THIS POST REFERS TO THE OLD RULES, SEE THE 2ND POST VERSION 4
There's some discussion on LFGSS, but figured it was worth posting for reference
Link: http://www.nahardcourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/nah_ruleset_v3_3.pdf
Helmet rule is being revised, and this...
§8.1.1 – A pushing penalty will be assessed when a player uses his arm, extended more than 90 degree at the elbow, to make contact and push a competitor.
Proposal for Version 4 of the NAH rules has been put online for discussion on LoBP - https://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/rules/2014/01/06/2014-ruleset-proposal
Link to NAH v4 beta: http://www.nahardcourt.com/proposed-2014-ruleset-version-4-0-beta/
EDIT: Link to version 4 (final I believe) http://www.nahardcourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NAH_Ruleset_V4.pdf
There are a number of changes compared with the version used at the Euros/Worlds this year, including but not limited to...
+ introduction of hand signals for referee
+ introduction of hand signals for goal refs, goals refs now have the ability to call players dabbed on net and if calls for timeout aren't heard by main ref
+ section on players/substitutions
+ court rules including board height and access doors for minor/major penalties
+ structure for NA regional qualifers/NA champs in appendix A
+ rejoust on draw at time is now followed by 5 minute 'silver goal' (During this overtime period, either
team can score a goal and the game continues until one team reaches 5 goals.) before going to golden goal
+ changes to stoppage of play section now have an amount of time attached to various scenarios including resets, mechanical time outs, teams are allowed 2 times outs... probably more stuff in this section too
+ 'possession' is now deemed as the player who made the 'last deliberate touch on the ball'
+ the penalties section looks like it has been changed but i've skipped it for now
+ A dabbed player is considered out of play and cannot be engaged with in anyway. Physical contact, mallet play, bike contact or screening of a dabbed player will result in an Interference penalty.
+ bike contact section has been separated into bike contact. t-boning, tail whip, sweeping
+ there is more text in the 'high sticking' bit
+ Mallet tripping (aka dickmove mallet under wheel) is now 'jamming'
+ Section added about mallet dropping
+ Section 10: Bodily Contact Penalties now mentions Extension, Charging, Interference and Flagrance
Lancaster Bike Polo have also written something slightly more comprehensible and with highlighted sections about v4: http://lancasterpolo.com/2014/01/07/initial-review-4-0-ruleset/
Fascinating stuff - we evolve!
Jammin' in the name of the lord...
I'll read up tomorrow.
321Polo have done a summary of changes as well - http://321polo.net/2014/01/analyzing-the-2014-ruleset-proposal/
There is also a lot of constructive discussion about the interference penalties/screening and assorted scenarios (including diagrams) on LoBP thread and worth reading.
And I was just about to start playing the way this guy hates.
http://hatingonbikepolo.com/a-boring-game..html
So if you've got the ball, are guarding a ball or are guarding the teammate who has possession, contact is permitted.
If you're minding your own business, contact => interference penalty.
Seems to correlate nicely with Rugby Union rules.
Might be a slightly more accurate description. 'Contact is permitted' sounds like the team with possession/screening are allowed to initiate contact - this is not the case.
There was some discussion after the first team game last night when Rob made a quick-reset after conceeding and scored on me/Joe/Chan as we were returning to position. I don't care about if we had/hadn't crossed the line or the classy-game aspect of it, but looking at the rules I though there was something about it...
Turns out there isn't anything super clear. There is the following
The restart is referred to several times for penalties, in the event of calling a time out, ball out of play etc. There's no mention that the game actually restarts (with the action defined above), only that...
A reset isn't the same as a restart is it?
Surely a restart after a goal is marshalled as above (when a ref is in the house) and can only be correct if all players are in their respective halves, and only when the whistle is blown? It does imply strongly, that in unreffed matches, both teams ought to be aware of each other being in a state of readiness ie. they should check before crossing halfway as a courtesy to the rules of a match.
In your case Andy, I'd think the only question would be were all players in their respective halves when the ball carrier crossed halfway to restart (as you didn't have a ref for a whistle). If not - then it cannot be a goal and a proper restart made again. Otherwise, wake up you sleepy bugger!
So are resets therefore more 'relaxed' ie. the ball turned over by the ref as a penalty award, who, in turn, can waive the full and proper restart procedure to allow the game to flow more?
I think they're the same thing. I assume what we call a 'reset', the americans call a restart as there's only one mention of 'reset' in the ruleset and that refers to the timekeeper and their stopwatch (20 instances of 'restart').
So I'm right in thinking that in all scenarios the game is restarted - ball turn over, goals being scored, ball out of play etc. the ref requires verbal acknowledgement from both teams... While I doubt we'll see this happening at throwins, it's worth being aware of at tournaments...
Anything in the timing section that clarifies it?
Kall Kruse.
I read everything that had 'restart' or 'goal' in it but couldn't put the two together. Going to skim the LoBP discussions before posting elsewhere
If that is the case, then both teams ought to observe it regardless of a ref being present/throw ins etc. It's pretty easy for the ball carrier to look up and check that the opponents (and indeed your own players) are in their respective halves and ready to restart. Otherwise its just another a dick goal...
Can you get clarity on whether a restart is the same as a reset whilst your at it...
They were all in their own half, I looked up and they were not really paying attention so I scored a dick goal. Joe got an instant karma goal straight afterwards.
Yep, not disputing where we were or anything, just curious about what the ruling is on that as I thought I'd read something about it and half-have.
^^ They should know you better by now...! As a matter of interest though, how would you have reffed it Rob??
I'd have called it a goal and heaped praise on the player for being so pretty and awesome. As a side note we wouldn't have done as well at the LO last year without a goal or two like that, we only drew with Woody's team due to one of those dick goals and that was one of the early games and probably meant we qualified without the extra games needed.
Apparently in v3 of the NAH rules there was supposed to be some verbal acknowledgement from both teams...
Aside from discussion about rules, I noticed this was posted on the ref-resources for the NAH, I've not read/reviewed the footage yet but I'm hoping it might make the interference rule clearer... http://ref.nahardcourt.com/case-study-interference-for-2014/
^^I think I said last night that there was something but I thought it had been removed.
Yep, looks like they've just added hand signals to the procedure. Guess it's one of those things you might get away with depending on the ref. Most effective solution for the conceding team is having a player hang back in the opponents half while your other 2 players get back into position, just to be on the safe side. Seemed to be happening a lot if you watch the games from Miami/NA Champs.
Yeah, people do that quite a bit, although I think I've read something about having to return to your own half within a reasonable amount of time.
Yeah, people do that quite a bit, although I think I've read something about having to return to your own half within a reasonable amount of time.
You're correct
I don't think I'd get away with dick goals at tournaments anymore, looks like the ref needs an OK from both teams as long as it hasn't been over 30 seconds. I guess with throw-ins we should ask the other team if they're ready.
One for Neil.
^ This is why hooking remains otherwise a player can block you with his mallet on the floor - which can't be right.
Yeah, the only thing I could think of adding would be the pinning rule to include the goal, because you are trapped in a similar way. I get most of the new rules now but am still a little unsure of what you are/aren't allowed to do to a stationary defender who is in your way, as it's not a "moving screen" and if you are even allowed to set up stationary blocks in the first place.
Yep, hooking in the rules appears to be defined as mallet on person or mallet on bike...
Pages