troy
07-03-2003, 08:20 AM
Issue - Do we need a separate rulebook? or can we get by with just the ICF version of the rules?
I've often had a number of 'elite-level' participants ask why we need our own version of a rulebook and why we can't just follow ICF:
I thought I'd raise the issue but I certainly believe it is of significant benefit for NZ to continue with our own rulebook. Some of my reasons include:
1. I think our format is much easier for NZ participants at all
levels to read and assimilate. I know it's an extreme analogy but jsut like the ICF RUles are transalated into other languages, I think there is aneed for it to be translated into NZ Kiwi English.
2. I don't like the way ICF rules are generally written from the perspective of what is DISALLOWED in play. This has led to many contentious issues when the rules don't specifically disallow something that just doesn't seem right, it is argued that it is alloable and the rules have to be changed before the game is cleaned up - often a lengthy process.
3. The ICF rules are content to leave many more situations to the discretion of the referee leading to huge inconsistency among referees. I think it is much preferable how NZ rules are more specific about the interpretations and consequences of illegal play, and then the referees discretion can be focussed on interpreting when the limits of the Rules have been exceeded.
4. I personally have never had any problems with the few (even significant) deviations we have had from ICF - I've always felt the best players can adapt from one rule to another - and hey, they have been refereed so inconsistently at international level you sometimes think we are playing a totally different game anyway even on the rules which aren't any different. And if it makes for a better game in NZ, I'm all for it!
Also understand the background to where we are at now -
our rulebook was first published in 1995, and revised in 1999. Prior to that we followed the Australian ACF rulebook, but after competing in Europe in 1994 we found that we didn't agree with all ACF interpretations and preferred some of the European ones. Throughout this time the ICF rules remained brief and sometimes contradictory (within themselves and with regard to how the game was actually being played worldwide).
ACF moved their interpretations closer to International (I think) and now their interpretaions have pretty much been adopted at ICF level - so I think Aussie have discarded with the need to publish their own rule book.
NZ didn't have much contact with international polo between 1996 and 2000 and noone gave the ICF rules much thought until our Women went to Brazil.
Our revision in 1999 was merely to remove the duplication of the rules in two formats (our new NZ format and the old ICF/ACF format) and to correct some errors and clarify some of the rule that remained ambiguous at that time.
So I say stick with our NZ Rulebook, and don't confuse the need for a separate rulebook with arguments on whether or not to deviate from ICF on specific rules and interpretations
- even if we weren't to deviate at all, I think we would still want to reformat, rephrase and expand on some ICF rules.
I've often had a number of 'elite-level' participants ask why we need our own version of a rulebook and why we can't just follow ICF:
I thought I'd raise the issue but I certainly believe it is of significant benefit for NZ to continue with our own rulebook. Some of my reasons include:
1. I think our format is much easier for NZ participants at all
levels to read and assimilate. I know it's an extreme analogy but jsut like the ICF RUles are transalated into other languages, I think there is aneed for it to be translated into NZ Kiwi English.
2. I don't like the way ICF rules are generally written from the perspective of what is DISALLOWED in play. This has led to many contentious issues when the rules don't specifically disallow something that just doesn't seem right, it is argued that it is alloable and the rules have to be changed before the game is cleaned up - often a lengthy process.
3. The ICF rules are content to leave many more situations to the discretion of the referee leading to huge inconsistency among referees. I think it is much preferable how NZ rules are more specific about the interpretations and consequences of illegal play, and then the referees discretion can be focussed on interpreting when the limits of the Rules have been exceeded.
4. I personally have never had any problems with the few (even significant) deviations we have had from ICF - I've always felt the best players can adapt from one rule to another - and hey, they have been refereed so inconsistently at international level you sometimes think we are playing a totally different game anyway even on the rules which aren't any different. And if it makes for a better game in NZ, I'm all for it!
Also understand the background to where we are at now -
our rulebook was first published in 1995, and revised in 1999. Prior to that we followed the Australian ACF rulebook, but after competing in Europe in 1994 we found that we didn't agree with all ACF interpretations and preferred some of the European ones. Throughout this time the ICF rules remained brief and sometimes contradictory (within themselves and with regard to how the game was actually being played worldwide).
ACF moved their interpretations closer to International (I think) and now their interpretaions have pretty much been adopted at ICF level - so I think Aussie have discarded with the need to publish their own rule book.
NZ didn't have much contact with international polo between 1996 and 2000 and noone gave the ICF rules much thought until our Women went to Brazil.
Our revision in 1999 was merely to remove the duplication of the rules in two formats (our new NZ format and the old ICF/ACF format) and to correct some errors and clarify some of the rule that remained ambiguous at that time.
So I say stick with our NZ Rulebook, and don't confuse the need for a separate rulebook with arguments on whether or not to deviate from ICF on specific rules and interpretations
- even if we weren't to deviate at all, I think we would still want to reformat, rephrase and expand on some ICF rules.