The one strike 60-yard - surely the new rule seems a bit inconsistent?
Recently the rules changed to force players taking penalties 4 or 6 to make an attempt at the goal in one strike. If the rules exist mostly for the safety of players, the two people on the 30-yard line now are as much in the firing line as players who would be defending a 30-yard penalty, but who are banned for the reasons of safety.
Does this only seem inconsistent to me? What does everyone else feel?
Does this only seem inconsistent to me? What does everyone else feel?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Luis Lagomarsino (polobreeder) on -
I f you feel unsafe waiting for a ball on the 30 yards, don´t ply polo, maybe golf is saftier, they changed that rule just to make the game faster, not for the safety of the players.
I don´t think it is that bad, you have plenty of time to put your mallet, your hat or to move away of the ball.
Sorry, but that is how I think
-
Permalink Reply by mauricio sordelli on -
no te gastes, no tienen idea.hace rato que les vengo diciendo que estas discusiones tienen que ser en español para levantar el nivel de la charla y te salen contestando en alemán ...uno pide "un jugador masculino " para un torneo y otro pide consejos para comprar un caballo...
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph Busby on -
I don't think responding to a question about rule consistency with machismo about safety is all that helpful. If it were safe to stand within the 30yard line of a penalty hit by a professional, then why can you not defend the closer penalties? The HPA "Umpire's Corner" in Polo Times has said a few times that nobody defends a 30yard as it is unsafe - and just this year I've seen several injuries from it. A good sixty hit by a high goal (5/6+) player will be going at nearly 90mph. You can't always get out of the way of it.
Anyway, it was more an academic question than a practical question.
-
Permalink Reply by mauricio sordelli on
-
sorry, man. you´re wrong.
with argentine rules you may defend 30 yd. 5/6 goal isn´t high goal. also a 1 or 2 goals may hit 90 mph.
-
Permalink Reply by Sani Umar on -
the HPA rules are universal, mauricio, And argentina may be the exception probably, but by rule 5 and 6 goal players are high goal, infact, where i come from, we have only one 5 goaler. And he is a delight on the field.
I believe with the one strike rule, players are going to be hitting quite harder so as to a get a goal in one shot, so there are indeed safety issues like Mr Busby stated.
-
Permalink Reply by Ayman Nackvi on -
I dont believe that the either of the rule changes were put in place for safety reasons.
For 30's I think the rule was implemented to make it a harsher punishment for giving away the penalty.
For 60's i believe the idea is to stop players from being able to tap and therefore close the distance to goal before taking a shot, effectively turning the penalty into a 40 or even a 30.
If you take into consideration that in arena polo you only have to be 5 yards away, and a properly pumped up arena ball in cold weather can be just as dangerous as an outdoor ball. The 'safety' argument starts to look a little poor. but nevertheless which do you think would recieve less opposition from players? "its for safety reasons" or "its unfair to the defending team"
At the end of the day polo IS a dangerous sport, thats why we love it. at some point in your play you will get hit by the ball but being 30 yards away looking directly at the ball and striker is not in my opinion too dangerous a position to be in
These are only my personal opinions and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
© 2013 Created by Hugh Evans (PCW Editor).
