Sorry. Bamboo mallets are still not a thing.
3 Likes
well all shafts breaks, this one is compostable.
how long did it last ?
1 Like
Many pickups on my hand: one shot on Morgan hand.
Was the second prototype, still room for improvements.
3 Likes
my voltige snaped in one tripod
define “regular polo use”
Don’t judge shafts on their first tournament 
2 Likes
Can someone upload the 2023 rules to this page?
https://eurobikepolo.com/ehba/rules
not sure who’s in charge 
The link is always up to date with the latest version.
I added that info now on the page.
1 Like
can we reword the straight line in a joust rule?
right now it reads:
5.2.3.1 Jousting players must maintain a straight line until a player makes contact with the ball.
this allows for a situation as shown below, where the blue player chooses a straight line to the ball. this is allowed a per rules as written but horribly dangerous (as indicated by the red lightning bolt)
I think a rule change like this would help a lot:
5.2.3.1 Jousting players start on opposite quadrants and can not leave their quadrant until a player makes contact with the ball.
this effectively prohibits players from crossing the “vertical” mid-line of the court (cyan dashed line in the figure below), making the joust safer - even if the blue player decides to go in a wiggly line - which we can also still forbid
6 Likes
“until a player make contact with the ball” is not enough to protect him from being cut short by the other jouster.
i know its commong sens for most people but i ve seen players also cut short after contact was made.
rule should state something like "jouster should commit to a straight line after accelerating for the ball. if the jouster wish to concede the joust then he shouldnt accelerate past the crease line "
this would allow imo for a clearer wording that match the in real life situations ive witnessed.
You are mixing up two concepts here: rules and reffing.
Rules don’t necessarily need to outline exactly every action, but let’s not focus on this. I don’t want this to be the center of the debate.
What the rule here is saying is: go for the ball, don’t quit when you’re close to the ball, play to your left. More or less, right? That would be the spirit of the rule.
Now the reffing part. You are outlining a dangerous situation, and there could be a thousand more if we start thinking of all those crazy jousts we’ve seen throughout the years. However, as a ref, you already have the tools to make a call on any action that you deem dangerous, reckless, or unnecessarily risky: The Major Penalty. Nobody stops you from making that call as a ref. Maybe it doesn’t get called enough… true. Specially until this last update when calling for 2 minutes on a player was incredibly harsh (even more on 3v3, 10-12 minute games). But the tool is there to prevent inventive ways of getting wrecked.
As a final detail, there is some work to be done at the club level: teach people how to joust. It shouldn’t be a complicated action (the joust, not the teaching). But it should be clear that there is little wiggle room in how a joust should work.
1 Like
i think’for some situation there is not a thousand way to execute it right , for this one , the joust , its been interpreted as many ways and its not maliciously , people just learn by themselves.
so until there is someone starting to cut line dangerously in your club you might never actually need to read the rule of the joust , that most people understand with common sense.
its like this for many aspects of the ruleset, i think its time to give at least one visual exemple of "how to execute things " to help everyone be on the same page rather than expect people to interpret the ruleset with the right mindset
I think “opposite quadrants” makes way more sense than “straight line”, yeah. I vote it goes to the revision 23.2
3 Likes
I don’t agree with you completely here. Sure, in an ideal world with ideal refs and club culture, that issue would not exist. But we live in a different world, and that’s why we have rules - their exact purpose is to prevent people from taking decisions which lead to an advantage for them while posing risks for others (and themselves) - among other things. And if a rule states pretty explicitly that a dangerous action is allowed, then it is a lot harder to blow the whistle.
I’ve seen plenty of bad jousts and am not always in a position to say something about it (being intimidated by the exact people who would choose to joust in such a way, for example) - this is a clear example of where clearly written rules can make a difference IMO.
And on a meta-level, what boxes do we need to tick with you that a proposed rule change has any chance of getting adopted? Rewording the rule explicitly, explaining the difference between old and new with pictures and having people’s approval for the proposed change does not seem to cut it… what does?
Not trying to come over as angry here, btw, I am hugely thankful that you put so much effort and energy into this and you did an awesome job! But let’s make it awesomer!
6 Likes
Woah! Hold on a second.
Not because you have an idea it means it’ll directly get into the ruleset. I don’t appreciate your comment about ticking boxes and whatnot.
The ruleset is not a popularity contest. Ideas need to be discussed and challenged. You have your opinion and you are defending it and I am giving you a counterpart. I see a few problems with your idea and I’m leting you know what they are. Simple as that.
First of all, your solution redefines the court. The concept of quadrants is simple enough to grasp, but since you were complaining about the gray areas, and since the mid line is not clearly defined, what happens if at some point a player crosses the imaginary middle. How far is far enough? Do you see what I’m saying? Are we going to have to draw a line down the middle now when we build courts? I know the midfield rarely gets painted on anyway, and that causes much bigger headaches.
Besides, you are talking about one of the most basic concepts of bike polo. One that has existed pretty much since the beginning, before there was even a tap-out point in the mid-court. It is super basic game mechanics.
What I’m convinced of is that you have a localized reffing and toxic player problem (not you, but a specific player or set of players that joust like dicks). Saying that you feel intimidated by someone for making a call on something blatantly dangerous should not happen. But no ruleset in the world is going to fix that. That goes beyond and I definitely do not condone it.
You do have this unbeatable argument against a bully.
On a final note. Do I think you are wrong and should shut up? No. Fuck no.
1 Like
Far from the “I really appreciate your job but I would have done it another way”, here is the link to the official EHBA Ruleset IN FRENCH !
Feel free to read it and to share it !
7 Likes
thats not a localized issue , half of USA dont know how to joust safely , they even discussing doing side way jousts or face off to replace the oh so lethal OG joust.
i vouch for a clarification of the joust as well , its a old concept as you said but isnt clear to everyone / new players.
the escalation solution you proposing to silence a bully is also not very helpful , we could also have this issue in pick ups.
you asked :
what happens if at some point a player crosses the imaginary middle. How far is far enough? Do you see what I’m saying? Are we going to have to draw a line down the middle now when we build courts?
imaginary line is enough , since the real line to not cross is the other player trajectory. players have to adopt a straight trajectory not curving as they go for the ball.
once the ball is possessed , the players jousting are still due to respect each others trajectory.
if you want to concede thhe joust dont go further than the top of the crease.
i would add as well that non jousting players have to remain at the top of the crease as well until the joust is over to not set up an additional obstacle , this is what is done usually but its not written black on white neither
another exemple of how wide people interpretation of a rule can be is about the new mallet infraction rule , i created a side post to fully get around this new rule wording
You are right. We shouldn’t rely on common sense.
1 Like
to me its crystal clear
Hello everyone.
I think we are pretty much done with the final version of the ruleset.
There’s been a few changes, revisions and corrections since the creation of this thread. Thanks for the input.
There is however a last minute change. We realized the idea behing hooking and mallet interference was easily grasped and more or less consistently reffed. But it wasn’t properly reflected in what was written.
The link with the latest version is always the same. You can download the latest version here
Here is a screenshot of what’s different (in yellow, what’s been added, in blue, what’s been moved)
Here’s the older version (in pink, what’s been removed, in blue, what’s been moved)
I apologize for the late, late, last minute update. I had this in the oven a while ago, but I had an unforseen event that put me out of duty for a bit.
I shouldn’t expect the way we’ve been reffing the new ruleset to change, I just hope that this version makes it a bit clearer for everyone on what’s expected of the game.
10 Likes