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.
Question re. Hooking. Does the new language prelude a ādouble teamingā 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.
I did read it, Iām just illiterate :) But now i have another question.
The combination of 6.4.6.2 and 6.4.6.2.1 outlaw hooking when youāre 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?
@Mega_shuffle what about creating a Ehba Github to make public and trackable all the future revisions? Iām doing something like this for the Italian translation.
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 ?
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 PotosĆ for that matter. Donāt discredit the work that you havenāt even taken the time to review.
I feel like thatās a little bit unfair. The EHBC is kind of the defacto standard for a lot of the world, so although they are nothing āofficialā, there is a responsibility to the community to be moderately open and responsive.
Not trying to shit on anyoneās work, there are some great changes. But I do agree with Benji that the process could be a little more open/transparent.
Hereās 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 donāt think there needs to be some massive consultation of every little change or what very. We donāt want to Brusselize the EHBC, but it could seem like these changes are just like, your opinion man.
Donāt want this to sound to negative, I appreciate the work, just offering a suggestion .
If people want to participate on the process and contribute, they absolutely can, and they haveā¦ 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 donāt say you are wrong. I say Iāve 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 Iāve spend thousands of hours over the past 12+ years Iāve been invested in the rules and reffing, so I do have a vague idea of what Iām 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 letās have a chat about it.
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 ādo it on your side and we will maybe replyā 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 āhey we reviewing the ruleset , wanna help ?ā
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 :
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.
