Adopting the next NAH ruleset.
David Corrin MEL
Public
Seen by 237
The impending changes to the NAH ruleset are going to greatly impact our sport and I would like to open up a dialogue about how our region intends to remain current given that the proposed rule changes, being the crease rule and the obstruction rule, might be adopted in our region. If you are unaware of these proposed changes it begs the question; why are you here as a rep… This is kind of a big deal and I worry that it hasn't been more openly discussed in our region.
I have it under good advice that while the particulars are yet to be ironed out, both of these proposed rule changes will come into effect prior to the major North American competitive season. This means that teams qualifying for World's in Timaru will have done so under this new ruleset.
My question is two pronged; are there any objections to using the current NAH ruleset at the time of our qualifier and the same question for Timaru. We have used the current NAH ruleset at both previous worlds I have attended and I would like to see the qualifying teams from our region do so under this ruleset as I believe, after playing a tournament recently under this ruleset, that the results may vary greatly in who qualifies depending on the ruleset used.
I think that if this is our intention we should give the Euros maximum time to digest the ruleset.
I believe that the sentiment of both the crease and the obstruction rule is the key to the next level of growth in our sport. I frankly would be very disappointed to see us deviate from that path and try and carve our own in light of the success and acceptance of the proposed changes in North America. My interest in playing a tournament without these changes is verging on non existent at this point and I believe that I echo the sentiment of many of the top tier players in the North American scene.
It cuts both ways however as it would be best to let the North Americans know asap if we intended to go our own way without the proposed changes. It's a long way to come and get screened for the length of the court and shoot on six wheels...
Robert [HBT] Wed 25 Mar 2015 12:25AM
We have been playing with the NAH rules down here since at least October 2013.
Who even plays to the Australian rules these days? Sure there are elements of the NAH rules that are not perfect but at least they are actively being developed. Much more than we can say for the Australian rules of 2013. In fact the bikepolo.com.au website even indicates the Australian rules have been archived.
Provided some of the kinks are ironed out re obstruction and the crease rules and information is available that clearly explains how they operate I see no reason not to similarly (as with 4.3) adopt them.
Sam TIM Wed 25 Mar 2015 7:57AM
Well raised.
Would be very interested in hearing about the success (or otherwise) of the new obstruction rule. From what I can see the new rules are taking the game in the direction we like to play it in.
This is an important discussion for AHBPA to discuss and finalise well before September.
Brook [SYD] Thu 26 Mar 2015 12:57AM
I think we should be trialing these new rules in pickup so we are familiar with them, but only use them in the bigger tournaments such as a qualifier once we have confirmation that they are 100% in the new rules. In principle I support them.
The funny thing is that these new rules make our current rule set closer to the new NAH rules than the current NAH rules. Not simply in what the rules are, but more importantly how we've chosen to apply/ref them.
David Corrin MEL Thu 26 Mar 2015 8:27AM
@samcallander , IMO the sentiment of both the crease and obstruction rule are in line with the evolving desire that we all have to see a more flowing, passing, less defensive and ultimately faster game of polo. The success of the rules is largely dependent on how effectively they are refereed.
Sam TIM Thu 26 Mar 2015 9:45AM
Thanks Dave. In timaru we deal with that "desire" just by playing that type of game. (It's more fun) so we are not too familiar with how to legislate against shity/boring play. A tough challenge
Kent [SYD] Tue 31 Mar 2015 1:37AM
Does anyone have a proposal? ANZ is obviously much smaller than both NAH and Euro and we would need a really good reason to not follow the lead of those. I can't find a crease rule on the NAH website and my understanding is Europe isn't committed. The obstruction rule is an interesting innovation though and I think will make the game more fun to play generally even if it takes a while to get used to.
In terms of when to adopt the rules, if they will be played at worlds they should be played at our quals, and as that seems likely then Ill be suggesting to Sydney we start playing with them in our faster games nowish.
Brook [SYD] Tue 31 Mar 2015 2:15AM
As @davidcorrin mentioned, it's very likely that the obstruction rule will be part of the next NAH ruleset. Almost as likely will be a crease rule but they are testing that some more.
In Montpellier, the discussion between the heads of each region was that NAH would communicate to us and involve us more in the discussion of changes in the hope that the AHBPA and EU would be happy to adopt the NAH ruleset as a world wide ruleset. I don't think they've been great at doing this. It's up to AHBPA if we want to adopt any future changes and up to AHBPA/TUI on what rules to use for WHBPC.
NAH only make up 1/3 of teams at WHBPC so if AHBPA and EU don't like the new ruleset then we have a legitimate voice to say no to it.
In an ideal world, i'd like to see NAH involve us and EU more, and have a single ruleset we all use and is adopted for WHBPC7.
jamie barber Tue 31 Mar 2015 3:14AM
There should also be pressure for NAH to finalize their rule-set ASAP, with a caveat that if we use the rule-set, it cannot be amended until after Timaru, so that teams have time to practice.
As of May 2014 321 (http://321polo.net/tag/european-hardcourt-bike-polo-association/) says the EHBPA was
1) Alejandro “Mr Carillo” Carillo (Spain)
2) Eduard “Eddy” Krömer (Germany)
3) Morgan “Morgain” Hidalgo (France)
4) Johanna “Jo” Lemm (Germany)
5) Clément “Uolmo” Bailat (Switzerland)
6) Marco “Scimmia” Campisano (Italy)
7) Vincent “Pôl Poil” POUJOL (Belgium)
8) Dany Majard (Czech Republic)
9) Benjamin Liu (France/Switzerland)
I imagine they would have a email list or group for easy communication which we can utilise.
Could we (the AHBPA) email them to ask if they can come to a TIMELY consensus about whether to play by the NAH rules at Timaru, and if not, what set of rules they would like to play and how we can address any dissension regarding the rules so that we can possibly reach a compromise and avoid teams pulling out of the tournament out of protest of the rules. It may be a time consuming operation if every rep has to hold a club vote or canvas opinion of interested teams.
I think forcing a euro consensus with their reasoning behind adopting a certain ruleset will be better than the shitfight that will ensue if we discussed it on LOBP or any other forums.
TLDR: NAH must finalise rules ASAP, no changes to be made to ensure teams can practice these potentially result-changing amendments.
Consult EHBPA as to where they are at with rulesets and whether they are willing to play the NAH ruleset or if a compromise can be arranged.
It seems like everyone here wants to adopt whichever rule-set will be played ASAP so that we can practice playing and enforcing these rules.
Brook [SYD] Tue 31 Mar 2015 3:57AM
@jamiebarber I agree. I'll contact some of the people involved and ask them to raise this and get back to us.
I think setting a deadline and agreeing on this early would be great for practice as well as legitimacy in moving to a global ruleset.
jamie barber · Mon 23 Mar 2015 10:32PM
I would like to see the rule confirmed for implementation and ironed out before we adopt them as our rule set.
Has the European region stated an intent to play by that set of rules? As much as I respect that the game was developed in NA, it is a worldwide game and there should probably be some input.
That being said, I think we have been on the path toward a less physical game for a while now and it is really changing the game for good. The main change I am referring to in this instance is our adoption and use of the "no initiating contact whilst off ball", which I guess is an iteration of the spirit of the obstruction rule.
Having a dedicated and experienced ref (Dave) at no sleep til Brisbane was really helpful in creating an environment where rules were enforced consistently and lead to the increase in understanding of the rules for a lot of people.
Since then, the tournaments I have attended have been of a consistently high standard for reffing and I would argue that the skill level and watch-ability of the game has increased.
Finals have been a delight to watch knowing that they will not just dissolve into a display of machismo due to dangerous contact and complaining about inconsistent reffing.
I haven't left the courts in a long time with a crash related injury or angry at another player for dangerous play. I think the obstruction rule is a step in the right direction for the game becoming more accessible to the masses.
With regard to the crease rule, it does need some clearing up in terms of certain ambiguities that make it hard to enforce in a consistent manner, but it is another step in the right direction.
I don't think Australasia or Europe will be able to collaborate to make a rule-set as comprehensive as the current NAH ruleset and think that it would be remiss of us to not adopt the ruleset locally.
This is a reflection of my personal opinion rather than Brisbane Club sentiment, so I will withhold voting on any such issue until I get a gauge on local opinion.