The 2023 EHBA Ruleset megathread

We have updated the EHBA ruleset.

Appart from some rewording, typo and reference corrections, there are a few new additions to it: most notably Game Mechanics for Quads (4v4) format. In addition, we have reworked penalty escalation and redefined Minor and Major Penalties to improve the ability of refs to assess and issue them as needed. Finally, Hooking has also been addressed and redefined to better outline its use and its relation to Mallet Interference.

The ruleset will be in review for the next 3-5 weeks to iron out any mistakes, or inconsistencies that might be found. Please take the time to read it and take it in. Feedback can be directly sent by email, however discussions should be held on this forum.

Given the timing of its publication, regional qualifiers for EHBA may use the 2018 edition, but we strongly encourage tournament organisers to abide by the latest version.

Looking forward to a very exciting 2023 season!

12 Likes

Nice work guys!

Question re. Hooking. Does the new language prelude a ‘double teaming’ where one player hooks and the other player takes the ball. It seems to me that this is now allowed.

My opinion is that this was ambiguous in the previous ruleset, and that it should indeed be legal, but perhaps this could be made explicit if it not so.

This is so much better than NAH. It’s like a deranged man didn’t intentionally fuck it up or something.

NAH should just adopt this, before NAs

3 Likes

Yes, it’s been addressed, but I would appreciate if you’d read it beforehand.

I did read it, I’m just illiterate :slight_smile: But now i have another question.

The combination of 6.4.6.2 and 6.4.6.2.1 outlaw hooking when you’re chasing someone from behind and you can grab their mallet, but not really get to the ball, in an effort to prevent them taking a shot for example?

would be nice to highlight the changed / reffined rules with a different color

or isolate here whats th re work

green for a re phrasing that doesnt change the gameplay

red for a re writting that actually change how we play / ref

9 Likes

Hooking has been referrenced in Mallet Interference. Please read that section too.

You need to be within reach of the ball to hook someone. That is the core of the rule.

Great idea, but that’s a ton of work to save you from reading it again.
I detailed the broad points above.

Benji, you can use a diff compare tool to spot all the differences!

Screenshot 2023-05-02 at 11.07.44

I use the fancy Kaleidoscope, but there are some free web versions out there.

This seems to be a valid one.

@Mega_shuffle what about creating a Ehba Github to make public and trackable all the future revisions? I’m doing something like this for the Italian translation.

11 Likes

Not a fan of Github, but we can talk about it.

GitHub is just a suggestion, it can be any Git environment for tracking changes in a shared project!

Here is a landscape A5 imposed version, so you can print on both sides and make a small booklet:
EHBA-ruleset-2023-230501-EN-A5-imposed.pdf (548.8 KB)

3 Likes

a ton of work ? you and your team just altered the ruleset so for me to know which paragraph have been changed , i have to re read the OG ruleset + the new one you just put out.

even if i do so i can still miss some changes, and you want it to be reviewed in 3 to 5 weeks ?

im all for saying "people are lazy they dont read the rules " but wjat about making it easier when its achievable ?

im pretty sure you and ale know exactly what has been changed and what remains the same.

also is this a forced change or a proposal ? is it still in the hands of berlin and perpignan to decide or did they officially agree on this last min rule change / re wording ?

2 Likes

You baffle me Benji. Pyetro litterally offered you 3 solutions to what you were asking and you still come back with a snarky, entitled response.

Let me clarify something for you. Nobody is imposing anything on anybody. The same as the EHBA is not a legitimate governing body of anything. We work by consensus. It exists because we agree it exists, and to a certain degree trust the people putting hours into getting shit done.

You are free to use, write - or not - whatever ruleset you like. The same as Berlin, Perpignan, or San Luis Potosí for that matter. Don’t discredit the work that you haven’t even taken the time to review.

3 Likes

I feel like that’s a little bit unfair. The EHBC is kind of the defacto standard for a lot of the world, so although they are nothing ‘official’, there is a responsibility to the community to be moderately open and responsive.

Not trying to shit on anyone’s work, there are some great changes. But I do agree with Benji that the process could be a little more open/transparent.

Here’s an example of a process that would be a bit better to me. Make a post with one or more proposals of rule changes AND the tournaments they have been trialed in, and get some feedback from people who tried it, and other ideas about a proposal. And give that a decent amount of time for them to be trialled at more tournaments before incorporating. (I feel pretty strongly that nothing that effects play should go into the ruleset without some pretty serious testing at real tournaments).

I don’t think there needs to be some massive consultation of every little change or what very. We don’t want to Brusselize the EHBC, but it could seem like these changes are just like, your opinion man.

Don’t want this to sound to negative, I appreciate the work, just offering a suggestion .

7 Likes

Here is a comparison of the two pdfs -
[Compare Report] EHBA ruleset 2023 - 20230501.pdf (1.7 MB)

Blue is new additions yellow is rewording - click on the comments for old and new.

For future reference this how you do it if you have acrobat pro (paid version): Link

7 Likes

If people want to participate on the process and contribute, they absolutely can, and they have… and I hope that they will.

Part of the reason the euro ruleset exists is that we actually took the time and effort to create it. Part of the reason of its success is that we actively took the advice of people willing to work on it.

You have to realize by now that internet discussions take a great deal of curating in regards of what is actually an agenda, trolling and plain old boredom at the keyboard to move things forward. If we would have stayed on facebook/other internet platforms, we could still be arguing about which side of the hole we need to measure and the loudest voices would be the ones making the calls.

You are upset on principle and you are offering a solution that works on principle. I don’t say you are wrong. I say I’ve seen it derail so many times.

And yeah, I could see how this seems like, my opinion man. However, this is my field of expertise and I’ve spend thousands of hours over the past 12+ years I’ve been invested in the rules and reffing, so I do have a vague idea of what I’m talking about.

In any case, I would like to go back to the essence of this post and focus on the details of the ruleset. Please review it and let’s have a chat about it.

2 Likes

how do i get pick up to be in the good team ? ive been pretty vocal about my interest to help out and obviously im not pointing out flaws there and there without a will to make it up , but how do i participate ? so far its been just a case of “do it on your side and we will maybe reply” which imo isnt very productive.

so who , in 2023 has the hands on the ruleset and was on board with you for this ? why you didnt put out a post beforehand saying “hey we reviewing the ruleset , wanna help ?”

just quick questions bzfore rushing to work

1 Like

Are you serious? we talked face to face about this, Benji. You knew it was coming, you knew where to reach. You simply didn’t.

If you want to send an annotated review of the ruleset, you can email it
If you want to discuss specific point, you can post it here.

i dont have much time rn but will input my full , complete review of this ruleset , new material / equipment and feeling of game mechanics from this season .

thanks pier and pyetro i didnt had time to use these tool extensively but it still doesnt compare quote to quote the two rulesets , exemples :

old ruleset
IMG_7721

new ruleset
IMG_7722

so the proper way to update the polo crowd on this paragraph is the following

  • shaft materials as been narrowed to only metal alloy and composite ( carbon ? ) i havent seen a bamboo shaft or resin shaft (el club) in years but they did exist
  • change of diameter hole maximum from 58 to 59mm
  • change of head length max from 150 to 130mm
  • shafts can now sticks out of a mallet head up to 3mm to accomodate new range of carbon shaft.
  • a minimum wall thickness is now defined to 1.5mm at the scooping end / lips

thats a lot of last minute changes just for equipment ! i might still have skipped something.