I think my point is, the spirit and history of the law of advantage has been distorted by the way we ref our games. A potential for advantage isn’t always there, the ref doesn’t always have to award advantage after an infraction.
During the delayed penalty, the team in possession… Is deemed to be in advantage
Furthermore,
There are many complicated descriptions of how advantage ends, and I think the rules of advantage are too strong.
Proposition: Advantage ends when you lose possession AND the ball is not in the crease.
Can you elaborate on this please?
It seems that you simultaneously want to call less advantages given that a clear opportunity has to be present not the mere retention of possession. But the above statement suggests that when you do call advantage you’d like there to be almost no limitation on it’s duration.
The actions that end an advantage - crossing back over half or retreating - are there to uphold a limit on what one can reasonably deem to be taking advantage of an existing opportunity vs creating a new one.
Isn’t is illogical to lift the bar with regard to having an opportunity immediately after a foul but then lower it in the case of being awarded a delayed penalty. This amplifies the effect of what would be a largely discretionary call by the ref. That seems like a mistake.
I think you are on the right track with being more discerning at the point of the foul with regard to playing out an opportunity rather than merely retaining the ball. However, I think that the current actions that end an advantage are fine and could be strengthened to include any shot that passes through the crease and crosses the base line.
I just don’t think removing complexity is always a good thing. In the grand scheme of things, the rules around ending advantage are pretty easy to understand and judge for players and refs. I’ve seen little misunderstanding of these. If we can’t trust people to exercise judgement using clearly defined conditions then how can we expect them to be able to effectively use their discretion when it comes to awarding a delayed penalty?
Perhaps I’m not reading “lose possession” as you intend it. If you mean that the other team doesn’t have to get possession to end the foul, the advantaged team merely needs to lose control of the ball then I could get on board. However, my general belief is that requiring a strong definition of possession that does a lot of work within specific rules is a mistake. It’s incredibly hard to define and if alternative options are open that achieve a reasonable result we should prefer them. Positively defiining gaining possession is far easier thatn positively defining when you lose it - That’s why we opt for a positive definition of when someone else gains possession - it’s a surrogate for you losing possession. My sense is any positive definition of losing possession that doesn’t look merely at when the opponent gains possession would have to include proximity to the ball which I really dislike. If there are ways to do it without such definitions I’d be happy to hear them.
its interesting that you find the advantage overpowered
this season the NAH went opposite way saying : advantage is not enough of a balancing effect after a foul, 45 sec in the box is the default penalty / no more “advantage only” . i disliked the effects on the game meta , its really unbalanced and games revolve a lot around baiting fouls to win rather than displaying creative gameplays.
also the nah ruleset has a different end of advantage mechanism
i understand your ideas of re adjustment but not sure how to apply , would rather have this convo watching a game and real life comments.
side note about end of advantage on clear possession , there is currently a possession loophole in the ruleset :
-if you dont have a mallet you can still remain active and playing , although if you manage to recover the ball and somehow pin it / corner it against the boards , the possession might never be called by the ref , delaying precious seconds of play.
you could also technically score legaly during advantage if you just one time the ball without controling it , but that the ref will usually not count it … its not in the rs tho
so imo the line should be “end of advantage when the team with advantage loose clear possession of the ball” wich means a small deflection should be enough to stop the advantage , or if someone gain possession for an instant and the advantage team snatch it back , it should also stop the advantage.
Right now a lot of 50/50 ball battlzs end up in favor of the advantaged team
Actually the ruleset is very clear about that:
8.3.3 No point can be awarded to the team to be penalized during the delayed penalty, except an own-goal by the team in advantage.
Covered by 6.1.1.2 IMO
6.1.1.2 A player pins the ball with their mallet or bicycle while leaning against the boards, preventing other players from playing the ball.
@JuicyJules its true the rs say so but its weirdly phrased , the point isnt awarded but its a valid goal !
u could still get the point if somehow the one timer is then deflected by defense and it becomes a own goal , technically the ref cant cancel that
@metriod just dont “pin” the ball ! dont “lean on the board” just prevent a player from playing the ball by being in between him and the ball , ball being in a corner or behind goals.
these are obviously a bit of stretching but still show some weakness in how we formulate rules
I forgot to consider that rule about losing advantage by going behind your goal line.
The rules have a long list of criteria for stoppage of play during advantage. Included is possession is gained by the team commiting the infraction. I think this should say instead possession is lost
We enjoy a description of how possession is forfeited. Why not use it to simplify how we write the rules about advantage?
To address Benji and his remarks on how this effects game-play, consider the following.
You know those strange instances during advantage when the defending team is trying to gain possession enstead of clearing the ball away? This change to the rules would mean advantage can be lost if the defending team gets a good whack on the ball. Thus reducing these strange instances of play.
Here is a proposition of what the rule would look like in the rules.
8.3.1.1 During the delayed penalty, the team in possession is deemed to be in
*‘advantage’ Any of the following criteria will result in a stoppage of play: *
-Possession is lost and the ball is not in the defensive crease.
-An infraction by the team in advantage
-The team in advantage carries the ball from the offensive half of the court to behind their defensive Goal Line.
This version had 66 words compared to 157 in the rule set.
Using the current definition of possession would mean that when the team with advantage passes the ball they would often forfeit the advantage if the ball moves a sufficient distance. Is this your intention?
As I’ve said before, I’m not against tightening up how we use advantage to reduce its power but we need to consider how it acts as a deterrent. I agree with Benji that the use of minor penalties in the case of NAH is not the right way to go.
One thing to consider is to allow a “play on” call if the the ref believes the advantage has been played out and there is no longer need to stop the game as the disparity caused by the fould has been sufficiently rectified. Exceptions to this would be dangerous play etc…
Teams definitely need to be able to complete passes without losing advantage.
A team can be in possession of a ball, while players can be ball carriers. They are not equivalent ideas, but related.
For me, the nuances about distance to ball are for determining who is the ball carrier, a player who is being governed by a special set of rules. It’s not interesting to apply it so far as to say that a team temporarily loses possession when the ball is being passed.
I think the polo community would struggle with the play on call. Teams change strategy the moment Advantage is called. No one has the habit of losing advantage while play continues.
I’m quite confused.
I take you to mean that the description we enjoy is contained in 4.1.1
4.1.1. The player who made the last deliberate controlled touch on the ball with the mallet is considered to be in possession. The player in possession is referred to as the Ball Carrier.
4.1.1.1. No player is considered to be in possession, or possession is forfeited, if either:
4.1.1.2. Possession is not forfeited by the Ball Carrier if a deliberate touch on the ball by an opponent does not hinder the Ball Carrier’s ability to continue playing the ball with the mallet and its proximity to the ball remains within approximately 3m.
So I’m guessing you mean that no team member can have possession according to the rules but the team can still possess the ball because they have not forfeited possession as a team. The only thing that would forfeit possession is two deliberate touches by a member of the other team. You just don’t think that needs to be made explicit because if you read 4.1 it should be obvious.
I’m wondering if reducing words is helping with simplicity…
Does an incomplete pass that lands nowhere near my team mate leave us with possession until the opposing team has control? The rules seem to say nobody has possession at this point. I can’t see how you might leverage the rules to suggest that nonetheless your team still has possession. I think you’d need to add a definition of possession according to the team for your change to work. As it stands I think you are relying on the conventional use of the term possession as it is colloquially applied at the level of the team.
Are you just trying to shave words or do you think this actually increases the chance of correctly interpeting the advantage rule?
Thank you for the rules quote on section 4. DO we agree that the vocabulary in this section is abit messy, too?
The terms Possession and Ball-Carrier are closely related, but distinct.
E.g. At a stopage of play a team is determined to be in Possession but there is no Ball-Carrier.
Although I haven’t really organised my thoughts on how the rules need to be be addended, I do feel that there are too many words in the ruleset right now. The important words like dab, ball-carrier, advantage, possession, delayed penalty, goalie, etc., need clear definitions. We can then use the words to reduce alot of these bulletpointed lists that appear all over the place.
Here’s a rough example of how I’d re-write this section
4.1.1. The player who made the last deliberate controlled touch on the ball with the mallet is called the Ball-Carrier. The Ball-Carrier’s team is said to have possession of the ball*
4.1.1.1. A team is considered to have lost possession, or possession is forfeited, if:
4.1.1.2. Possession is not forfeited if a deliberate touch on the ball by an opponent does not hinder the Ball Carrier’s ability to continue playing the ball with the mallet and its proximity to the ball remains within approximately 3m.
[/quote]
lets create a proper topic in the the proper sub “ruleset”
enter it as a proposal for rule change
if we get enough peiple to upvote it lets make it mandatory for reps and board membets to vote it
and voila we got ourselves a tool for rules update for the next season.
on a side note : would get rid of anything “3meters” related, if a pass is conecting above the 3m limit , it doesnt make sens to consider a team is loosing possession on a full court pass, they still actively playing the possession
the issue comes with what defense is allowed to do on a player moving up the court to catch that pass …
Yes. We need the 3m stuff for the definition of ball carrier, and re-write possession to include passes where you dump the ball to an open space, and have a team mate recover it.
so u saying we need 3meters rule right ?
the ball can be within 3 meters , and it wont impact the possession attribution , in reality
i dont think anyone has possession if the ball is “dumped” into an open space
what needs to be clarified is the concept that "no one has possession " sometimes 
here is an exemple on how soccer deals with possession on a long pass
but soccer mechanics differ from polo , lets also compare with hockey, and i dig into how they legiferate the “dump into an open space”
This rule reference is excellent! I think it should be used to define possession in the same way, then use it to define advantage for delayed penalties.
