), I don't think our refs have this information."
In my first try the player guilty was the one i kept to the tap out point. My proposal about keeping too players was maybe a bad idea because of what you say. that's just a draft in my mind. But this is a good point. Im pretty sure we can't find a way to make the advantage situation back every time.
What i feel is, gosh, this mallet under wheel broke a good situation for A team. Giving the ball back to A just put B in a better situation than before the foul, i need to give A back a lil' more than just the ball, and less than 30 seconds.

-"Restarts after turnovers/fouls would become more complicated/slow."
Again look at my exemple. First try with players who didn't know the rules, the restart took the same amount of time than a classical one.

-"Game becomes harder to understand/spectate for noobs/spectators."
Yeah, but we could get rid of a lot of thing who make our game harder to understand. and when you look at other sports as spectators, you sometimes miss some points about reffin but get the big picture.

"I reckon you'd have more mileage with your idea if you called it a "mini timed penalty" (or similar) and state that the process is the same as with a timed ejection from the court, except the player is held at half court for a couple seconds.
"

I will get this name so, thanks.

" a reset where one team has conceded 2/3rds of the cour"
agree with you, this proposal is typycal hockey copy/past where the face off can be in the 2/3 camp of the guilty team. But that's not efficient in polo, as a lot of team already concend 2/3 of the camp in their usual defensive mood.

I don't think im afraid to make call, but im afraid to use 30 seconds for the reason i mentionned above: sometime irrelevant and really often hard to enforce. As ref i feel more confuse to don't have in my arsenal a helpful weapon than to having to much of them.

In you listing jono I see clearly the gap, because you talk about timed penalty for situation were i never saw them apply.
Mostly right now we see 30 seconds apply when players make ugly moves, not to balance back a situation. If we fallow your idea then we are missing a lot of 30 seconds penalty in every tourney we goes. Even when the ref is a good one, they didn't wistle for the cases you mention.

Im not sure about the reason ref aren't calling stuff. Yes for sure a lot of people are afraid too.
But you can see that more and more ref are giving ball turnovers, and i think that's because they are easy to enforce. I remember when we only have double tap out, we didn't use them so much because they where in game calls, really hard to enforce (how to name a player you don't know etc).
Giving the power to ref to stop time and game and give ball turnover was a huge step forward. As the delayed penalty is also.

Also my proposal is different than double tap out.
We get rid of double tap out because they were impossible to enforce:
-How to call a player during game
-How to make a player who have to go across the court without interfere with others.
For me double tap-out was a perfect exemple of a penalty we get rid of because of material issues. My proposal is really simple to enforce, didnt' requiere any extra material or specific court etc.
What's the flaw you see in this jono? more than putting somebody out in one corner who can be in his own camp in one time and in opponent one the next game?

In a perfect world where we have every time a hockey court structure and enough assistants to enforce it, i would not complain so much, because 30 's would be used in the situations you mentionned in your post. But we aren't, and that's why i feel something missing.
i fell that this rule was written more to get apply in this ideal worlds than in the one we are playing in. And when i reffed in the past, i naturally apply the micro timed penalty i talked before, because it feel so simple and natural. And players, guilty or not, were happy with it because it looked like a balanced call.

( if i remember in 2009 you get an assistant and no door cause the court were plastic road thing easy to jump off. so it was easier to enforce.)

Im not saying that we should get rid of 30 sec'. Im saying that
1) we should have another penalty to give
and
2) that if we took 30 sec seriously, every time we organize, play or ref at a tournament, we should all be aware about how it's gonna happens and how to make it easier to enforce by ref. wich door, wich signal to get in etc etc. If that's only one door, then we agree that you get back or in opponent camp or in your own camp?
And as you said, ref didn't give so much 30 sec, so it's hard to feel pressure of that penalty when it happens less than one or two time per tourney.

You think my idea of make a player stay at tap out point before opponents cross line is a bad idea? I mean there is a lot of situation where 30 second didnt apply (incidental mallet under wheel ) but where ball turn over didn't give a real advantage back, don't you think?

"+1"
So Bill, no need someting between ball turn over (even delayed) and 30 sec in your opinion?

(also i would know how many times people who refs game here gave 30's in past, and how does it works, what's the process you used? did you have an assistant to keep the 30 sec', wich "door" did you use to put the guy out etc... i find there is some points missing here).

@John H
Faceoffs are irrelevants in the situations i'm talking about. A faceoff would mean that you give a 50/50 chance for the guilty team to get the ball back, without any penalty applied.

@Landslide
I agree that a delayed penalty can be a good thing. But imagine, the guy get the ball by his hacking, then you have to stop the game and give a ball turnover. And then you didn't realy give a penalty to the player, because the situation is back to normal.
Imagine same scenario, but the guy who hack to get the ball is alone against 2 players, because his teamates are taping out because of dab'. He get the ball by his foul, so you have to wistle to give a ball turnover. During the time you give the ball turnover, every team in their halves, you just give the guilty team a way to get back in a good situation instead of the initial 2v1. Also you can think about an incendental mallet under wheel if you think hacking deserve 30 sec every time.

I can think a lot of situation where 30 sec is too much, and a ball turnover too weak. Also and again, if 30 sec' were more easy to apply (every ref with an assistant, every court whit a proper central door etc.) this won't be such a problem, because ref would apply them more. But right now that's something we see 1 or 2 times by tournaments, not more.
Making a player wait at the tap out point before the opponent team cross line is realy easy to enforce, it keep the player in front of ref' eyes, give the non-guilty team a small numeric advantage that they can capitalize on etc. And you can imagine a lot of simple variations: if a player by a foul (as in my exemple) break a 3v1 situation, you can call 2 players at tap out point before starting back. If you think that's not enough time for penalty, you can imagine asking the player to go around opponent nets before getin' back in games etc...

Thanks for feedbacks.

Some good delay call in this game:
at 1:22 and and 10:37
it seems both for extanding arms contact or something like that (but more than the fool that's the process of wistling that i find intersting).
Midwest Qualifier 3rd Place on Vimeo

(oh and a stupid-lovely shaft shot at 14:58)

One thing I find we are missing is something between the ball turnover and the 30's. I already launch a thread about it months ago on LOBP.
https://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2013/04/30/what-between-30-seconds-out-and-ball-turnover
. Does the one who have experience in reffin' feel the same here? That sometimes you are missing a step in penalty, between a ball turnover who can be a really good thing for the guilty team and a 30 sec' who can be too much severe and often hard to enforce ( wich door, what clock to use, how to follow the game and the clock etc...).

I quote myself here and would love to have some feedback from the London community

 *Few months ago i had to ref a whole one court tourney in Lyon, France, for the qualification process for the european champs.*

What i noticed is that we are missing a penalty for cases where players need more than a simple ball-turnover and less than a 30 seconds box penalty (wich i always think is really hard to enforce due to the lack of staff and materials condition: assistant time keeper, good door, process to get in the game).
Sometime, a ball turnover is clearly not enough, because:
1) the situation was better than a classical 3v3 restart, for example a 3-2.
2) the player who made the fool deserve to get out of the game, but for less than 30 seconds.
So what i did was: taking the player right in front of me (i was in the middle of the court), make him faces the opponent nets, them give him the right to get back in game only AFTER the ball or a opponent crossed the line. The fact that we was in the wrong direction to get back on defense give him extra penalty time, but not so much.
This way really easy to enforce, this avoid the double tap or the penalty box punishment.
I think this system have to be in the ref tool box. We can also imagine a longer penalty by asking the player to goes make a ride behind the opponent net before comming back.
What are you thinking about?
This happens in this game, at 10 : 51. The guy hack. But that's my first call against him. I don't want to pull the guy out for 30 sec', but i don't want him to get back in the game without any sanction....I tried first to tap in during the time gap between stop and restart. So i have to call him back and ask him to wait that they cross the line before gettin back in game.
LYON pre qualies 2013 - Les Chevals vs Léptizizis on Vimeo

1. Max
   
2. Clem
   
   

Count me in since I will be in town late on wednsday night.

Awesome job H as usual, and thanks to bristol guys too. Glad to see some lovely faces again.

All our games were thight and fun to play. Ok the one against jono's wasn't tight at all but fun anyway.
I wasn't suprised about some teams, who on the paper looked as good as they were on court, but i was surprised how every team was really hard to play on and how tight was so many games. It was awesome.
Ruppert's team way to lay down bench to get in was so intense!

Im also really excited about how best players have completly different style of play. Think about your 5 or 6 best players you saw played this week and how they look differents on their bikes. Im so surprised that even with a mallet standardization this past year, the way of play the ball can be so different. Also bike handling and riding is still really different from player to player. Take Paulo, Alex, Dodi and Jono for example, it looks like there is a worlds between each of them and every time a way to play the game at the highest level.

Final extended time was so good, thanks Marc to let will score on you for the sake of the show!

Some rules was sketchy and small issues happened, but nothing vital. Some really good refin' also (Warin was good too, Mayeut made great job in final, etc).
for me 6 players is a good number. When you go to 7 or 8 and that there is one or two people you don't know how to use on your bench, that's hard for a captain and for players who travel from far to come.

Cascadia qualies on Bikepolo.tv
Connection looks bit sketchy

Stick shots aren't so hard to make and happens often. I would simply have say that in case of doubt, the ref have to call it a goal, but i wouldn't have change the definition of how a goal should be scored. We get rid of "wheel shoot" i can't see why we should add another way to score. Air shot should be all about finesse, not baseball swinging.

Looks like a nice ruleset... but still don't get it for shaft shot. Find that really stupid.

Woop, call me nostradamus!
"If she don't broke her collarbone again, i bet a beer she gonna win it."

By the way, Basel was really great, there is room for 4 top class courts over there, and one covered with official hockey electronic scoreboard, timer, and seats for 1'000 people i presume. Think they should step up for one of the major tourney next summer.
(eddisons are really hard to beat twice in a row...)

Mhm, just realize that the first one making a sieg heil... Kind of sketchy Victory move indeed.

Ladies army apply a crease rule:

11.2. Infractions that can result in a warning or tap out:
[...]
11.2.6 Double goalie inside of the crease(1st offense)

Source, this message from Pitbull, East Van, on LOBP:
RULES. Yes, we have rules. (Also posted in main tournament description above.)

Ladies and Gentlemen, as this is not a NAH tournament, we do have some freedom with the rules. For the most part, we have adopted most of the NAH ruleset for both the co-ed and Ladies Army 5. Below is a link to the rules. Please note that one of the differences you will notice is that we have introduced a crease (3.0). Please familiarize yourself with the rule set in advance of the tournament.

Ruleset
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Z0_OqEJTZYmUvsGn2n4Usb-g-wX8j2iftyo...

Source:http://leagueofbikepolo.com/ladiesarmy5

Ho, Elena is playing on Valkyries with Shannon and Quinn. If she don't broke her collarbone again, i bet a beer she gonna win it.
I mean look at this shit: !
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ewliSfm3bgs/UACd1MjgLgI/AAAAAAAAAGg/AtHSJq49L4o/s1600/valkyries.jpg

Go sophie!

Who are Spring fake then?

Can't stop thinking than unlimited scores looks weird...

Yes, Good for saving weight (lighter components, less theeths everywhere, shorter chain), but bad for Q factor ( Large space between pedals to get some balance in trial = bad position for knees to get speed while pedaling).

O'shane how tall are you? Cause your geo looks really like mine but even shorter.
This will looks dope!
(i suggest you to let more tube at the end of the seat tub, as your seat post gonna be long, more than 2,5 cm is a good security for a better rigidity (and if it breaks at the end, you can still cut it and make a new clean end). Mine goes around 8 cm i think.

Rumors about a tournament in one month (11-12 may) in Basel, switzerland. 2 hockey courts, 30x40m, one covered.

Me and at least 2/3 of my team too...

Made by Sammy from Moteur fucker, Bank Robber frames!

Finally here, in my hands for 2 tests ride before going back to workshop to make it clean and good looking.
Geo and Infos are in the geo thread.

I don't think inner headtube cable work well for v brakes... :(