This is a foul. Anytime somebody does it tell them. You can only initiate contact on the ball carrier OR when fighting for an an open ball. The ball carrier cannot initiate contact on anybody in any scenario. This is an old school tactic that some people think is still fine (including some refs) when it is not since years.
3 Likes
I feel like we are playing some soccer where you can hold someone’s leg with your arm. It’s fun quite fun I have to say.
But some people are saying that maybe we should stop it : coz it slow down the game, is not supposed to have so much impact on the game (we are not playing a “grab the leg game”), bring to injury, give an unfair advantage to the defense, etc.
And the answer are between : “it’s gonna be to hard to ref…” and “we could put some oil on our leg”
2 Likes
As written above, I think banning all hooking, aka using the mallet as a hook is reffable. It is clearly different than a tap.
But personally I would be against banning taps, else I belive ball handling gets way too easy.
So, when are you finally just throwing a tournament without hooking? You’ve been talking about it for years. 
2 Likes
ban hooking and shoulder checks and balance it by adding timed possession = fast ,well timed , skillfull polo.
here is a copy paste of the basket rule , respected by any serious basket player , easily reffable in a street bball tournament by one or 2 refs:
5 second rule
On an inbound pass, a player may only hold on the ball for a maximum of 5 seconds . In the game, if a player is closely guarded, they must start dribbling, passing the ball or attempting a shot within five seconds. Upon violation of this rule, an inbound pass is awarded to the oppossing team.
8 second rule
When a team gains possession of the ball, they need to move the ball into the opposing team’s half of the court within 8 seconds .
24 SECOND CLOCK Once a team gains control of the basketball, that team has 24 seconds to put up a legal shot . A legal shot is defined as a shot that is successful, or if unsuccessful, hits the ring. That shot has to be in the air (left the shooters hand) , before 24 secs has elapsed.
1 Like
@django - you said disallowing all MOMP would be bad because it would make ball handling too easy.
What is the downside of ball handling being easier?
1 Like
Can we have the shoulder check elimination discussion elsewhere? I don’t think the topics are sufficiently related to discuss in tandem. For starters, I don’t think that removing checking would change the defensive/offensive balance of the game. I’m very interested in that discussion after Aaron brought it up again on Northside Polo Podcast and have much to say, as usual. ; P
I think that any rule that would sufficiently eliminate the kind of mallet play that seriously interferes with the flow of the game would have to rule out some mallet play that is necessary to counterbalance very strong dribbling ability. This is a good portion of my argument against a rule change and for an equipment change. It has all the upsides and little to no downside, if weight, cost and implementation were sufficiently good. But I’ll shut up until I have a prototype for you to test ; )
I’m guessing your answer to Django’s question will be that it will be way too hard to tackle an offender if all you can do is take wheel and attack the ball. It might even lead to more dangerous defensive tactics like bar blocking people’s hips, blocking pedals with front wheels and more serious checking. That wouldn’t be ideal. I guess I can see now why you included removing checking… Took me a minute to work out your logic but I got there in the end! I’m even more against a rule change for mallet interference then!
If there were a rule implemented perhaps you are correct that possession time limits would go some way to counterbalancing the negative consequences for defenders. However it seems that there might be worse consequences than just that if it promoted hideous alternative defensive strategies.
So the announcement is out for the proposed rule change.
Seems like hooking is planned to be banned and that seems pretty straight forward. I was at first very against this but I’ve come around a bit. I don’t hate it. I’m curious what people think the purposed changes to mallet on mallet play in general. Particularly §7.3 – Interference
1 Like
More passing is better than more holding the ball at free will
2 Likes
Late to the Party…But this chatter of hooking mallets is concerning on a number of levels. I’m sure lots and lots of opinions have been shared and whatever my take on this should be would it be effective to discussion as it impacts the game on so many levels. Refereeing (super challenging), Flow, Competitive spirit, Impacts of people with winning and losing (these still exist in the real world).
After 2+ years of global rules placed upon nearly the entire population its great to see the love for polo still lives on but possible new rules is a move in the wrong direction, Maybe the time and energy on these new ideas could have been better spent on getting more people to play polo. Why wasn’t this implemented ? because its simply the hardest part of bike polo to get more people playing…and who wants to do the hard stuff these days ?
Still here for the polo but leave the cotton wool in the medicine cabinet.
2 Likes
imo the scenarios of upcoming "hideous defensive strategy " will only happen if the game is left unbalanced.
thats why im throwing in early the idea of removing shoulder+ clock thingy.
imo right now from day 0 bike polo rules have been mostly “piled up” year after year, the nah and euro body dealing situation after situation one by one( which is fair enough)
but after 20 years of existence and 10 years of organized events, the style of plays have evolved ( looking at current champions playstyle vs 10 years ago ) the rules could use a re work from scratch ! re think bike polo with now a more accurate vision of its real potential and give the sport what it deserve
- the infrastructure. courts size are disregarded or doors are not available and often we are content with whatever is available.
- the reffing. the ref teams are under staffed and not well trained .
- game mechanics. with better courts and ref you can push better game mechanics (as the ones being slowly implemented this year and since the crease, obstruction , peanlties procedure have been reviewed players realized the game they been playing for 10 years was far from perfect)
[edit] to me the game we currently play is dictated by the ressources we have but i would love to reverse this and see how much more enjoyable the experience would be.
1 Like
So I have a bunch of reservations on the shot clock etc.
Refs currently struggle to enforce a 2s limit on the balljoint/scoop. I see often 3s+ balljoints even with 2 refs watching. How are refs going to pay attention to a 5s rule, an 8s rule and a 24s rule? Of course they can take a timer. But then starting stopping and resetting a timer for 24s possession, and during this possession for several 5s periods, and doing is the entire game without mistake. Highly unfeasible. This can be thought about in a much more organized future.
Aside from the technicality, I do not see why the game needs speeding up? There are lots and lots of scoring attempts in high level games. The general objective is always go and score/shoot. Defense is also pressuring and chasing all over the court. The sport most similar to bikepolo is still icehockey and a lot of parallels can be drawn. In a modern high level game any reset, any turtling, any attempt to slow down the game or protect a lead will be challenged hard by the defense, same as in hockey where no such thing as shot clock exists. You cannot sit back, relax, and waste time. Not against an equally able team who is trailing behind you. So I see no necessity for a shot clock/possession clock or whatever.
6 Likes
i understand why it s not the most natural thing to think of but i can see how it pace basket ball games.
i m also familiar with basket ball games auto reffed with this kind of rules and its more about a general idea of how long you are expected to hold on the ball, rather than a strict enforcement every time someone hold an extra second ( like the ball joint and crease rule should be)
i can only relate to another sport and its rules ive played under. i think bike polo is at much relatable to hockey than basket ball and its not like we have so much in common with actual grass polo or horse polo even if its a closer cousin imo.
to me , when i went from not respecting the clock to respecting it in my basket ball games the added dimension of a timed play forced me /the teams to think of what they are gonna do before they get the ball and as a player you go straight to the point rather than trying fancy and1 shit.
1 Like
i ll try and add more pros about timed play :
-
like in basket ball, polo player have developed a large amount of personal/individual moves. one person can hold on the ball for a very long time just" baiting"the defense to dive in to get a chance to recover.
-
if no hooking becomes a thing then it will be even harder for the defense to press such player. right now as soon as a team is leading in point its already a huge strategical advantage and you can pace the game. add this the ridiculous length of a polo game (12min without stopage of time ) and basically on a tight game after one team scores (1-0 at 6min) you could kill the game by playing conservative (world finals).
-
without timed play, it actually force the defense to make their move , when it should be the ball possessor.
-
with time play , the defense doesnt have to be as aggressive and just have to focus on being one wheel ahead and cut passes, if the team in possession cant come up with a smart enough team play or cant get a good angle at the nets, then they get “cornered”. you win defense just by staying up and being in time. imo this flow is already present in good games, clean games.
-
timed play solve teams abusing “reseting”. on a already small court , adding a middle line rule that turn over the ball if the team resets is to me a bad idea : rather than reducing the playing space, what you really want to reduce is the team time possession. why not directly adress the real issue rather than adding another rule on top ?
-
you dont really have to time scoops and balljoints anymore.
-
get rid of shoulders checking would also work now. or rewrite it because its too messy atm. no one is the same height, handlebars are all sizes , pedals get into wheels , its a mess. most people dont want to go there because the outcome is so uncertain you have more chance to draw a foul or crash. a clean “closing the path” of the opponent is way more efficient and predictable.
-
for shoulder check to happen atm it means that the ball possessor see the incoming check, stop whatever ball handling he was doing, get to the height of his “checker” by lowering or highering his stance ( previously his stance was dribbling stance so probably in front of the wheel type of stance) and meeting high and even BUT without extending elbows and arms too much so basically impossible in most situation.
because the rule does not force the player to do so , its a better option to just ignore the check and either turn away from it or pass early or just keep on pedaling as fast as possible. -
steering arm infraction would be always called as rn its very hard to see really if the shoulder contact exactly above the elbow , or on it, or slightly under, its a pain and one of the most inconsistant reffing in my games.
If hooking was banned and checks too, and offense had a shot clock and could not reset, give me an argument why it would not be the best defensive strategy to turtle as tight as possible until the mandatory shot and then try to get the rebound?
well the crease is gonna be 2 feet bigger and bigger right ? and you still have to go as well a break away even after turtling etc …
i didnt say no reset as well
hey django can you also clarify :
if two players are pedaling to a loose ball, can they mutually tap each other mallets ? even tho the ball is not in mallet reach and a player s hands are both on handlebars ( pointing down ? pointing up ? )
its a big mood in LPC and i feel people should just stick to challenging with their trajectory until the ball is in mallet reach. but the rule is written so this i actually allowed.
6.1.3.3.1.1 Mallet on mallet contact when challenging for possession of a loose ball within 3m from the ball will not result in mallet interference penalty.
It is allowed. But correct me if I am wrong, in these situations it is extremely rare that somebody would focus on trying to hit the other player’s mallet before getting really close to the ball. Players would try to get in a position where they can protect the ball with their body, or play the ball into a position where they can secure possession. A mallet hit will not help getting there faster.
Honestly, I am not exactly sure which scenarios this rule is focused on, but it sounds more relevant in scenarios where the ball goes into the vicinity of 2 static or slowly moving players, rather than 2 players moving fast towards the ball.
thank you , its clarified.
in london , players are very wary of the wording of this rule and use it as i described it, which is imo very sad.
as you challenge the ball and apeed up to get closer to them, they will swiftly tap your mallet even tho your hands are on handlebars and the ball is nowhere in mallet reach.
imo wording should be “ball within mallet reach” not 3M , and then “mallet reach” should be defined.
i dont think static vs fast should be taken in account
Yeah this is a pretty lame/desperate move that doesn’t even truly improve your situational advantage that much. It is a bit of an action I associate with a less skilled player trying to play every card they have, whether it actually helps them or not. However, in high level games you barely see it in races for the loose ball, there is simply no time to waste and also not much gained from a mallet tap (especially if the other player is with both hands on the handlebar charging to the ball).
1 Like
I foul people for this. It’s dangerous and I will not have it. One warning and then I’ll send you for 30. It’s crazy bullshit and if it happens at pickup people should be told to pull their head in.
I also dislike it when someone waves their mallet in front of your path in the hopes of frustrating your mallet’s path to the ball. This often happens when both hands are on the bars at worst and at best before you’ve even made an effort to play at the ball. I’m happy to penalise people for this if I’m ref.
People need to start blowing the whistle and having a go. People are afraid of the following question:
“which rule says I can’t do that ref”
To which the answer should be, “I don’t need a rule to tell me that riding around attacking someone’s mallet while it’s on their bars is dangerous. How about you try it again and I’ll give you 30 seconds off court to start writing a submission for a rule change.”
I think getting people together before the game and telling them what you consider dangerous is important. I often tailor my pre-game chats to the unique bullshit of each teams’ antics. Diving is a big one for me. Maybe I’ll start a thread…
2 Likes