"Own goal" Question?

In Chicago and most of the Midwest, we don’t play with an “own goal” or “self goal” rule. Only intentional hits off the end of an opponents mallet (for hardcourt) can count as a goal. So if the original shot that bounced off the wall and then the bike was legit, the score would count. HOWEVER, we also play with a “pretend there’s a net” rule which says that if the ball passes backwards through the goal possession is awarded to the opponents of whomever passed it backwards. That whole team cannot be the next player to touch the ball. So: the deflection would not count as a play on the ball, and as we have no “self goal” rule, the goal would not have counted in Chicago.

Before each of the BiAnnualMidWestBikePoloChampeenships there has been a little conference to come up with “tournament rules” to accommodate all the variations in goal height, courtesy rules, foot down rules, etc. Immediately before play begins for the day, an announcement is made so everyone knows what to expect. It doesn’t end every argument, but it keeps a few from starting.

Oh, and for the NACCC’s: It will basically be little beirut rules and a lot of these things will be discussed on line before the big day, but we’ll still ask a representative from each city off to the side to work through all the little rules and situations we can think of, and make an announcement before the games start.

If we can do that little confab Friday night or early Saturday morning, we can get the tournament rules printed out and posted on each court, just to try to eliminate a little static.

I’m glad this came up now so we have plenty of time to work it out before any of the big tournaments of the season. Our game has relatively few rules, but the ball-from-behind-the-net situations are definitely the most complex circumstances and seem to require the most specific rule-making. Up to now, the NYC rule (which was written and effective as of the 2007 ESPI) reads as follows:

-Passing “backward” through the goal (from behind the goal line to in front of it, through the goal, a.k.a. “goal offsides”): When the ball is passed through the goal in this way, a goal CANNOT be scored by the first player to play the ball. Any subsequent player to play the ball may score. If a ball is shot from in front of the goal line and does not go through the goal but bounces off the back wall and comes out through the goal, the ball is in play and can be scored.

As written, this rule doesn’t address the situation that Doug brings up in this post. It simply says the ball is in play and can be scored, but leaves the question open: “is the shot still ‘on’?” If so, then Doug’s post describes a goal.

I think the best way to think about this is to break up the possible situations into discrete pieces and consider each one individually. There are four cases to consider:

1. The case described in this post. A shooter (attacking player) shoots the ball from in front of the goal line, misses the net, and the ball bounces off the end boards, back through the net, and in front of the goal line.

2. A shooter shoots the ball from in front of the goal line, misses the net, and the ball bounces off the end boards and back out in front of the goal line -without- passing through the net.

3. A shooter shoots the ball from behind the goal line to the front of the goal line (hoping for a deflection or simply making a centering pass) and the ball does -not- pass through the net.

4. A shooter shoots the ball from behind the goal line and the ball -does- pass through the net.

Here is where I want to discuss each case and give my personal opinion and raise questions for discussion.

Case 1: This is probably the least simple to decide on. My first instinct is to call this a goal because the last play made on the ball was a shot by an attacking player. It seems to me that the shot should still be ‘on’ while the ball is still being carried by the momentum imparted to it by the shot (Zach’s words, thanks Zach) and has not been played by another player. Deflections off of wheels, bikes, legs, or even defending players’ mallets do not “take the shot off” in other situations. A goal counts if a shot is made and then deflects in off of a defender (in any way – his wheels, bike, mallet, etc) or off of another attacker (in any way except the broad edge of his mallet head – this makes it a shuffle and “takes the shot off”). To me this is the main argument for counting the goal, because essentially it’s a shot that deflects off of a defender’s wheel and into the net. The main wrinkle in this case is that the ball travels backward through the net first before the deflection happens. It could be argued that this “takes the shot off”; the moment the ball crosses the goal line through the net from back to front, the shot is “off” and the subsequent deflection off the defender is not a goal. This is where a “pretend there’s a net” rule would be invoked, and you could say that a net would have stopped the ball crossing the goal line in the first place, so that deflection can’t be a goal. I don’t actually fully agree or disagree with either of these, I feel that both have merit. Let’s discuss and come to consensus on it.

Case 2: Similar to Case 1, without the wrinkle. This seems a lot more simple to make a ruling. My opinion is that even after hitting the wall and coming back out above the goal line, the shot is still “on”. That means that if it deflects off a wheel or a defender and goes in, it’s a goal.

Case 3: Similar to Case 2, any deflection that goes into the net is a goal. The shot stays “on” until an attacker shuffles it or a defender gains control.

Case 4: My first instinct is not to allow goals of this type. If using a “pretend there’s a net” rule, this is obviously not a goal. If not, then immediately when the ball crosses the goal line and comes out in front of the net, a “delayed goal offsides” is on (by our NYC rule) and a goal cannot be scored by an attacker if he is the next to play it. Goal offsides is waved off as soon as either a defender plays the ball (including inadvertant deflections off of a wheel, etc.) or an attacker passes to another attacker. The core question here is, do we allow a goal if it deflects back into the net off of a defender while “goal offsides” is on? This is another question we should discuss before deciding on a ruling. To me, on one hand allowing the goal doesn’t specifically break any other rules, and would force a goaltender to really be on his toes (a good thing, in my opinion), and on the other hand this is going to lead to some really cheap goals if you can just tap the ball off a goalie’s wheel from the back.

This was kind of long but it’s meant to be a jumpoff point for discussion, so let’s go… what do you all think?

It seems to me that if he took the shot correctly, it doesn’t matter what or who it bounced off of, if it eventually goes through the goal in the correct direction, it’s good.

The player in front of the goal didn’t play the ball, it just bounced of him.

We’d count the goal.

atmo

I think i saw this particular incident.

The only thing I have to say about this is that it started out as a forward hit, and after whatever it bounced off, it ended up going through the goal in the correct direction. yeah.

We have gone through many scenarios in Ottawa with controversial goals and i can’t say they have been the same as the one in question. That’s just because of different rules and courts. But it affects OUR game all the same.

We’ve seen it all. Going over your own goal line, deflections, back wall bounces, off the wheel, behind the goal passes…
Going over your own goal line with the ball in any sport that has the offence and the defence in play at the same time. ie. soccer, lacrosse, hockey, bike polo… is an own goal. People have to play by this rule because that’s the rule.
We play that when a pass comes from behind the goal line it can be shot right away and not have to be touched by another player first. I like the touch rule, It makes for a more technical play. I also like the no touch for it’s one timer plays. I love one timers.
We also have a rule which i think is played with popularity , that if you shoot from behind the goal line and it bounces back off of a defending player it is no goal and play just continues.
Deflections are being discussed here. We all know that any deflection off a shot that goes in from in front of the goal line is a goal. but what if the deflection comes off the broad side of the mallet? The “shuffle” side? Some of us are becoming Jedi masters. Laser shots that involve deflection intent. So what if you shoot the ball to me for a deflection and i deflect it in off the broad side of the mallet? Is it a shuffle? We’ve decided it’s a goal if there is no forward or pushing motion of the deflecting mallet, and any part of the mallet can be used as a deflector.
I think i’m getting into a whole new discussion.

We don’t really get back wall bounces because we play in the cage. But i think that if the ball were to miss the goal bounce back and deflect off a player, its no goal. But i could counter argue that as well . I don’t know… What i do know, and this has been talked about here. It would also put an end to alot of this. Goal nets. Same width and as high as a top tube.? There would be less discrepancies, it would give the game some after goal stoppage,and it would be pretty cool to hit some net.?

Thank you for the comments so far…

I think that in any situation where the ball crosses the goal line backwards a subsequent hit must be made for any goal to count. Meaning, if a shot crosses a goal line backwards the shot is “off”.
The general rule is: “Scoring a goal must be made from what started as a hit. A hit is made from the end of a player’s mallet. A “shuffle” does not count as a goal; if the ball is shuffled through the goal, play continues uninterrupted.”
I say add: ” if a hit crosses a goal line backwards the shot is off.”
Of course this does not address the question of do own goals count.
The words “own goal” do not appear in the general rules for NYC. This should also be addressed.

Doug D
NYC

The object of the defensive aspect of our game is to prevent the ball from crossing your own goal line. If you bring the ball over your own goal line, shuffle or not, it should be a goal. If it isn’t, what’s to stop me from clearing the ball out of a dangerous situation in front of my net by simply shuffling it through my posts into a corner?

As for the example from the Northside, I do believe everyone was made aware of the local rules before play began.

Also can I say how pleased I am to see the range and variety of responses to this posting. I think these kind of discussions can only improve our sport and help it grow by achieving some semblance of uniformity from city to city.

ILOVEBIKEPOLO!!!

We’ve thought about using actual goals with nets in Chicago. So far we haven’t because of cost and portability issues. We used to fear wrecking into/over them, but they play with big, honking, steel pipe goals in Dayton and people manage to play around them just fine.

Maybe if we get enough sponsor money, we’ll get some for the NACCC’s just to eliminate these potential arguments. Then we’ll box ‘em back up and ship ‘em to whoever is hosting the big thing next year.

As to the “own goal” rule. If an intentional play (i.e. an attempted pass, shuffle or shot) ends up in your own goal, I’d consider counting it. I agree that to not do so would cause rule pushers to defensively clear through their own goal.
I would count an intentional deflection off a bike, assuming it was a legal shot beforehand. (Not through the back of the goal or a shuffle)
I would not count a deflection off a mallet like in Ottawa. Whether or not the assist-er moved their mallet, the last offensive touch before the goal would come off the side of the mallet and be a shuffle.

Is redmenace in law school?

Red Menace

So, on paper he’s articulate and organized, but in person he’s an ugly, angry 15 year old?

P.S. Mohawks were 15 years played out when I had one. 15 years ago. That’s 30 years behind the time when that hair strategy was shocking, original, or meaningful. Chicago will bring battery-powered clippers and the Dumptruck to the ESPI’s. If we win, we get the bi-hawks.

I don’t think it’s a goal either.

I agree with this:
“Meaning, if a shot crosses a goal line backwards the shot is “off”.”

A typical scenario is after the initial “joust” for the ball in center, someone will take a hard shot towards goal which will miss, but bounce back through the cones.

If that ball were to hit a defender acting as goalie and bounce back into goal, that’s not a goal.

If the shot bounces off the back wall but doesn’t go through goal and then ricochets off a defender(or anything that is not the offense’s shuffle side of the mallet)and then goes into goal it counts.

The problem I see with allowing the first scenario is that people will take advantage of it. Why try to shoot through a goalie when you can shoot at the backboards and hope it bounces back into him through the goal? Suddenly you have to defend the back of the back of the goal from weird bounces. This makes it too complicated for the defense, imho.

I think the rule can be written simply:

“Any ball that passes backwards through the goal has to be passed once by the offense before they can score.”

This takes into account both passes and bounced shots and makes it harder to score unintended, freak goals.

Anyway, I agree with everyone above that it is important to have these discussions. I also think the beauty of bike polo, is the simplicity and relative lack of rules. It’d be nice to keep it that way.

okay, part 2.

Here in Boston, we don’t recognize “own goals” either. I’m not sure if this the best way though.

I have to agree that allowing defensive play through the goal in some situations, will undoubtedly result in defenders clearing through the goal line to avoids scoring by the offense.

It’s hard to see a way around this, without writing a bunch of situational rules that will just confuse everyone.

Perhaps the easiest way to write this rule would be to say:

“Any ball going passing the goal line from front to back is a goal, unless it was shuffled by the offense.”

This would make any defensive play through the goal an “own goal” whether a shuffle or not.

Defenses will have to be more careful in their back court play, but it would simplify the game.

A shuffle is the action of pushing the ball on the broad side of the mallet, a shuffle is not the actual piece of PVC. Like the face of the mallet is just that and not a shot. A shot is the action of shooting. We all know what a shuffle looks like and we all know what a shot looks like. If, for example i am in front of the goal, stopped with my mallet on the ground being used as a kick stand and a shot deflects off my mallet and i didn’t even move a muscle….It’s a goal. That would be a deflected shot. In Ottawa it would go into the stat book as a deflected goal.

Yeah that’s funny. What if I shuffled the ball and it deflected off the face of my team mates mallet and into the goal, as they were kick-standing in front of the goal? Would that be a hit? No.

I agree. That would be a deflection off a shuffle. no goal.

But can your shot deflect off your own teammate’s mallet on the shuffle side and still count as a goal?

Or what if you swing hard(shoot) at the ball and strike with the flat side? Is that a shot. No, right? This happens all the time with clearing strikes, and we won’t count those unless it was hit with the head of the mallet.

Just as one can shuffle/push/drag/scoop/tap with the head of the mallet and still have it count as a goal(and hence “shot”), right?

It seems to me that what defines a “shot” has more to do with the part of mallet than with the action.

I’ve never been to law school and I have no intention ever to go. In general I don’t have much regard for the law, in a legal or practical capacity. I have a mathematics degree.

P.S. Bring whatever battery-powered toys you want to the ESPI, you cheeky boys, but don’t forget your A+ game if you have any ideas about winning this one. Besides that I don’t value at all your opinion about my stupid haircut. I think it’s funny, and if you don’t, well… I’ve said it before, I don’t suppose it needs said again here.

It has been written, “a ball that crosses a goal line backwards must be “hit” before it can score.”

This is good, constructive discussion. And it’s all about bike polo. No matter which way the ball bounces, we all love playing it. This is here bridge us together. (thanks again doug). So lets save the trash talk for the court.
“Crucial” point though, dont want to forget my A plus game.?

I think your compromise still allows for an undesirable situation with no penalty. Although it’s not a move I could pull off skill-wise, an offensive player could pass the ball backwards through the goal to themselves or a waiting teammate and score as long as they double tap it or in any other way dribble before they shoot.

That’s why in Chicago the rule is: “a ball that crosses backwards through the goal must be hit BY THE DEFENDING TEAM before a shot (or any offensive play) can be taken.” No one has to clear the area, there is no stopping the game or penalty possession, Just a one time defensive advantage to offset the snfu of a backwards pass-through.

The goal offsides rule that was written for the 2007 ESPI in NYC addresses this situation. All it says is that the first player to play the ball after the ball is passed through the back of the net is not allowed to score. Once that player gets rid of the ball, either by losing it to a defender or passing to another attacker, the delayed offsides is waved off and scoring can happen. It’s not necessary that a defender plays the ball to wave off goal offsides, only that the attacker that receives the illegal pass can’t score without -someone- else playing the ball (attacker or defender).

If a defender intercepts the illegal pass, or even if he simply deflects it without controlling it (this counts as playing the ball), then there’s no goal offsides and anything goes. Essentially in this situation goal offsides is on from the moment the ball crosses the goal line in the wrong direction until either a: a defender plays the ball or b: the attacker who receives the pass loses control (to a defender) or gives up control (to an attacking teammate) of the ball.

It’s the same rule as Chicago’s version, only it’s not necessary (but it is sufficient) for a defender to play the ball. An attacker can receive the illegal pass, pass to an attacking teammate, and that teammate can score, all without a defender touching the ball.

I’m not used to the Chicago way but off the top of my head I’d play it like this. They move the ball threw my goal backwards, I call out to my team not to touch the ball. We let it roll out and away from our goal as far as possible. Then continue play from there, safely. Does not seem most fair or exciting to me.
Also Lucky, It’s not written in the general rules for NYC but you can not pass to yourself from behind to opposite goal. someone, anyone, has to play the ball before you do. And the “double tap” won’t work either. The second PERSON to play the ball is the first person allowed to score.

And by the way.. this discussion is really good, Thanks guys.

I gotcha. It’s simple. “If a ball is passed it through the goal backwards the next hit cannot be a shot on goal.”

Any other tricky issues to settle before all these tournaments start? Penalty for running out the clock if you’re ahead in a timed game? Drawing an intentional foul (footing down in the goal to block a shot) in goal?

Footdown goaltending is one of the BS’est maneuvers possible. I say a shot on net that gets blocked by someone with their foot down is declared a goal immediately. The idea of the footdown is that the player who dabbed is meant to be out immediately to tap. They’re out of the play, they’re not allowed to affect game play by interacting with the ball or with other players. If the dabber is slow to get moving and get out of the net and an attacker shoots on net and it’s blocked or deflected away by a dabber, it’s a goal.

We also award a point if the foot down goal tender blocks a shot.

But, there is disagreement in the Midwest about what you can and can not do between footing down and tapping back in. Some cities say your out of play totally (Chicago, Milwaukee), some cities (St Louis, Dayton) will allow you to interfere defensively with play saying that the letter of the rule is that you may not play the BALL until you’ve tapped in.

I don’t understand that… why should a dabber be allowed to throw his body around and get in the way of players if he’s not allowed to play with his mallet? I think your rule is the way to go. A dabber does not exist until he taps, and is not allowed to interfere with play in any way in the time between.

Lucky, Adam, hold off on that. Let me start a new one.

I agree with Doug that after a shot passes the goal without going in, it can not be deflected in and count as a goal. After it passes, it is just the same as if someone had just shuffled it.

Also, I am not for the own goal gimmick either. especially if you shuffle it though your own goal.

That being said, I will play by anyone’s rules wherever i go.

Poop,

Mark

Nets. For tournament play at least, we need to arrange for nets. We are probably going to get some for the North American’s so y’alls know.

As for regular play, the way NYC and Chicago and others do it is the way to go. You can’t just put it back in. It has to be passed before a shot can be taken.

After all this I’m not sure I’m adding anything, I just like the discussion. Here’s my two cents:

Nets. For tournament play at least, we need to arrange for nets. We are probably going to get some for the North American’s so y’alls know. But getting proper nets for regular play would settle this for good.

As for current regular play, the way NYC and Chicago and others do it is the way to go. You shouldn’t be able to just shoot it back in after it comes through the back of the goal, no matter what. It should have to be passed before a shot can be taken.

As for shots on goal, I always understood it to be based on intent. If you shoot toward the goal, it hits a bike, mallet, whatever, and ricochets in, it should count. If it bounces off of forty different surfaces and then goes in, eh, no.

That said, I’m with Mark, I’ll adapt to whatever.

In Calgary we play as if there was a net. therefore the ball could not have come through the net backwards anyway (theoretically) therefore no goal. And as of this week we have a new polo court (which is a hockey rink in winter) so we actually have real nets now, so should stop that situation from ever coming up. And my thought on own goals, is they always count no matter how you put them in.