The ball is out on who hit it out.

Discussions Rules
1

I’m tired of people ripping the ball trying to 5 hole me or squeeze past a front wheel only to have the shot go out of bonds and my good defensive play penalized.

The ball SHOULD be out on who hit it out, who delivered the force, who started it.

This even makes it easier to ref, no arguing about who touched it last, no rewarding spray and pray tactics. Other ball sports(fooseball🤠) have come to this conclusion as well.

2 Likes
2

I agree on the principle, but:

  • making it clear-cut, as you propose - that whoever shot the ball going out of bounds, regardless of deflections, forfeits the ball - has some potential for tactical abuse…
  • expanding that definition of play on ball to minimize tactical abuse, would be tricky to get fair, I think.

I might be totally wrong though in assuming that making an intentional defensive deflection out of bounds is something remotely easy enough to try and (ab)use as a tactical play.

It could also be limited to a degree by who deflects and/or which boundary the ball leaves - like in handball, where a goalie keeps the posession of the ball if they deflect it and it crosses the outer goal line.

So potentially we could limit it to a defensive player in the crease (likely not making it any easier to ref than now), and/or to leaving the court behind the goal (probably also hard to ref in some cases)

1 Like
3

hockey rules! have the person who hit the ball and the person who deflected it face off for the ball.

probably a terrible solution but i think it would be fun

2 Likes
4

For every sport that has done it one way another has done it the opposite.

Lacrosse (field) it’s player closest to ball as it goes out of play if originating as a shot (even if it hits goalie or cross bar) You’ll see players sprint and dive to be closest as it’s going out. If ball isn’t shot (pass, deflection, etc) then it’s awarded to the team that didn’t touch the ball last. Creates a mini game within the game.

Basketball ball goes to team that didn’t touch it before it goes out.

Hockey is a face-off.

Field hockey and soccer operate the same with sideline and end line rules differing.

So on and so on.

If you want the ball back so bad you should let it go in the net :wink:

4 Likes
5

I think it’s more revealing to compare the context of the varying rules and ask why loss of possession has rested where it is for these older sports. The real question is what kind of game do we want polo to be?

I didn’t know about the interesting mini game of lacrosse but it seems it’s to incentivize players to pursue the ball(we all love ball chasing :P) Non-shots are treated like they are in basketball (last to touch)
I think not having barriers changes the logic and intentions of these rules, we learn more from the history of sports like foosball and hockey.

As we play harder, a lot of concern is rightly given to safety, but imho the elephant in the room is the potential damage a rising shot from a hard rip can do. I’m not suggesting a speedlimit, but I think disincentivizing hard rips into strong defense is better for the game. The defense can hardly control the ball staying in, where as the shot taker has all the control.

@floppywonka I think the idea of a face off is best really, but given the awkwardness of the face off at the current time it might be more of a burden on the flow of the game not worth the “fairness” yet.

The shot wasn’t going in anyways, but you still get it back?

1 Like
6

@k0nrad I think the potential for tactical-abuse is already present as the rule stands. This would shift it to the defense which as you suspect is harder to control the outcome, because it’s dependent on the shooter delivering enough force.

I can see a compromise where the mallet doesn’t count, but I just feel it’s devaluing the skill it takes to block with a stick. one of the hardest things to do is block a shot with the mallet especially the faster it goes. not to mention adding complexity of reffing, which if left at the onus of the shooter simplifies.

7

I will write in similar tone that I wrote in the post about two points line. People like when teams play 3 up, people like when teams play offensively. It is extremely hard to play 3 up against team that barely move on position 2 and 3, and even harder when position 1 is defending closer to the net. Space is too small for anything, especially passes. You don’t even try to pass because probability of lucky bounce or interception is very very high. What you then try to do is:

  • create more space by reset (but I’ve already seen a proposal to limit it: Onsides rule. )
  • create more space by “ripping” - you try to find an opener and rip this way you try to show the other team “if you will not come closer to the ball carrier, one of the rips will come in” and we will get that rebound if you won’t move or we will get ball if it bounce out of the court

This rule is just encouraging people to play lower and more defensive. More rules like this less 3 up, less passes etc.

2 Likes
8

Hm, I haven’t thought about that, but that’s a very good point. Current high-level meta already seems to be a pretty deep defense with double-stack and one high-pressing player, and a chance of turnover after deflection is even more incentive for that - this would be that ‘tactical abuse’ I’ve mentioned.

While I can agree that current ruleset allows for similar tactical abuse from the offensive team, to just spray and pray because the chance of regaining the ball is not too low, in a way it promotes more active defence focused on preventing shots rather than just blocking.
So I think I ultimately side with Pajac on that one.

1 Like