Illegal use of paddle

[Dion]

Hi, All....
I'm one of the polo players in HK....I have some questions about illegal use of paddle, does anybody can tell how your country to interpret this rules.

the main concern is......

the defending player(not the goalie) is supposed not allowed to put the paddle within the opponent's arm's reach area...but....

how about when the opponent is acting the shoot, his hand is behind his head, the defending player is it allowed to put the paddle in the front of his head, (in this case, the paddle didn't touch the body of the opponent), and when the opponent's hand is bringing to the up front, then the defender pull back his paddle, will the referee calls a foul in such case?.....

[p.oleary]

Dion

In General You cannot put your blade within a meter of anyone. However normally if you as a keeper put your blade up 1 meter away from an attacker and leave it where it is even if the attacker moves his hand closer then one meter you won't be penalised. So mostly if your paddle is already there and you don't move it towards the attacker (side to side and away are o.k.) you will be o.k.

Only one other thing. If the ref thinks whatever you are doing is in any way dangerous he could still call the foul so you need to use your common sense a little


hope that helps

[magabri]

hi Dion,

"30.2. Playing, or attempting to play, the ball with a paddle when
the ball is within arms reach of an opponent, and that opponent
is attempting to play the ball with their hand.

30.3. Playing or attempting to play the ball with a paddle across
the bow of an opponent’ s kayak, within arms reach of the
opponent in a normal paddling position."

I think arm reach means that, if the shooter( in a normal paddling position) can reach your paddle,then you commit a foul.

bye
Gab
ps look at clyde's month rule archive
http://www.clydespolopage.com/rule_of_month/Rule-Month.htm

[JW Lester]

Patrick is right, this is the relevant rule:

Illegal Use of the Paddle

Signals 12 and 15 apply.

[snip]

- Placing a paddle within arms reach of an opponent who has the ball in their hand. A goalkeeper is excluded from this rule and is allowed to directly defend against a shot at goal as long as the paddle is not moved towards the opponent at the time of the shot and is not used in a deliberately dangerous manner.

[snip]

[Dion]

Thanks you all,

But how about a defender put his paddle out of the arm reach area of the opponent, and the opponent keeps paddle forward, and the opponent moving near the paddle(of course the defender's paddle now within the opponent's arm reach area).

It seems the defender did nothing wrong if he didn't move his paddle to sideway or forward. If you're referee, will you call a foul?

Thanks

[JW Lester]

Yes - it's still a foul. Even if the defender leaves his paddle in place, he's still endangering the player attempting to shoot the ball. I have some black and blue proof that this is the case! :waah:

Anyway.... when I'm keeping goal, I want my defenders to keep their blades down and out of the way until the last second so I can see the ball. When I'm defending, my coaches tell me to keep my paddle in the water and work to keep the attacking player out of the area in the first place.

So in most situations, it probably isn't a good idea to wave a paddle in the air in front of an attacking player anyway!



:cheers:

John

[sp_edey]

I've heard somewhere that if your in the act of trying to shoot and there's a goalies/defenders paddle right in your face, that your allowed to move it out of the way if it's with in arms reach. Not sure if this is allowed or not. I understand why it would be legal though
Clinton

[Scanno]

sp_edey I've heard somewhere that if your in the act of trying to shoot and there's a goalies/defenders paddle right in your face, that your allowed to move it out of the way if it's with in arms reach. Not sure if this is allowed or not. I understand why it would be legal though

Nah ya can't be doin that lads.

You can't interfere with another paddler's gear.

[TheMasterG]

Originally posted by JW Lester
Yes - it's still a foul. Even if the defender leaves his paddle in place, he's still endangering the player attempting to shoot the ball. ... Not true, if you don't move your paddle but the attacker comes into with 1M of you then you can't be penalised.

[JW Lester]

Originally posted by TheMasterG
Not true, if you don't move your paddle but the attacker comes into with 1M of you then you can't be penalised.

So if I understand right what you're suggesting is that "Placing a paddle within arms reach of an opponent who has the ball in their hand." means that if the paddle was placed in a position and doesn't move that there isn't a foul if a players hand subsequently moves closer to the paddle.

I would respectfully disagree. If a player continues to hold his paddle in the path of a player's hand in the act of shooting - I would consider that to be dangerous play. Defending players have an obligation to be in control of their paddle, and that includes moving it out of the way of a shooting player's hand.

I may be wrong ( it happens alot :stupid: ), but I thought the rule interpretations were pretty clear when it came to paddle fouls. For instance if you are controlling the ball with your paddle, and I attempt to grab the ball - you have an obligation to move your paddle - or else it is a paddle foul. I don't see how this is much different.
:cheers:
John

[TheMasterG]

Originally posted by JW Lester
... If a player continues to hold his paddle in the path of a player's hand in the act of shooting - I would consider that to be dangerous play. Defending players have an obligation to be in control of their paddle, and that includes moving it out of the way of a shooting player's hand ... I don't think so, the attacker moving his/her hand towards a stationary paddle is not the same as the defender swinging a paddle at an incoming shooter. The defender has a right to defend the goal and is not obliged to give an attacker a clear shot at goal just because the attacker drifts into 1M range for example. That's the way I see it anyway, but I'm open to correction?

[SeanT]

I'm With JW on this one, theres nothing in the rules that I'm aware of that says

"The defender has a right to defend the goal and is not obliged to give an attacker a clear shot at goal just because the attacker drifts into 1M range".

To me the defender must move their paddle so as it remains out of arms reach. The only exception is the goalie and this is clearly stated. If any other defender did not move their paddle and a player shot, making contact with the paddle, I would call this a dangerous foul.

"A goal-penalty-shot can be awarded for.........and/or an offence where paddle contact with the ball in the opponents hand or any illegal play that endangers the opposition occurs (dangerous)."

If they shot without making contact but missed I would award them a free shot.

[troy]

Originally posted by TheMasterG
Not true, if you don't move your paddle but the attacker comes into with 1M of you then you can't be penalised.
....
I don't think so, the attacker moving his/her hand towards a stationary paddle is not the same as the defender swinging a paddle at an incoming shooter. The defender has a right to defend the goal and is not obliged to give an attacker a clear shot at goal just because the attacker drifts into 1M range for example. That's the way I see it anyway, but I'm open to correction? Good to see you inviting correction Master G - cause I'm sure what you suggest is contrary to the [written] Rules!

I think JW and Sean are on the right track here, unless there are some unwritten interpretations that are generally accepted overseas.

Three points I'd like to contribute though:

1) "1M" [as referred to by Master G] - I don't think you should use this reference as it is misleading and will confuse many readers - the "1M" is in reference to Taking [Restart] Throws when the ball must travel "... at least ONE METRE measured horizontally from the point of release ...".
This discussion is more about general play and the correct reference is "ARMS REACH".

2) I think the more pertinent rule is:
"Illegal use of paddle" includes "Playing, or attempting to play, the ball with a paddle when the ball is within arms reach of an opponent, and that opponent is attempting to play the ball with their hand. "

- A player who has the ball in hand certainly has the ball "within their arms reach ".
- A player who has the ball in hand is certainly "attempting to play the ball with their hand" - why else is it in their hand?
- A defender who keeps their paddle up and doesn't move it away from a player who is attempting to throw or shoot must undoubtedly be "attempting to play the ball with [their] paddle" - why else would they leave it there?

So therefore a player who keeps their paddle up and doesn't move it away when it becomes within arms reach of a player who has the ball in hand is clearly making illegal use of the paddle!
... TO AVOID PENALTY, THEY MUST WITHDRAW THE PADDLE!

It does not matter if it is the actions of the attacker that cause the defender to become in an infringing position - obviously the defender is there to defend and must be expected to respond to the actions of the attacker - the defender shouldn't be able to plead faultless when their whole objective is to be there to disrupt the attacker!

3) I think the principle here is one of "FAIR PLAY" rather that "SAFETY"...

Sean and JW refer to the foul as 'dangerous' - I don't entirely agree, I consider that it is more UNFAIR!

When it happens to you, do you feel endangered? or unfairly treated?
I don't feel endangered (I can see the paddle, and I'm not about to do anything stupid!) - I feel unfairly treated by the defender (and the referee if they don't award a penalty!).

You might say it is not 'dangerous' until it hits you (that's our NZ interpretation of "dangerous" by the way), or you might say it's not 'dangerous' because (in the same way that a moving bus isn't dangerous until you step out in front of it) the attacker can see the paddle there and knows if they don't try and shoot past it, then they won't hit it .

What I say is that, more importantly than whether that particular action is 'dangerous', the Rules have provided for a player with the ball to have an area of free space in which to move their arms without the risk of being endangered by contact from an opponent's paddle, and when playing to the Rules players expect a degree of FAIR PLAY , and to be inhibited from making a FAIR shot or throw is more UNFAIR than it is 'dangerous'.

I think that everybody should keep in mind the principles behind the Rules - The Rules are there for Definition, Safety and Fair Play - and ultimately at any level of sport participants expect to be fairly treated according to the Rules of their game.

So rather than just asking yourselves (as referees and as players) "Is it allowed (by definition)?" or "Is it unsafe?" ...
more importantly, ask yourself...
... "IS IT FAIR?"

[TheMasterG]

Ok, I should have said "arms reach" rather than 1M and I'm not saying what I've said above is stated in the rules, it's just my opinion/interpretation on what the rules say.
And I still think, if the paddle doesn't move, no foul. That's the way it's played here and I don't think it's dangerous
Nor do I think it's unfair, unless you think it's unfair that the "big mean defender" wouldn't let you score ;)

[troy]

Originally posted by TheMasterG
And I still think, if the paddle doesn't move, no foul. That's the way it's played here and I don't think it's dangerous
Nor do I think it's unfair, unless you think it's unfair that the "big mean defender" wouldn't let you score ;)
So you don't think it's unfair if the "big mean defender" breaks the Rules to stop you from getting a fair shot?
Then why have any rules at all?

By the way, I agree with you that it is not dangerous (but I do think it is a foul!).

Also, Where's "here" for you? What part of the world do you play in? And how widespread have you found the interpretation that "if the defender doesn't move the paddle, they are ok?

And, despite the way you find it is applied in your region, do you not consider it is contrary to the written ICF Rules?

[Dion]

Troy,

I agreed what you said, as I think the rules are not only protect the players but also provided a fair-play game to every players! In my country, some of the referees agreed "no move, no foul" and they also agreed that if i put the paddle still here, it's the attacker's problem of why they hit my paddle, he can pass the ball or he can avoid my paddle.

But in my opinion, I won't allow the defenders put the paddle within the attacker's arm reach area.

Another question here.....(I'm sorry I'm a trouble-maker), how the referee to penalise the denfender if they really put the paddle within the attacker's arm reach area?...

1. If the attacker is not going to shoot----i'll just simply give the attacker a free shot.

2. If the attacker is going to shoot----I'll give them a goal-penalty

3. How about the attacker is still can shoot, but blocked by the goalie------I'll just simply give the play-on........(am I right?)


Does anyone can give me some suggestion??????

[SeanT]

Oh bugger just lost what I typed! This is how I ref this area
1) I agree, if the paddle in arms reach appears to have influenced the play or options of the player with the ball, free shot

2)if the attacker shoots and their hand or 'ball in hand' makes contact with the defenders paddle - dangerous foul, gps.

If the attacker shoots and no contact is made and the paddle is only just within arms reach (defender trying to comply) then play advantage then free shot if no advantage.

If the attacker shoots and no contact is made and the paddle is clearly well within arms reach, deliberate foul, play advantage, if no advantage- gps

3)If the player has a paddle within arms reach when they shoot but they still get a shot away, that illegal paddle is still likely to have influenced their shot, they have still been fouled, therefore play advatage, if they receive no advantage eg goalie blocks the shot, they should still be entitled to a free shot at least, or if some of the conditions in 2) are met (deliberate or dangerous)they should get a gps

Hope that helps, we'll see if others agree!

[TheMasterG]

Originally posted by troy
...And, despite the way you find it is applied in your region, do you not consider it is contrary to the written ICF Rules? Sorry, but I still don't think it's a foul and my region is Europe. I don't think that "hand to paddle" is the same as "paddle to hand" :twocents:

[troy]

Originally posted by TheMasterG
Sorry, but I still don't think it's a foul and my region is Europe. I don't think that "hand to paddle" is the same as "paddle to hand" :twocents: I agree - that taking the "hand to the paddle" is different to taking the "paddle to the hand"...

but I fail to see there is any distinction between the two in the "written" ICF Rules - in either case, once the paddle is within arms reach of the player with the ball and it is being used in an attempt to play the ball, IT IS ILLEGAL!

Do you not agree? Does anyone else agree?

And how widespread is the interpretation that "if the defender doesn't move their paddle, they can't be held at fault"?
... We are seriously trying to work this out in our little part of the world, so we don't disadvantage our National players by refereeing them according to the "written" ICF Rules, when it's actually played according to different "unwritten" interpretations throughout much of the rest of the world. It makes wuite a difference to the way the defence is played!

[JW Lester]

2 things.

First of all, I think the number of cases where a player does not react at all and holds their paddle still in front of an approaching player is extremely small. In the vast majority of cases, a player will react with his paddle to moves made by an advancing player, and so this whole thread is IMO a fairly moot point. To not defend an attacker's boat, and then to make matters worse by not bothering to react to the ball is something I would imagine you see only in beginners (DOH! OK that means me on occasion :stupid: ). So why encourage it by refereeing it as legal???

Secondly, Regarding the the point made earlier that the ICF made a specific exception for the goalkeeper: I agree, the implication is that this act (a defender leaving their paddle in the shooting path of a players hand) is clearly NOT excepted and is definitely illegal.

Not only that, but I still think holding the paddle in place is dangerous. As a shooter - you make the assumption that players will control their paddle such that they are out of the shooting path of your hand. When they do not, and leave a paddle in your way, you will be hurt. Now the consequences of this injury (pain, bruises, possibly even a broken bone (or split webbing :rolleyes: ) in extreme cases) are not that severe and IMO are just part of the game. You should expect occasional minor pain, bruises and even some stitching up if you play Canoe Polo. The reason I feel this is "dangerous" is that the incidence of such an injury when fouled in the act of shooting is very high. In this case, the "dangerousness" of the injury lies more in creating an unfair advantage for the defending team when they injure an attacker. If, for example, you fouled the best shooting player on the opposite team, and they badly bruised their hand, their effectiveness would be decreased and an unfair advantage would be created. So I think the relatively strict reffing guidelines SeanT outlined make perfect sense.

[TheMasterG]

Originally posted by troy
...but I fail to see there is any distinction between the two in the "written" ICF Rules - in either case, once the paddle is within arms reach of the player with the ball and it is being used in an attempt to play the ball, IT IS ILLEGAL!

Do you not agree? Does anyone else agree?

And how widespread is the interpretation that "if the defender doesn't move their paddle, they can't be held at fault"?... Rule 30.4 - Placing a paddle within arms reach of an opponent who has the ball in their hand.

Ok, here's the way I see it according to this rule:

- If the attacker is stationary with ball and defender puts paddle up to block within arms reach of the attacker then it's a foul.
- If defender puts the paddle up and the attacker drifts in within arms reach when they shoot then no foul(defender hasn't "placed paddle within arms reach", attacker has come into arms reach of paddle).

The second situation is more likely and the way we play. I can't speak for others when saying how widespread this is but this is the way we/I played as a defender at the last Worlds and Europeans and in my opinion that was the way it was reffed too, speaking from the games I played in.
Originally posted by JW Lester
... As a shooter - you make the assumption that players will control their paddle such that they are out of the shooting path of your hand... Not over here, we/I assume that the defender will attempt to block your shot and so shoot accordingly ie. around the paddle.

G :music:

[samk]

Originally posted by TheMasterG
If defender puts the paddle up and the attacker drifts in within arms reach when they shoot then no foul(defender hasn't "placed paddle within arms reach", attacker has come into arms reach of paddle).

If this is the case then why is there a seperate entry in the rules stating that the goalie is excluded from the rule as long as paddles are not moved towards the player or used in a danerous manner?

"30.4. Placing a paddle within arms reach of an opponent who has the ball in their hand. A goalkeeper is excluded from this rule and is allowed to directly defend against a shot at goal as long as the paddle is not moved towards the opponent at the time of the shot and is not used in a deliberately dangerous manner."

[Izzy]

Originally posted by samk
If this is the case then why is there a seperate entry in the rules stating that the goalie is excluded from the rule as long as paddles are not moved towards the player or used in a danerous manner?

"30.4. Placing a paddle within arms reach of an opponent who has the ball in their hand. A goalkeeper is excluded from this rule and is allowed to directly defend against a shot at goal as long as the paddle is not moved towards the opponent at the time of the shot and is not used in a deliberately dangerous manner."

The fact that there is seperate entry in the Rules for goalie doesn't contradict MasterG's position. MasterG has stated that:
-" If the attacker is stationary with ball and defender puts paddle up to block within arms reach of the attacker then it's a foul."

For a goalie it is not a foul if they place their paddle within arm reach of an oponent who has a ball in their hand before the time of the shot.

[JW Lester]

The page on Clyde's UK website posted earlier seems to indicate that this is a foul.


"This month we are going to look at the situation of Paddle blocking for Goal Keepers and how the rule is different for them compared to other defenders.

One of the new rules allows a Goal Keeper to maintain the position of paddle even when it's within hands reach of an attacker. This is specifically so they can defend the goal using the paddle.

This is the exception to the general rule which says this normally can't happen - specifically for any other player."

Note Clyde's use of the word "maintain".

[Izzy]

"30.4. Placing a paddle within arms reach of an opponent who has the ball in their hand. A goalkeeper is excluded from this rule and is allowed to directly defend against a shot at goal as long as the paddle is not moved towards the opponent at the time of the shot and is not used in a deliberately dangerous manner."

The Rules clearly say that as long as a paddle is not moved towards the oponent by a goailie AT THE TIME OF THE SHOT it is not a foul. It means that goalie can move his paddle within arm reach of opponent (if it is not dangerous) before the oponent make a shot.

[SeanT]

TheMaster G ,you've defended your interpretation of the rules with respect to rule 30.4. I personally disagree but I can see how you come to that position, fair enough. However you have not justified your interpretation with respect to rule 30.2 as outlined by Troy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by troy
I think the more pertinent rule is:
"Illegal use of paddle" includes "Playing, or attempting to play, the ball with a paddle when the ball is within arms reach of an opponent, and that opponent is attempting to play the ball with their hand. "

- A player who has the ball in hand certainly has the ball "within their arms reach ".
- A player who has the ball in hand is certainly "attempting to play the ball with their hand" - why else is it in their hand?
- A defender who keeps their paddle up and doesn't move it away from a player who is attempting to throw or shoot must undoubtedly be "attempting to play the ball with [their] paddle" - why else would they leave it there?

So therefore a player who keeps their paddle up and doesn't move it away when it becomes within arms reach of a player who has the ball in hand is clearly making illegal use of the paddle!
... TO AVOID PENALTY, THEY MUST WITHDRAW THE PADDLE!

Remember we're not talking about how you play, how the last Worlds were reffed etc but what the official ICF rules say. Maybe your style of play is great and justifable under one section of the rules but can you also justify it under this section?

[Izzy]

Originally posted by SeanT
TheMaster G ,you've defended your interpretation of the rules with respect to rule 30.4. I personally disagree but I can see how you come to that position, fair enough. However you have not justified your interpretation with respect to rule 30.2 as outlined by Troy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by troy
I think the more pertinent rule is:
"Illegal use of paddle" includes "Playing, or attempting to play, the ball with a paddle when the ball is within arms reach of an opponent, and that opponent is attempting to play the ball with their hand. "

- A player who has the ball in hand certainly has the ball "within their arms reach ".
- A player who has the ball in hand is certainly "attempting to play the ball with their hand" - why else is it in their hand?
- A defender who keeps their paddle up and doesn't move it away from a player who is attempting to throw or shoot must undoubtedly be "attempting to play the ball with [their] paddle" - why else would they leave it there?

So therefore a player who keeps their paddle up and doesn't move it away when it becomes within arms reach of a player who has the ball in hand is clearly making illegal use of the paddle!
... TO AVOID PENALTY, THEY MUST WITHDRAW THE PADDLE!

Remember we're not talking about how you play, how the last Worlds were reffed etc but what the official ICF rules say. Maybe your style of play is great and justifable under one section of the rules but can you also justify it under this section?


I don’t think it is logical to judge this situation by the rule 30.3. Otherwise you can use same way of arguing to penalize a player who blocked a shot even if a ball had already traveled two meters before the block:

- A player who has the ball in hand certainly has the ball "within their arms reach ".
- A player who has the ball in hand is certainly "attempting to play the ball with their hand" - why else is it in their hand?
- A defender who keeps their paddle up and wants to block a shot must undoubtedly be "attempting to play the ball with [their] paddle".

[SeanT]

The section of the rule we're talking about is actually rule 30.2 not 30.3.
I do agree though that if you applied 30.3 strictly you get the situation you describe, if the shooting player shoots with their arm held well behind them and just with a bit of a flick. By applying 30.3 the defender couldn't block til the ball was out of arms reach from a normal paddling position (if the block involved putting their paddle across the front deck of the opponents boat) in which case the ball may have travelled a couple of metres max from the point of release.
I've always thought these rules (30.2, 30.3) were intended more to be applied to the ball on the water situation, though it actually doesn't say this anywhere does it? Then again in rule 30.4 the argument being applied to allow the defender to leave their paddle in arms reach hinges on the tense of the word "placing". I can hardly believe this was intended to be the case when the rule was written.

To me this discussion has come back to the same old thing. the ICF rules are not written in a way that clearly defines Caone Polo. Until this is done it there will remain different interpretations of what the rules say or were intended to say or when various bits apply, this obviously leads to variability in application by the refs and frustration to players. Who cares what they end up saying as long as they say one thing clearly!

I haven't even looked at the "CP in the Olympics" thread as IMO it would be an absolute joke if the current rules were in force.

[Izzy]

Of course I was refering to the article "Playing, or attempting to play, the ball with a paddle when the ball is within arms reach of an opponent, and that opponent is attempting to play the ball with their hand ". ( For some reason this is 30.3 not 30.2 in the Rules Book I have).
My point was that this article was made for situations when a ball is on the water. If you use it for judging of shooting situations you can easily use same way of reasoning to penalize a blocker who is two meters away.

[troy]

Originally posted by Izzy
..."Playing, or attempting to play, the ball with a paddle when the ball is within arms reach of an opponent, and that opponent is attempting to play the ball with their hand ".....

My point was that this article was made for situations when a ball is on the water. If you use it for judging of shooting situations you can easily use same way of reasoning to penalize a blocker who is two meters away.
I've always thought this article also applied to protect a player who is trying to catch the ball... so it also must apply to a BALL IN THE AIR!... so it applies to the ball on the water, and the ball in the air... what suggests it doesn't apply to the ball in hand?

I only chose to cite this Rule (30.2) in this situation because it can be interepreted to equally apply, and could be used to bypass the debate on whether "placing a paddle within arms reach" includes "leaving a paddle within arms reach when an attacker advances closer.

In reality, I believe that Rule 30.4 adequately covers the situation being debated:
- A Thesaurus indicates the word "placing" can generally be taken to mean "putting", "resting", "leaving", "positioning", "situating", "causing to be in a position".
- Some of these 'synonyms' clearly indicate that leaving your paddle in an position is the same as initially placing it in that same position... irrespective of the fact that that position may have only become 'illegal' sometime after you had initially moved your paddle there, it does not change the facts that 'you placed it there' and 'it is in an illegal position' - this has to be considered illegal!
Clearly this is sensible - I mean, the paddle is still in your hands - you're in control of it (we hope)... it's not like you've put it down and moved away from it!

But even then, if you want to get ridiculous and argue the matter of past tense, and claim that leaving your paddle in arms reach is different to placing it there ... it can be argued that as soon as you make the minutest movement of the paddle after the attacker has moved to within arms reach of the paddle (which undoubtedly happens) you have now placed the paddle in a different position, now infringing whichever way you look at it!

But this is all quite pedantic - surely the simple, common sense objective is to allow a player with the ball in hand the opportunity to throw or shoot the ball without the potential of hitting a paddle within their arms reach!! The rules are intended to make defenders KEEP THE PADDLES OUT OF ARMS REACH OF THE PLAYER WITH THE BALL IN HAND!

Sean T highlights a real source of confusion with the way the Rules are currently written - that is determining how it applies in past, present and future tense - an area that has become considerably blurred in our general use of the English language.

[BrazoLoco]

Rule 30.4 - Placing a paddle within arms reach of an opponent who has the ball in their hand.

- If the attacker is stationary with ball and defender puts paddle up to block within arms reach of the attacker then it's a foul.
- If defender puts the paddle up and the attacker drifts in within arms reach when they shoot then no foul(defender hasn't "placed paddle within arms reach", attacker has come into arms reach of paddle).

The second situation is more likely and the way we play. I can't speak for others when saying how widespread this is but this is the way we/I played as a defender at the last Worlds and Europeans and in my opinion that was the way it was reffed too, speaking from the games I played in.
Not over here, we/I assume that the defender will attempt to block your shot and so shoot accordingly ie. around the paddle.

G :music:

Last weekend I was playing defense and I held my paddle stationary on one side while in the water on the other side when an attacker drifted in within arms reach. Instead of shooting, the attacker made the shooting movement with the ball in his hand until he reached my stationary paddle with the ball in hand to indicate that a foul was committed (there was no one reffing, so the play continued).

He repeated the shooting movement with his upper body and he again demonstratively reached my paddle with his hand to indicate that again, a foul was committed (or that I should move my paddle away from his hands reach so he could shoot).

I feel that I was not "placing" the paddle within arms reach of the opponent. The paddle was stationary and away from arms reach when the play started. But he thought I was committing a foul, moreover, based on the 2008 referee update, maybe I should have been carded for committing a deliberate foul (no effort was made to avoid the illegal play, and I continued to keep my paddle in position).

I personally agree with MasterG, but there are teammates in my club that strongly disagree with me, who believe that I should move my paddle away when it comes within arms reach of an attacking player, even if it is "hand to paddle" and helped by the momentum of the attackers' boat.
I feel that it is completely counterintuitive to move the stationary paddle out of the way to give the shooter a free open shoot with only the goalie for defense, but maybe that is what I have to do, if my interpretation is incorrect.
:confused: