A shot hits a dead defensive player in the crease


that happened last week end in Berlin Mixed, I was @Cleftintwain assistant and we both agreed to give the goal… but a lot of pple was not OK with that decision, even the offensive team…

So, dead player in the crease, a goalie was already in but a shot from the offensive team hit the dead player, we granted the goal regarding to

7.5.2 A shot that deflected by a dropped mallet, dabbed player or shifted goal that would have otherwise crossed the entire Goalmouth Line will result in the Main Referee awarding a point to the team that made the shot.

What do you think ?

@Bouchaaaaard @django @metriod @Cleftintwain


Video Berlin Mixed 2022 - July 29th to 31st - YouTube

The alternative was 30 seconds. I can see the other side of the argument.

1 Like

i’m still considering we did the right choice


Saw it and would have given a goal as well.
In that scenario the call has to be in the favor of the offensive team, IMO.

Advantage + 30sec seems like a valid call as well.


I mean there was a goalie in net that probably would have blocked it, the dabbed player had nowhere to go, and was exiting the play in an appropriate manner. I don’t get why a 30sec would be warranted. Different story if the goal was open.

1 Like

Let’s say the shot had 50% of success with the goalie in :

  • Why the offensive team should not receive the benefit of the doubt ?
  • Why the fault (dabbed player deflecting the ball from a shot on the goal) should not be called, even more in the crease ? (100% sure it was not on purpose from Bouchard)
1 Like

@LaPassoire because it’s cluster cuss play, the shooter saw the dab and decided to shot on them anyway. I mean the penalty for a dab is tapping back in which they where doing, I don’t think we should have different rules for where you dab.

1 Like

The rule is vague here, mostly because in the usual scenario the dabbed player in the crease is also the goalie.

The very least has to be a 30s penalty for an infraction in the crease, preventing a clear scoring opportunity. An awarded goal to my understanding should rectify a certain goal, not a probable goal.

So I would tend towards 30s penalty but no awarded goal here unless it was clear, the goalie’s wheel was not in the trajectory of the ball and they would not have been able to react. It does not look to me like this was clearly the case.

The only other scenario where a goal is awarded is on fouls on scoring attempts on a completely empty goal, but never on a live goalie.


look at the video ( 9:26:19 - youtube offers 0.25 play speed) we clearly see Markus shooting under 2 bottom brackets, if Bouchard did not move, it’s a goal

I did (on my phone), it’s not so clear to me, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be clear to the ref, assistant and goal ref who were there…

Capture d’écran 2022-08-04 à 22.59.27

If you are certain it was a certain goal I would not argue against it.


Hi all !

1st : incredible sport attitude from Eliska, Markus and Leon. I don’t know if i’ll have the occasion to give them back such a move except by saying thank you again.

Then I read a few things that I cannot understand :

  • “the minimum was 30sec”. Why and what rule would be applied ? I fell, put the foot on the floor and tried to move away as fast as possible. What else could I do ? What rule number would be applied ?
  • “crease infraction”. Same here. What crease infraction ? I didn’t stay for more than 3 sec with the ball out of the crease.
  • “it would have been a goal anyway”. Looking at the video, i see a solid goalie behind me. Markus has great skills but so does she ! The rule says “a shot that would have been a goal without a stupid Q down into the crease”. IMO, to predict a double bottom bracket, and so a defensive failure from another player starts to look like magic.

I don’t blame anybody and in my position it’s hard to say i have a neutral point of view and maybe the call was right. But to me it’s not and we need to work on that rule (and just to avoid to have people stating to shoot on dabbed players as soon as they are in the crease).

1 Like A dabbed player is considered out of play and cannot interfere with play by using their bike, body or mallet to impede an opponent from making a play on the ball or Ball Carrier. The Main Referee may issue a penalty if a dabbed player interferes with the game play in a way that results in an advantage for their team. If a dabbed player blocks a shot on their own goal that would have otherwise crossed the Goalmouth Line, the Main Referee awards a point to the shooter’s team as per 7.5.1.

7.2.1 A Minor Penalty is issued for an infraction that prevents a clear scoring‐opportunity or significant advantage from the fouled team, or any other specific actions specified in Section 6.
7.2.3 A Minor Penalty is issued for any infraction as per Section 6 within the crease on the Ball Carrier.

Plenty of reasons to have exactly 2 choices here:

  1. no goal, but minor penalty on dabbed player
  2. goal

As I said, 2) can only be the call if it is certain that it would have gone in. If the ref thinks it is certain they have to call 2). Those are the facts.

If you dab in the crease in front of a shot, well, that’s your problem. With your argument (where should I go?) but without a player behind you, you would sound ridiculous. You shouldn’t dab in that situation, that’s your answer. If you are dabbed you are out, immediately. You do your best not to interfere, fine, you should. If you block a shot it’s a major advantage for your team that has to be sanctioned. This is a fundamental principle as old as the game


TIL always shoot on a dabbed player in crease.


Danke !
It’s more clear now :).
Considering this, 30sec for me was the only option so I can consider myself as lucky (even if luck doesn’t exist in bikepolo :wink: ).
I hope it won’t result in players waiting for players to dab, to shoot on them and get them out for 30sec.

1 Like

Haven’t you used up all your luck in Berlin in 2015?




Thanks for opening up this topic and for clarification of the rule!

There was a similar situation on Berlin mixed in a game of golem: goalie dabbed, and wasn’t in front of the goal anymore when a ball hit them (at least from my perspective) but still in the crease (next to the goal). As far as I remember that situation would have lead to an advantage for the attacking team due to the reflection of the ball which went in front of the goal again. There wasn’t any chaos in front of the goal nor was there any close player on player situation… call was goal.