NZCPA Rule Review 2003

[troy]

I've been delegated the task of coordinating a review and update of the NZCPA Canoe Polo Rules of Play before the National League starts. The deadline is 1 April so it's a fairly tight timeframe – here's the plan:

1. Respond to this posting to let us know if you're in touch so we know who else we need to solicit opinions from directly.
Circulate this message to whoever you think should / will contribute but is yet to respond to this.

2. Discussion and Suggestion (two weeks to 18 March)
Post discussion and suggestion to this forum for everyone else to consider, respond to and (most probably) debate.
Please take some time to classify your postings carefully to make the discussion easier to follow:
a) Identify yourself if your username is ambiguous
b) Head your posting with some brief reference the relevant rule
c) Choose to respond to an original posting rather than starting a new thread on the same topic
d) Subtitle every posting with a description along the lines of its
intent eg:
- Editorial change suggested
- Interpretation change suggested
- Rule change suggested
- Rule / Interpretation I support
- Rule / Interpretation change I oppose
- Rule / Interpretation needs clarifying
- Issue (requiring consideration)
Hopefully this will help keep postings/ responses focussed and avoid confusion when contributors contradict their own arguments (or sit firmly on the fence)

3. Draft proposal for changes – (one week to 25 March)
A formal list of proposed changes will be compiled for final discussion / objections

4. Final proposal for changes – (one week to 25 March)
Ratified by Exec, Board as required ready for publishing with National League booklet.


I've started the discussion rolling with a number of postings ... I've some more to come but I'll let you digest these first!

Thanks for your participation
Troy

[troy]

PS Don't worry about expressing support for suggestions that seem pretty reasonable and we can probably take your support for granted - this will just clutter up the debate with unnecessary replies...

Only express your support for a change when someone posts an objection that you disagree with - this should keep the forum tidier!

Thanks

[becks.c]

It looks like we are a bit behind schedule on this rule review.

Is it time to circulate the draft changes or do we need more time?

[troy]

Attached is a final draft of the proposed rule changes for 2003.

Note that the section on Conditions for Play has not been included as there were no amendments in this section and I had to reduce the size of the file to attach it here.

Thanks for your contributions - they were much appreciated.

Some people were a bit slow to get started and a number of our prominent referees were conspicuous by their absence. However we managed to get a final draft put together and reviewed by a number of our senior referees.

Please appreciate that we were never going to please everyone, and a few matters are yet to be conclusively resolved. We will have to review these again next year.

In the meantime, please keep the suggestions coming and we hope you will contribute again for 2004!

Thanks
troy

[James]

I am concerned about the way some of the rules are written, in particular how they might be interpreted by over-zealous referees.

Below is an excerpt from the new rules:

A Goal-Penalty-Shot will be awarded for a deliberate and/or dangerous foul on a player in the 6m area clearly in the act of shooting, or for a foul on a player in any position passing or positioning for an “otherwise undefended” goal.

It is the first half that i am concerned about.....it could be taken that any deliberate or dangerous foul on a player shooting within the 6m area is a goal penalty shot. ICF clarify this by saying that the fouled shot would be an otherwise near certain goal! Perhaps this could be written better....or a rider written saying something about a near certain goal would have been scored if the foul wasn't committed.

[vish]

Troy, can you please email the draft to me or the Ref's mailing list? I can't seem to download it from this site.
canoepolo@clear.net.nz

Cheers

[troy]

Originally posted by James
Below is an excerpt from the new rules:

A Goal-Penalty-Shot will be awarded for a deliberate and/or dangerous foul on a player in the 6m area clearly in the act of shooting, or for a foul on a player in any position passing or positioning for an “otherwise undefended” goal.

It is the first half that i am concerned about.....it could be taken that any deliberate or dangerous foul on a player shooting within the 6m area is a goal penalty shot.

It is not that "it COULD be taken ...", it SHOULD be taken that any deliberate or dangerous foul on a player shooting within the 6m area warrants a sanction of a goal penalty shot. This tidies up a lot of the foul play that is otherwise observed in the 6-metre area.

This hasn't changed at all from the previous version.

I note your comment that ICF have changed their rules ... we changed our interpretation to be consistent with their original update of this rule a few years ago ... and I actually prefer it this way.

[James]

ICF RULE: A goal-penalty-shot will be awarded for any deliberate and/or dangerous offence in the six (6) metre area where a player is fouled in the act of shooting, or passing or positioning for a near certain goal.

Above is the Current ICF rule. This rule has major implications in the way we play polo. If you have a goalie in place this means that you are able to commit a foul on a shooting player and not recieve a Goal penalty shot awarded against you. (You may be sanctioned for your foul though.) I do not recall seeing a goal penaly shot awarded while playing in Europe last year for fouls that were not stopping a near certain goal! (We did see cards issued ...eventually)

I don't think the rules should be written because I actually prefer it this way. I would prefer we are as a rule of thumb consistant with ICF, more to the point this is best for NZ canoe polo as a whole!

There are further implications for the above rule: fouling a penalty shot hould not lead to an automatic Goal penalty.......this was certainly the way the elite ICF referees called the game.

[SeanT]

I agree with Troy here. I believe there is no case whatsoever for deliberately committing a foul nor for commiting a dangerous foul, which is what this rule strongly reinforces, ie it prevents a defender having the attitude of "its ok for me to push the rules as far as possible (or blatantly break them) while defending as we've got a goalie in so,
a)at worst, the ref will give them a free shot (which may well be no better than the shot I'm illegally interferring with now, if they shoot at all)
b) at best I've just fouled the player but blocked the shot, in disregard of the rules and got away with it (+ve reinforcement)"

This NZ wording places the onus of responsiblity for playing within the rules clearly on the defending player, who is the one most tempted to infringe. As long as the defending player doesn't infringe, (in the eyes of the ref, which is how every rule is interpreted), they are playing under exactly the same conditions here as ICF. Therefore all this wording is doing is trying to clean up play around the offensive goal area by making the defending players clearly aware of the consequences of illegal play, esp deliberate or dangerous illegal play.
I note that this may not be completely consistant with ICF (and some may say its completely inconsistant) but it should if anything ADVANTAGE our teams playing internationally as under nz rules, which they are most used to, they would have learnt, in theory, how far they can go within the rules. This in turn should lead to a reduction in infringemnts and therefore less free shots / goal penalties against us.
As for the argument that the refs don't call these fouls much internationally anyway, as far as I'm concerned this is no reason for nz to be lax. I'd far rather loose cleanly than win by unfair play (as determined by the rules not the refs). The rules are to allow fair play but also SAFE play. There's nothing safe about a closer than arms reach paddle block involving contact nor is there anything fair about illegally restricting an opponents options. When you do this and are caught you should expect a penalty that gives the advantage to the opposition. A free shot often doesn't do this and the next level of penalty under our current and ICF rules is a goal penalty shot.
Note that soccer has a similar system for penalties within the box, basketball as well, netball the offending player has to stand down not to mention rugby which can award a penalty try. Hockey has short corners. Polo isn't really being inconsistant here.
There could be other ways that these situations are dealt with, just off the top of my head, but we would be getting less rather than more consistant with ICF, eg ? 4.5m shot with the goalie in as per penalty shootout? Yellow card for player infringing on free shot restart?
In my opinion there HAS to be some penalty making the resulting situation even worse for the offending team so as to make it not worth trying to get away with infringing in the first place. ? harsh ? draconian ? has implications on how we play? Definitely the latter, but remember you have to have been seen to be committing a deliberate and/or dangerous foul for this to have any relevance. It may result in you not attempting some action in defense just in case it may be construed by the ref to be a foul, but if even you think thats likely to be the case there's a high likihood the ref, not to mention the other team agrees, so I'd agrue that it's good for the game for you to be discouraged from risking a deliberate or dangerous foul!

[troy]

Originally posted by James
There are further implications for the above rule: fouling a penalty [Free] shot [s]hould not lead to an automatic Goal penalty.......this was certainly the way the elite ICF referees called the game. [/B]

Have a look at the following thread relating to fouls on a players taking a Free Shot, in particular the comments of Tom Colton, ICF Referee and Assessor.

http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1344

It indicates considerable growing support outside of NZ for awarding goal-penalty-shots for a foul on a player taking a free shot.

Originally posted by James
I do not recall seeing a goal penaly shot awarded while playing in Europe last year for fouls that were not stopping a near certain goal! (We did see cards issued ...eventually)[/B]

I can understand your comment... I made similar observations at 1994 and 1996 Worlds - however at that time the ICF Rules stated that a Goal Penalty Shot would be awarded for ANY foul on a player taking a shot within 6m... no reference to 'near-certain goals' , and no reference to 'dangerous or deliberate'.

So the ICF refereeing then appeared quite inconsistent with the Rules and probably isn't a lot better. This can be simply explained though in that the ICF Rules state:

"The referee can impose any combination of the following sanctions for illegal-play depending on the severity and/or frequency of offences being penalised. "

This clause allows ICF referees to award any sanction they deem necessary, ie they can award a Goal Pentaly Shot for a lesser infringement than that specifically stated in their Rules (and I've had ICF referees tell me they would use this widest possible discretion to suit their purposes).

We have to be a little more careful in outlining what sanctions are warranted for certain fouls as our Rules require sanctions to be awarded according to the provisions of the Rules (not the referee's discretion**). In this way, the only practical impact of awarding sanctions according to ICF Rules, rather than according to our Rules, is a lot more uncertainty for players of the consequences of their fouls - as a referee, ICF rules would entitle me to award a Goal Penalty Shot for any foul I consider appropriate - including ANY dangerous or deliberate foul on a player shooting within 6m.

I do not think such inconsistency would be a good thing for NZ canoe polo!

[**The key aspect here is that referee's will always use their own discretion in how they interpret the actions of the players on the court, but in NZ they are significantly bound by the Rules in determining the appropriate sanctions to be awarded in any particular situation. This provides much more consistency for players in assessing the consequence of their actions and degree of care / restraint that they need to show.]

PS How would a referee know what is a "near certain goal"?
Would they have to take into account the relative abilities of the player shooting and the goalkeeper?? That would be quite subjective and VERY inconsistent!!!

[becks.c]

A goal-penalty-shot will be awarded for any deliberate and/or dangerous offence in the six (6) metre area where a player is fouled in the act of shooting, or passing or positioning for a near certain goal. The act of shooting begins when a player has contact with the ball, with their hand or paddle, and is clearly attempting or preparing for a shot.

ICF: Goal-penalty-shot.

"near certain goal" I understand (in NZ) has been refereed/played as an otherwise undefended goal - is this correct?
(this is my understanding at least anyway - please correct me if ness.)

I understand there is the safety and fairplay aspects of the game to consider when looking over this rule, but I wonder if we are not overlooking the spectacle aspect?

Canoe Polo is a contact sport.

The sad fact of the matter about many ICf referees (certainly from my own experiences and the experiances of those players I have spoken to who toured Europe in 2002) is that there is much talk about how things should be done, but when the game is actually refereed, the referees seem to forget all their previous discussion and just allow the game to flow.
- obstruction outside the six, infringements on players taking free shots...All in the interests of flow or some similar concept. :cheers:

I think it is extremely naive of us to close our eyes to the reality of the situation - which is that most referees in the world do not award a goal penalty shot for an infringement on a player taking a free shot. :confused:

Perhaps the key phrase here is the "near certain goal"

:) I advocate we use the exact wording from ICf in this case, and then talk about what the interpretation of "near certain goal" should be.

While I agree totally with Troy and Sean's comments on fouling players taking shots, the reality of the situation is that we need desperately to be able to keep abreast of the way the game is played internationally.

We simply cannot afford to construct our rules in such a way that our national level players are thrust into international competition very much behind the 8 ball. :waah:

[James]

I am sorry but i read Tom Colton's comments I fail to see where he says you should award a goal penalty shot for fouling a free shot, unless you meant the part about "increasing the sanction".

He does go onto give an example where his response as a referee is after repeated fouls.....warn the offenders.....then if this continues issue a GPS.

Also that thread does not reflect considerable growing support outside of NZ for awarding goal-penalty-shots for a foul on a player taking a free shot. !!! There are only a few replies on the thread......issues that are of "considerable" interest have a few pages of comments.

I think Bec's comments about "near certain goal" are valid. I saw a penalty shoot-out (from 4.5m against a goalie) last year at the Ieper International between Deventer and France.......most of us would back ourselves as shooters in this role (?).......The French Goalie stopped 2 or 3 shots. My point is that these Dutch boys are widely regarded as having some of the biggest arms in the world, yet they were not near certain goals in these ideal conditions! So why should we assume any shooter with-in the 6m that get deliberately fouled would have lead to a near-certain goal?

With regards to player uncertainty over their illegal actions: ICF is clear about what happens to players who commite dagerous or deliberate fouls. We know that there is a possiblity of being sent off if we commit these fouls, at the very least we give away a free shot! Sean ......this is the worsed that can happen.

Sean it is very good to hold such high moral ground with regards to your personal play, But/we/ who-ever have no right to impose this on others. If a player commits a foul that allows them to win a major final, I think you would find very few people that would actually admit to the offense (until the game is won).

[vish]

The problem is not so much the words, but how they are interpreted. I do feel that NZ rules are very clear, and that they are more easily interpreted, but guess what? We're sissies. We get walked over internationally unless we get our act together. Restarts in international games are fast because if you take your time someone will likely try to compete for the ball before you take the pass. Shooters are good because they constantly get the ball past paddles that are in their faces and don't get phased by aggressive defence. It's the game, and it's evolving, without bloodshed or too much pain, because the players simply adapt and get better. "Cheating" doesn't get you much of an advantage.

Seeings as we're talking about International rules let me also state that the people who complain the most about excessive refereeing honestly don't seem to have read the rules. I've been guilty of this... As for Worlds 2002, most referees would have been afraid to call cards or GPS because of the amount of people who seemed to have no actual knowledge of the rules, other than their experience of being sanctioned in previous tournaments.

Let's be honest now, expecting fair play and demanding it is a fantastic attribute until you're whining at the ref and getting your arse whipped, then it's just a waste of time. If you cheat, you can't compete, but if the ref never calls it then you need to decide how you're going to gain the advantage that the offender has. It's only taken me four years to learn this and now I'm taking a year off international polo, I'd rather the NZ rules taught everyone what the game is actually like. Playing for your country to international level should be a step up, not a quarantine situation where your development is separate to the rest of the country because they don't play canoe polo like the rest of the world.

[becks.c]

well said. :bunny:

[Jimmy]

Have these rule changes become official yet?
Are we using them this weekend, for South Island league games? :bang:

[DeanM]

James, I've just been reading your posts (and those following) with your concerns about the GPS condition definitions.

We've had that rule for at least 4 years and I think it's a good one. I agree with Sean's comments about the safety and fair play issues. Also I think the "otherwise undefended goal" bit gives us a much more definitive, clear and "refereeable" rule than the ICF version, one that is less subject to varying interpretations.

With regard to this:
Sean it is very good to hold such high moral ground with regards to your personal play, But/we/ who-ever have no right to impose this on others.
If I am reading this correctly, I think this sort of attitude actually undermines the argument for the ICF version of the GPS rule and makes our ruling more necessary. If players shared a "moral high ground" there would be fewer attempts to do a cost/benefit analysis on the merits of deliberately fouling someone, and a looser rule would be more appropriate.

But when we have folks contemplating stuff like this...

If a player commits a foul that allows them to win a major final, I think you would find very few people that would actually admit to the offense (until the game is won).
... to me this sounds like an argument for the NZ version of the rule, because that sort of deliberate negative play receives a more effective sanction under our rule and is therefore less likely to happen. Someone doing a deliberate foul would be more likely to *lose* the major final.

And finally, given the timing of your posts after the close-off of this year's review, I guess you're just trying to get in early for the 2004 review, and I commend you for your conscientious approach. I believe your ability to think so far ahead is one of the gifts that make you so exceptional. :-)

- Dean

[Aaron]

NZ Rule

A Goal-Penalty-Shot will be awarded for a deliberate and/or dangerous foul on a player in the 6m area clearly in the act of shooting, or for a foul on a player in any position passing or positioning for an “otherwise undefended” goal.


ICF Rule

A goal-penalty-shot will be awarded for any deliberate and/or dangerous offence in the six (6) metre area where a player is fouled in the act of shooting, or passing or positioning for a near certain goal....

Don't these say the same thing?

The first part of each says that a "deliberate and/or dangerous foul" comitted in the act of shooting is sanctioned by a goal penalty shot. Note it must meet one of these two conditions. Neither rule states that the goal must be near certain for this to apply.

The second part differs only slightly. They both refer to "passing or positioning" and it is the ICF rule that allowes the refferee a broader interpretation. In the NZ rule the goal must be "otherwise undefended" but the ICF just states "near certain".
The NZ rule however does allow this to be in any position where as the ICF rule implies it is resticted to the 6m area.

At worlds this rule was applied. I reffed a game where it was called (by the other ref) and i'm sure i saw a couple of the other top reffs calling it as well including Marty Bell. It was specifically discussed at the refferees briefing and I was supprised that the majority of support when to the interpretation that we use. The problem with the reffereeing was that it was inconsistant. Even the top reffs called it less as the tournament went on.

The only problem with our interpretation is in determining whether something is dangerous and or deliberate. If a player is holding their paddle 95cm from arms reach of a player taking a restart it is a foul but is it deliberate? This is where we often have over-zelous reffereeing.

[troy]

Thanks Aaron, for pointing out the significance of the "comma" in the ICF rule - you are correct that it does divide the rule in two parts - I overlooked it when I was replying to James earlier, but as you point out it eliminates the inconsistency that James perceived between our NZ rule and the ICF rule.

To reiterate your point, in ICF rule 41.1.1 the reference to a 'near certain goal' applies only to the part about a player 'passing or positioning', not as James perceived to a player 'shooting'.
The "comma" between is extremely important!

This ICF reference to "a player within 6m passing or positioning for a near certain goal" was newly added when the ICF revised their rules for 2001. It actually is repeated in the next clause ICF rule 41.1.2, except that in 41.1.2 it is in reference to a player outside 6m.

We have covered all that the ICF rules cover in ICF rules 41.1.1 & 41.1.2 in our NZ rule 24 under Goal Penalty Shots, with the slight distinction as Aaron has noted in referring to 'an otherwise undefended goal' as opposed to the ICF reference to 'a near certain goal'. No much difference here!

Now in regard to James' concerns about:
Originally posted by James

There are further implications for the above rule: fouling a penalty shot should not lead to an automatic Goal penalty.......


I suggested that there was considerable growing support outside of NZ for this.

James, you responded:

Originally posted by James

Also that thread does not reflect "considerable growing support outside of NZ for awarding goal-penalty-shots for a foul on a player taking a free shot". There are only a few replies on the thread......issues that are of "considerable" interest have a few pages of comments.


James, firstly I think you need to look at the quality of the comments (ie who is writing them and what they are saying) rather than the quantity of responses (eg the number of pages of comments), and also the inferences of comments in other similar threads.

Secondly, I perhaps used the wrong word - rather than suggesting this thread 'indicated' considerable support, I should have said this thread 'reflected' considerable support.

Finally, you may still not be convinced that there is such considerable support as I purport...

Hopefully (along with Aaron's and other people's comments on the 'near certain goal / otherwise undefended goal' issue), the following extract will help you put the matter to rest for a while:

New ICF rule 41.1.3 (effective from 1-1-2003):

"A Goal Penalty Shot will be awarded for a deliberate and/or dangerous infringement on a player within the six (6) metre area who is attempting to take a free-shot."

This introduces to ICF the same proviso that we have in our 'Comments on the Rules' under the heading 'Deliberate Foul'.

I trust this satisfies your interpretation of 'considerable support outside of NZ'.

[Note that the ICF Rules as published on this canoepolo.com site have been superseded. Refer to the ICF Canoe Polo Committee site http://www.canoe-polo.com/Rules.htm for the current version.]

[James]

Troy, dean, aaron and co.

Thank-you all for your effort in replying to this thread. It is obvious the ammount of time you have invested in this vexing topic.

I do think that the "near certain goal" in rule 41.1.1 refers to the whole statement..........but that is just my lack of a decent English education. They need a comma before the " near certain goal" part.....to get my interpretation.

While I do agree with Aaron about the GPS being awarded occasionally for a "foul" (dangerous or deliberate?) within the 6m on the Shooter, this was the exception rather than the rule (at worlds). We were ref'd by some of these top referees ourselves and never had any GPS awarded in our favour (except in the case of an undefended goal) or against us.......yet the opposition and NZ transgressed.

I guess in the end this really is a pointless conversation.......

[troy]

I don't think this has been a pointless conversation James, and I thank you for initiating it...

it has prompted us again to reconsider the merit and our justification for deviating from ICF - it has prompted me personally to update myself with the latest ICF Rules (although I had been hoping someone else more recently involved in international competition would have done this for me).

What I am noticing is that ICF Rules appear to have gravitated more towards the nature of the NZ rules we adopted after 1994 - I don't know what (if any) direct or indirect influence NZ had on this (after all our rules have been circulated to a few key people in Aus and US, and have been available on the net for a few years now) - but I do think if nothing else, it is most likely because our rules were adopted as our best interpretation of a compromise between the way the game was being played in different countries back in '94-'96 and the way we thought the game was defined and should be played....

Accordingly by adopting what we considered to be the best of all facets of the game back then, I think that it follows that as ICF have worked to resolve their inconsistencies and differences in interpretations of rules, they have arrived at a similar end result.

There are still a few deviations, but not many and I think these are warranted to alleviate a few inconsistencies that remain in ICF rules. However, it might not be long before we can accept and adopt the ICF rules without any deviation.

I will summarise the deviations that we have from ICF (along with an outline of the issues or inconsistencies involved) and circulate sometime soon, and we'll get the Ref Council and use the Regional Referees forum to work through them and debate / resolve the need (if any) for such differences in interpretations before next year. Sorry we can't do it much faster than that!

Thanks
Troy

[vish]

I think I would have appreciated seeing a lot of this discussion before the rule review was completed, and it lead me to a conclusion that perhaps more time was needed before the review was considered complete. I realise many people went to a lot of trouble to air their opinions and issues before that deadline was reached. I just need more time to consider a lot of the issues that people raise, and I felt unable to contribute effectively within the timeframe given.

One of the reasons I felt rushed, as I've already mentioned, is that I need to carefully research the areas that are mentioned in ICF and NZ Rules. The other reason was that the rules review seemed to be designed to coincide with the National League schedule. I suggest that if this is the case, it may need to be initiated sooner. The National League brings it's own list of jobs and deadlines to canoe polo administrators, and I would like to be able to contribute to refereeing as well as club administration (in spite of my ignorance).

I also wondered if perhaps I would have preferred the proposed modifications to be presented as they were after the deadline. Hence, we received a proposal of the rules review in full with the highlighted red changes, and then people discussed the elements that Troy raised on the forum. In that way, I automatically saw the change in context and could respond appropriately more rapidly. Then, when I received the final version, I could see the actual changes as discussed by the referees and forum contributors...

Obviously I am presenting problems that I had, so in return, I could well be rewarded with a few more problems to put my trivial concerns into perspective (ha ha). So I had better finish by thanking Troy and the gang for allowing me the opportunity to contribute and, by default, giving me the chance to make more work for them next year with my so called suggestions !!!!

[clyde]

I understand this is coming late, but from a point of view of having seen this happen so many times in so many parts of the world, can I please urge you use as much of the ICF rules as possible and only change minor - organisational details - specific for domestic competitions.

Please take this the right way.

If you have your own rule set you will continue to Nationally cause a problem for in-coming and out-going travelling teams (particularly your own National Teams) who then have to adjust how the rest of the world play.

The best way for the whole of the polo community is to put your proposals to the ICF Polo Committee as well as putting the suggestions to the wider community via something like the Forum. By all means try something at an appropriate event to see if it works, but just go it alone and assume this wont have any long term negative effect is daft. You may well have the best ideas to improve the game. The rest of the world may take 10 years to catch up on those rule ideas, but to what effect ? To know you were right all along counts for little if you don’t pull in the results.
NZ should be one of the higher ranking Nations as a result of how long you have played the game, but last years World Rankings do not reflect this.

Personally I think NZ is reducing its possibility to reach its own World Wide potential by continuing to play its own game domestically.

Other Nations (such as Netherlands and Italy) have made much greater changes in their domestic games to be a part of the grander scheme of things and the difference it has made to their World ranking is very clear.

Please join us on this and let’s iron out any grey areas together.

[troy]

Thanks for your input - it is appreciated!

We do want to maintain sufficient consistency with ICF so as not to jeopardise our involvement in international competition - I can't however agree with you on many of the comments you have made:

Originally posted by clyde
If you have your own rule set you will continue to Nationally cause a problem for in-coming and out-going travelling teams...

We have to realise that there is (and will always be) inconsistencies in the application of the Rules by different referees, and this will probably be particularly noticeable across national boundaries - you only have to look at the different interpretations in international Rugby refereeing with the criticisms our Super 12 commentators are making of our SANZAR (S.Africa / NZ / Aus) referees who are competing for refereeing appointments at the upcoming World Cup and are trying to please N.Hemisphere IRB officials ... apparently SANZAR refs are refereeing quite differently to the previous couple of years!!

If these differences in interpretations still remain in Rugby, I'm sure they will remain in Canoe Polo for quite a while... so as Vish highlighted in a thread devoted to this issue
http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=1303
we think it is a good thing that visiting players can review our NZ Rulebook as a guide on what differences in interpretations to expect.


... (particularly your own National Teams) who then have to adjust how the rest of the world play.

...

NZ should be one of the higher ranking Nations as a result of how long you have played the game, but last years World Rankings do not reflect this.

Personally I think NZ is reducing its possibility to reach its own World Wide potential by continuing to play its own game domestically.

Other Nations (such as Netherlands and Italy) have made much greater changes in their domestic games to be a part of the grander scheme of things and the difference it has made to their World ranking is very clear.

I doubt that the rules had any bearing at all on the results of our recent World rankings ... rather, I think the result entirely reflects on the ability of the team and their experience on the international stage:
For the 2002 NZ Mens team (as far as I recall):
- there was no selection - the 8 players who didn't withdraw for financial or other personal reasons got to go!
- there were some 'far' better players left behind - our two national championships last year (Club Champs in July and Inter-Regional Champs in Oct) were won by Christchurch / Canterbury teams that had no players from our national mens team - and were beating opposition teams with 3,4 and even 5 players from the national team.
- none of the players in the team had any prior experience playing for NZ in international competition at a senior level.

I think the most significant factors affecting our recent World rankings has been our lack of participation and our failure to send our best players - all tied up with our geographical isolation and funding issues (the burden having essentially remained on each individual player). [This is not an excuse - I'm sure it is similar for many other countries - it is merely an observation of the factors we have allowed to affect us!]

But back to the rules...

I can understand NED and ITA accepting rule changes to conform and join in competition with their of their continental rivals - we'd obligingly accept ICF (or ACF) rules and interpretations in international competition with AUS. However, we've been trying for years to consolidate some form of international exchange but until recently I think they've been too busy with World champs, domestic competitions and European tours to accept challenges from our national teams.

Finally


The best way for the whole of the polo community is to put your proposals to the ICF Polo Committee as well as putting the suggestions to the wider community via something like the Forum. By all means try something at an appropriate event to see if it works, but just go it alone and assume this wont have any long term negative effect is daft. You may well have the best ideas to improve the game. The rest of the world may take 10 years to catch up on those rule ideas, but to what effect ? To know you were right all along counts for little if you don’t pull in the results.

Please join us on this and let’s iron out any grey areas together.
We currently have over 4000 players around the country (and much more potential if we can get appropriate access to venues), and yet less than 30 NZ players have been involved in International Competition in the last 7 years (although 50 or so may have competed in AUS national champs). Our obligation has been to provide a set of Rules that can be interpreted and applied by the bulk of our participants, and due to its presentation and a range of omissions and inconsistencies in the ICF Rules, we have had to deviate with our own set of rules and interpretations. I don't think this has been a daft project - it has removed considerable inconsistency from the game that had previously caused considerable frustration for our players.


Over past years (since 1996) I had thought it was inappropriate and unnecessary for NZ to lobby ICF for Rule changes:
- we weren't involved on the international stage so I thought
1) we didn't have any valid basis on which to make proposals
2) such efforts would be futile and fall on deaf ears
- if our suggestions were worthwhile and logical, and an appropriate development or compromise of the range of interpretations we had seen played or trialled overseas, then it could be expected that ICF would eventually reach similar conclusions, and where ICF took a different track, we would catch up at an appropriate time [which seems to be now]
- we had seeded our rule proposals with a few active people overseas and our rules were readily available for perusal on our website, so if anyone overseas was looking for alternatives our suggestions were 'out there' to be considered.

Now, however, I think ICF have tidied up many of their earlier inconsistencies and ambiguities... and in terms of basic game play, there are only a few obvious inconsistencies left.
I intend to (within the next week or so) highlight the inconsistencies I see as obvious, and check if others overseas like yourself also agree that these are indeed inconsistencies - then suggest some proposals to remedy the errors. We'll see how we go, or whether it is just our quaint colloquial language that leads us astray?

Kind regards
Troy

[Unregistered]

Why does everyone seem to forget the women in all of this.... in 2002 we did get a respectable placing of 6th (or is that not respectable these days????)

[becks.c]

Many thanks to Clyde for taking the time to give us an international view, we are quite isolated here :p

As for international placings - I agree with "unregistered".
The 2002 women placed 6th at worlds (only one place behind Clydes home country (GB women) who placed 5th)

As an aside, the 2002 Women's coach (Marty) made every one of his players sit and pass the NZ referee exam.

My personal preference would be for us to follow ICf where possible.- Although without the long winded and often confusing wording. Best of luck to Troy in trying to find that middle ground! I don't envy him the task :bunny:

[vish]

I sat the NZ Exam well before I got in the NZ team. Then, I was forced to sit it again when other people hadn't. Finally, I got a Regional Qualification for my troubles. When I was in Germany, I was offered the opportunity to sit the ICF exam. I was discouraged from doing so by the coach.

Everyone in NZ knows that I disagree with Goal Line restarts. They know that I disagreed with 40 minute games. I've seen people arguing those points "for the sake of the general populace". In my experience, the general populace doesn't give a damn. Let's look at the 4000 people in NZ who contribute to this forum.

How we interpret the rules is set out nicely in our book. How we justify making goal line restarts is not so clear. If the NZ team is the pinnacle of canoe polo in NZ, then their game should be compared as the All Blacks are to club teams in rugby. Show me the club rugby games who restart from the goal line rather than the centre.

Forget about blaming funding or inexperience. If people used the NZ teams international experience to improve the National game, then the general level of play wouldn't be so hugely different from the International level. Our club teams should be good enough to make it overseas even if their funding doesn't allow them to go there. Look at Deventer! Just because you can't head over to Europe to pit yourself against the best, doesn't mean that you shouldn't aim for that level. At the very least, we need to expect that people from overseas won't visit us, until we present a challenge.

I get the suspicion that changing the rules to goal line restarts, disguises the fact that the general level of play is really not that exciting. Otherwise, why would we need to change the centreline restart rule to make the game more interesting?

[troy]

Originally posted by vish
Show me the club rugby games who restart from the goal line rather than the centre.
That's an interesting concept - I don't know if anyone in rugby has ever thought of that...
- they could move some restart kicks back to the goal-line, reduce the number of players from 15 to 13, and give each team 5 chances at being tackled with the ball before a turnover... if it catches on they would need to change the name a bit - call it League or something, I don't think it will become as popular as soccer but it might get some following...

An alternative might be to introduce bouncing and punching the ball (the S. Australians might like that); or how about shepherding and throwing the ball forward, and kick-offs from the defensive end (the Americans will probably take hold of that one, but they'll probably want to use helmets and pads).

Some other ideas might be to shorten the game and reduce the number of players to 7; or remove the tackles so you only have to touch your opponent - these might catch on too!

But then what club (or nation) would be daring enough to come up with their own deviations from an existing set of rules?

Although I did hear of this one school football club that decided to pick the ball up and run with it in their hands ... I think they were from Rugby!


But seriously, resolving the application of goal-line restarts and 40 min games have taken low priority in the recent rule review - I think we've done all we currently need to have done in this area
- we've noted the alternatives for each
- now we just leave it up to competition organisers to determine and vary these game parameters to suit their competition.

If you want to lobby for changes in these two areas, I think you are better to direct you views directly to the Competition Council and other competition organisers - whichever variation gets favoured in the Rulebook, these people will always review and change playing time and goal restarts at their discretion, and the best the Rulebook (and the Refereeing Council) can do is reflect the general preferences at any particular time.

I guess this is what we are doing with all the Rules - reflecting the general preferences at any particular time.
However, playing time and goal restarts (and penalty shootouts) are very clear cut rules, whereas so many other rules involve 'grey areas' (and some direct contradictions in the ICF Rules). It has been these 'grey areas' that have been the focus of our recent review, and this is where I think we have given due consideration 'for the sake of the general populace' to alleviate their ongoing frustrations with inconsistencies and ambiguous or awkward terminology.
It is in these areas that the general populace have relied upon our experience to be aware of the potential issues, to keep abreast of ICF developments, to remove sources of ambiguity, and to settle on wordings for rules and interpretations that are both refereeable and consistent with the definition, intent and 'spirit' of the game. And I think the general populace of NZ participants DO give a damn about this, and has appreciated our efforts!

And if you can overlook our inclusion of two alternatives for each of playing time and goal restarts, I think you will see that we are maintaining consistency with ICF. If you want to see what I think are the remaining issues in ICF interpretations, look out on the Canoepolo.com General Forum for some items I am going to post there in the next couple of days.

As far as these goal-line restarts go,

Originally posted by vish
I get the suspicion that changing the rules to goal line restarts, disguises the fact that the general level of play is really not that exciting. Otherwise, why would we need to change the centreline restart rule to make the game more interesting?
The issue is not that we are contemplating changing from centreline restarts... We did that 10 years ago! ... the issue is now whether to CHANGE BACK.

And as to why we did it? - we picked up the goal-line restarts from Australia in 1993 (they were trialling it for their National League) - we introduced it here - it caught on - we adopted it - the NZ squad had no problems with the difference throughout 1994 and 1996 - NZ became a bit isolated from ICF comp for a few years so it didn't make much difference then - now its merits are being debated - what can I say: "we adopted several initiatives from Australia which have since become accepted at ICF - so this one didn't make it."

Personally, I think Goal-line Restarts are here to stay in NZ (it's hard to turn people away once they've seen the light!), and CentreLine Restarts will survive as long as ICF maintains using them - so let's just get on with it and work out which one fits where in our local and national (and international) competition calendars. As a player, I'm not too concerned - I'm happy to play either. As a philosophical spectator, I have a clear preference for Goal-line Restarts, and as a competition organiser and coach, I have some very definite views on how these alternatives along with playing time should be integrated to achieve success at a national and international level... but then I haven't had too much success as a coach or a competition organiser?

[troy]

Following our NZ Rule review, I've now started a thread on the General Polo forum to outline some of the inconsistencies I see with ICF Rules of Play, and to find out if they create issues in other countries.

If you have any more to add, please do so.

Below is a link to the thread:
http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1575

Thanks for your support
Troy

[vish]

Rugby 7s, touch rugby, grid iron and league are indeed different versions of an original game. The All Blacks are not a league club, an american football squad, or a touch team, or a 7s team, so in respect to my original statement, you have taken it out of context to make your point. When you change the rules of canoe polo to 40 minute games and goal line restarts, and still call it "Canoe Polo", you're misleading people. If per chance, you would like to play canoe league, touch canoe, grid canoe or canoe 7s, kindly leave the REAL rules of canoe polo alone and name your version distinctly so that those of us who would like to play "Canoe Polo" can enjoy the version that the rest of the world has come to love. :-P

[troy]

Originally posted by vish
The All Blacks are not a league club, an american football squad, or a touch team, or a 7s team...
Agreed, the All Blacks are not (anymore) a league team, but they were in 1907!! The 1907 All Blacks that toured England actually played Union rules against the southern counties and League rules against the northern counties on their tour - but it was all still called Rugby at the time! In fact, it was only after their return to NZ the two games became quite segregated in NZ and Australia , but the NZ League team was apparently still called the "All Blacks" up until 1926 even though the NZRFU tried (and failed) in court to reserve use of the name. It was from about then though that the press (pressured by the RFU) started using the term Kiwis since they had a Kiwi rather than a fern on their jerseys.

Originally posted by vish
When you change the rules of canoe polo to 40 minute games and goal line restarts, and still call it "Canoe Polo", you're misleading people....
When, in 1993 at the Aussie Inter-state champs, the Aussies put on some exhibitions matches for us invovling goal-line restarts, they still called it Canoe Polo ... I didn't feel misled ... it still looked like canoe polo to me, and I understood it was a variation from ICF Rules.

Originally posted by vish
If per chance, you would like to play canoe league, touch canoe, grid canoe or canoe 7s, kindly leave the REAL rules of canoe polo alone and name your version distinctly....
I actually did that... when I drafted our new format of the Rules in 1995 (including 4 x 10 min qtrs, time-outs available to teams, goal-line restarts, sideline throws allowed to go forward, goal penalty shots against a goalkeeper, etc) I published as NKL (ie National Kayakpolo League) Rules... don't blame me that others in NZ at the time liked it and wanted to adopt it into NZCPA!!

Originally posted by vish
so that those of us who would like to play "Canoe Polo" can enjoy the version that the rest of the world has come to love. :-P
If the rest of the world have come to love this version so much, how come so many of them have got suggestions to improve the game including: longer games!!
goal-line restarts!!
time wasting restriction (forcing the attacking team to shoot)You've seen the suggestions on -AC's thread:
If you could change only one thing in this game what would it be? (http://www.canoepolo.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1100)

So now, when are you going to stop hassling me as though I'm personally responsible?!?!?...
The Aussies seeded that idea with us
Sure I helped it get a little more exposure in NZ, but our rules have only ever reflected the way the 'majority' of NZ seems to play or want to play the game.
And on these two points of goal-line restart and playing time, our rulebook clearly outlines the 'popular OPTIONS... you need to work on the rest of NZ (not me) if you want them to stop playing the version of the game that you don't like!!

[vish]

Hey Troy, my reply does sound a bit harsh when taken personally, so apologies for that, however I couldn't resist having a bit of a dig about grid canoe. I'm afraid I was arguing with the whole country and not just you... Besides which, my original post wasn't asking you personally to define the history of league, grid iron and 7s, but to demonstrate my point, (using your examples), what if it could be argued that our national rulebook is essentially using league and calling it union? Regarding the NKL, if you wrote rules that were taken out of context, surely that is reason enough to consider that the baby was thrown out with the bathwater? Interesting to note that the Aussie games were exhibition events, rather than a blanket application to the sport. Hence, I wonder if the rules committee will accept a definition of NZ canoe polo as "Aussie Rules"... ha ha....
I promise to address my forum comments to the chief referees in the sky in future, and I do apologise for putting you personally on the ropes.

[troy]

No offence has been taken ... I'm used to being 'put on the ropes'

I actually appreciated the opportunity to find out the history of football ... until this week I didn't realise how closely the different codes were related.

Re the Aussie exhibition games, from what I understood, they were actually the finals of their National League series that they had introduced thst year.

Re the NKL rules, i don't understand what you mean about them being taken out of context and the baby being thrown out with th bathwater?... but there really wasn't a need to promote NKL as a variation of the game when the NZCPA decided to adopt most of it wholesale.

But if ICF doesn't move soon on introducing some explicit timewasting rules, and knowing there are stalwarts in NZ who will want to retain absolute consistency with ICF, I'm sure it won't be long before there is a distinct variant of the game introduced that will include longer games, goal-line restarts, and timewasting rules.

[Dave]

Call me slow, but Troy,(yea i know this is completely off topic) I dont believe that the restarts in League are taken from the goal line.
Just my 2 cents

Dave

[troy]

Originally posted by Dave
I dont believe that the restarts in League are taken from the goal line.
You might note my careful choice of words: "move SOME restart kicks back to the goal-line".

As far as I'm (now) aware: kick-offs after goal are from halfway but, as opposed to Rugby, there are some drop-outs taken from the goal-line as well as from the 20m line. I carefully avoided saying which restarts were from the goal-line.

I seen glimpses of these different restarts being taken but (not being a League follower at all) I had to check the rules to find out which was taken when... Heck, before I looked it up on Friday I was under the misconception that the team that scored took the restart kick (thereby immediately giving possession over to the team that was scored against)... I had that wrong!!

[vish]

Troy, you carefully avoided admitting that in spite of all the variations, a goal line restart is not used in rugby after a try, and that was in fact what I was asking for in relation to the All Blacks. I think basketball is one of the few games where that happens. And then, everyone who plays basketball, plays it that way? Oh well, bored now. I have to appeal to the special referees, the ones with the magic marker pens that change the rules...

[James]

Just had a quick look at some of the rule changes that Troy has highlighted in the forum.

The idea of free space is a significant departure from our last rules....seem to remember something about " in the direction of play".......
............any-way on to my point:

Clarifing with-in arms reach to include the area where we can lean into will change the area where we will defend against shots.....normally we (I) just block the ball out of the hand......will i now have to wait untill the ball has travelled beyond this free space before (attempting to ) stopping the ball?

Also should the restart read something like "1m beyond free space"? What about breaking the 5 second rule...."throw the ball beyond Free space"?

help I am confussed?

[Owen]

Have all the reffs for the national league been told or explained how to ref the new rules. I have not seen anything and have been asked by other reff Whats going on!!!!

On a different note, James as competition director, you have the control to have centre line restarts or any other version of the rules!!!!!1do you take bribes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[James]

As far as I know these rules have not been adopted yet. We are still playing under the old rules.

Eoin....as competitions director I am not rally able to cater for my whims.....Maree keeps a pretty close eye on me. As far as making changes to the rules as they stand, generally if the national coaches made recomendations these would be taken into consideration and the various constraints of running a tournament in less than ideal venues.

[SeanT]

These are taken from a recent reg refs email in response to recent criticisms and are a bit of a summary of the recent rule reveiw as interpreted by Sean and are posted so as everyone may read just how extensive the changes are (touch of sarcasm!). Note that this is Seans late at night interpration and I don't garantee there are no errors or oversights, Nor is this necessarily representing others involved in the rule reveiw or NZCPA

Rule 2
Playing time: Whoopee what a change. And note Troy likes 40 min games, and is this not more consistent with ICF…?
Time outs: another biggie.

Rule 10
No significant change.

Rule 11
Ball in hand / control: nothing dramatic and I’ll explain why the control bit was changed in rule of the month shortly.
Free space: a definition here only, I’ll comment under the rule bit
Restart area: just defining what’s always been the case

Rule 16
This clears up a technical error, which wasn’t a practical problem anyway, but the rules previously allowed a capsized player to leave the playing area, not across the goal line and be subbed after the next pass. We’ve certainly become more consistent with ICF here and no one will even know it’s changed anyway.

Rule 18
Refs ball: well, gotta blow the whistle now as per ICF
Held ball: just using a definition provided above in rule 11

Rule 20
Illegal paddle use: really just making use of the free space definition to say the same thing, but does the free space definition alter the conditions of play?
It does clarify the arms reach issue more clearly, although I’ve always been of the impression that “within arms reach” means exactly that, any area I can reach with my normal body movement around the kayak, which = free space. This is fairly clearly stated in the advice to refs previously and now. “A player who is using a paddle to block a shot or pass should move it away from an opponent if the opponent comes close enough for the paddle to be within arms reach.” Surely this rule originated as a safety issue to save having to clean up fingers from around to pool after games.
The purpose behind the change, I believe, was to try to eliminate the “paddles too close so player leans back so paddle comes closer so player leans back further…” scenario. Clearly if the player in the above example wanted to do a hard shot/pass and they’ve started off on their back deck, they will want to flex their torso forward to add power, the paddle which may have been out of reach of their arm while leaning back will clearly be well within arms reach when they finish the shot/pass therefore making it illegal and potentially dangerous for the player in possession (rarely is the paddle moved away quickly enough if at all). Often however this scenario leads to the player in possession having unreasonably restricted options.
I can see what may be some commentator’s point that they may have to block further out if, for example, the player in possession has no paddle impeding their options unfairly, but they elect to pass/shoot from lying back on their deck. Under this rule as written, you couldn’t block it in front of them till it had gone out of where they could reach should they be leaning forward (but they aren’t and could have if they wanted). I don’t believe it is the intent of this change to penalise the “just out of arms reach” blocking in this situation so maybe we need a wee tweak in the wording or advice to referees (which I would suggest as the better way). This could be along the lines of “the blocking paddle must stay out of the players free space while the shot/pass is taken, but as the shot/pass is leaving the hand of the player, the blocking paddle may enter the free space area to attempt to play the ball providing it does not contact the players hand/s / ball in hands” This would achieve the goal of allowing the player in possession their full range of options while allowing defending players to block “just out of reach” once the player had made their choice. (I’m sure it could be written more succinctly!)
The old rule said you could not “place a paddle within the opponents arms reach in the direction in which the opponent is attempting to throw, catch or play the ball with their hand/s”.
So the direction bits not there any more, but its only illegal “…to attempt to contact the ball…” in the free space area and it would be pretty pointless to attempt to contact the ball in some direction other than that in which it is being played (as the ball won’t be there!).
(note Troy has posted an very similar independant response to concerns re this rule)


Progressing with the ball: bit of a clarification here really and a ? bit of a change as now you can’t stick the ball under your arm to turn / progress. This was a really contentious issue getting 1 reply on forum in 1 month and counting! The one reply (thanks Becks!) also thought it was a bit of a weird thing to do but noted ICF only explicitly excludes sticking the ball on the deck (31.5). This change really only brings the rules into line with what has been reffed in NZ for ages, and sod all people will be affected cos its not much use anyway. If you do want to turn its easy enough to do so with only one hand on the paddle. People started doing this only after Worlds (that I saw). Problems? None apart from above noted, but bring it up if its now become one.

Rule 21
Jostling: in some instances lets you legally jostle a bit further out (Up to 1.5m!) which is what we all do now anyway. Makes the "rules reflect what we actually play" which was a request from someone. The allow / include debate. I have always found this rule very difficult to follow, allow is much much clearer to me. No actual rule change though. Run with it, if you can write it better, do so. Remains potentially slightly different to ICF depending on their interpretations (and ? what do they do in practice).
Charging: as above and also note that the deletion of “or over” which is as suggested, in not so many words by, I believe, a returning Worlds player.

Rule 25
A bit of a change in wording making use of definitions, no change to playing conditions

Rule 26
Only change is to penalty shootout to bring in line with new ICF rule

Advice to refs

Jostling, clearly the “attacking end” is required even if I was too dim-witted to appreciate it initially. This is only there really to for goal line restarts although could come into play in a few other unlikely scenarios

Hand tackle onto boat, this has not been considered dangerous in NZ rules for a long time. Recently this has been called as illegal by refs but there has been no provision for this in NZ rules as they have previously been written. Do I recollect calls from a returning international player “not to sanitize” the game? Or threads on the general forum suggesting we not turn it into a game for “sissies”?
At best you could try calling it unsporting but you’d have to convince yourself that the tackling player was “…behaving in a way that is detrimental to the conduct of the game or brings the game into disrepute.” I did start a thread about this (yes after the rule review) but only Andy, Troy and I have had any input as of writing this (except I agree Vish I’d never thought of that either!)
Could (and should) still call it an illegal kayak tackle if the tackled player was hit by the impact zone of the kayak they were hand-tackled into the vicinity of IF they were hit in the body by the impact zone of the kayak (defined in our rules as the padded bit, not the top deck).

[SeanT]

:kiss: It is clear that some have significant concerns with regard to the recent rule review (?esp freespace concept).

If these are not able to be resolved in the near future I suggest the following process :kiss:

1) maintain the 1999 version of the rules for current play (or ?include changes except the free space idea?? Which other changes do or don’t people have problems with?)
2) circulate the revisions and discuss them objectively with players
3) use the revisions as “experimental” in some games/comps
4) see how they go
5) discuss during the national league comp in Wellington and/or ChCh in a widely advertised controlled forum, not there = not interested/no opinion

This is not expressed having any concerns myself, rather in the interest of harmony in the polo community in NZ
Please if you agree with this don’t take it as an excuse not to continue look at the revisions closely, there really isn’t an intent to change the game

Ps James I would hardly call myself Troys protégé just cos we have the same views, can’t speak for Dean

[Unregistered]

Thanks to all those regional referees and others who have volunteered their views on our rules over the last couple of months and a special thanks to Troy Lipsham for agreeing to coordinate the rule review.

It is great to see some healthy debate going on about our rules (although a little disappointing that more of the regional referees have not felt the need to express their views). I can see that in the future it may be beneficial for more time to be available for this process, so my apologies for the reasonably tight timeframe that has been required this time.

The Refereeing Council are responsible for approving the final draft of the rules. The Council includes: Troy Lipsham (Council Director); Aaron Vasey (Northern region refereeing coordinator); Rebecca Cato (Central region refereeing coordinator); Sandy Quick (Mainland regional refereeing coordinator); and selected referees Aaron Jacobs, Eoin Whelan, and Sean Thomson. The selected referees have been appointed for a variety of personal attributes each brings to the position as well as their seniority as regional referees, geographical spread, ICF accreditation and ability to comment on the international scene.

The final draft has been available for some time on the forum and I assume members of the Council are familiar with the revisions by now. In order to finish this process for 2003 and have the new rules finalised can each member of the council please email Troy and cc me their approval of the document. If you do not wish to approve the rules please state succinctly which specific rule changes you are opposing and why and/or any opposition to rules that have had no change made.

Thanks again for everyone's contribution to this process.

Regards
Maree Burnett
NZCPA Executive Director