What would you call

Hi polo peeps
Would you call it a foul here?
Hope with your help we can find a better understanding of the situation.
Thanks a lot


White shirt player is going into black shirt player… So it’s a Tbone? Normally he is just allowed to close him… Not to go into him and hit him with his front wheel


White t-bones.


Watch closer, and consider black pedal hitting white front wheel, still you think white t-boned?





IMHO, it is impossible, based on this video, to differentiate if the white stopped soon enough and was hit by the black player’s pedal or if the white player hit him with a front wheel. It is probably even more challenging to call it properly during the game. What’s more, I suppose that the involved players don’t know what happened. Sometimes, a hit from the wheel occurs first, but it is slight enough to make you hit that wheel with your pedal right after, and you are not sure if it was your foul or not.

Sometimes, it’s pretty clear that the pedal hooked the wheel; sometimes, a hit from the wheel is apparent - here, neither is clear (for me).

I would say that most of the refs will call a t-bone by white shirt - it is based mostly on probability/experience.

Hopefully ref didn’t get a rocket for this.


Everyone back to Rome! Re-joust GOLDEN GOAL!


You can see there’s initial contact from Punch, but I can’t understand why Paparella just collapses on top of his bike.
Is Punch pushing after the contact? Is there a mallet in the wheel (look how the ball leaves from under Paparella’s BB)? Does a pedal get caught?

What a mess.

What was the call in any case?


Watching it live I had the impression that white player was coasting and stopped, meanwhile the ball carrier engaged the opponent with the pedal causing the handlebar to tourn and him to fall, didn’t felt any push from the defender

1 Like

Nothing has been called . Game kept on going

1 Like

The pedal hooking on white’s front wheel looks like what caused him to lose control and crash. White does jot stop in time and makes t-bone contact before the pedal catches.
Nothing more than a weird looking, light, t-bone foul.


Even if I could calculate exactly how to stop in time to block a pedal or maybe a little bolt from the fleeing attacker, would I be a good defender who does his job?
That’s the rule?

1 Like

Yes, that’s the rule.

What you do is just an eristic trick… It’s trying to argue by exaggerating something that represents the tinniest number of situations like it is expected. We don’t see tens of crashes like this in every game because it is almost impossible to defend like that effectively in a repeatable and regular manner. The margin of error is ultra-small; most of the time, people will turn or bend and get next to you without the slightest contact. If you could predict your opponent’s movements and manoeuvre your bike with such precision and timing that you can effectively defend like that, then you can probably defend more effectively in N other ways. But that is just my opinion.


Stressing the rule by pushing it to the limit is just one method of testing its validity and he trick is what you can do by this rule,
but it’s obviously very difficult to remedy.
and about perceptions

You are right but… pushing it to the limit in practice not mentally.

1 Like

you can still see if a player is actively playing that weird side of the rule or if its the pedal striker fault : you just have to look at who enclose who.

if the pedal striker is going away from white and white chase him until his front wheel get caught , its on white fault. white should chase the space in front of the front wheel not aim at the middle of the bike…

if white is showing clean , static , defensive position and playing his space without moving forward , and still the pedal striker get caught in his front wheel because he decided to curve really close to him , then its his fault.

same outcome , two different actives

although if the two players are heading towards each other then its just messy play , you could decide to give them both fouls if it look reckless (2 minors or majors) or give them benefit of the doubt and call it incidental , rejoust


Black knocked himself over by cutting too close to white’s front wheel. Notice how right before he ran into white, he looked back down at the ball, because he thought white would stop for some reason? I would say it is the fault of black for not paying attention to the play.

coming back to this topic and watching it again i would like to ask:

why the black ball carrier needs to curve in front of white ? white seems beaten already so if black kept going away from white wheels he would have left him beaten.

white also keep going directly towards the ball carrier bike expecting , imo , to exactly catch him like he did. i feel like we have enough way to defend on a ball carrier with shoulder option , mallet option , or occupying the space in front of the front wheel option. itd a light bike on bike contact but still one

ultimately my call is that both players worked together to initiate an illegal bike on bike contact , we should look into this more deeply and decide where to cut the line, its an issue that NA players also bringing up a lot since mallet contact is limited this kind of contact are getting more frequent.

i could extend to : the only time when a t bone is “legal” is if the player is completely static and the t boned player actually curve hard into the front wheel of a static player.

i still think i would have called white for t bone because of the way he engaged in the middle of black bike , if white would have stayed more static and black properly curved in for that contact , then i could consider a foul on black but from this video i would def give a minor on white for a bike on bike contact

Black has every right to ride where they want to - white clearly catches them in the middle of the bike

T-bone for white without question is what I see

1 Like

I think that this discussion is getting in a bit wrong direction. I would like to remind that…

  • we can’t help ourselves with VAR (there is no ‘after rewatching it again’)
  • we are not pro refs
  • we’ve got seconds to decide (there is no ‘after a bit of thinking’)

and that’s why…

  • rules need to be a bit general and imprecise - we need to be able to ref what we define in ruleset
  • refs need to base on their intuition a bit
  • we need to accept that mistakes will happen without ref’s bad will

and finally:
we can’t shout at ref :D