Legal Jostling? or Illegal Screening?

[troy]

An attacker (A) is being guarded by a defender within the 6-metre area. Another attacker (B) moves and positions themselves beside the defender, so that as the attacker A moves around past their teammate B the defender might get delayed by having B as an obstacle in their way. [We describe this as B setting a 'pick' or 'screen' for A.]

Three questions:
1) Does anyone think what B has done is illegal if B moves to this position and then remains stationary?

2) Do ICF Rules prohibit attacker B from MOVING to obstruct the defender while the defender is trying to follow attacker A? [Note - the ball is nowhere near these three players at the time and to avoid confusion assume that if attacker A becomes unguarded they will still be several seconds away from receiving the ball - But it all happens within the 6m area.]

3) What are active paddle strokes? Do they include strokes used to try to hold a stationary position?


We're having a few difficulties here in NZ understanding how ICF Rules apply in this situation - particular the situation under Q2, a lot of players are doing it, some referees think it is allowed as jostling, some think it is illegal screening, some just think it shouldn't be allowed.

Please help!

[evs]

Hi Troy

Not sure how current this is but I found this UK interpretation that seems to make a lot of sense. This is for a quick answer, but I need to have a peek at the exact ICF rulings, in which case this might be tosh. The parts in italics were rule changes in 2001, hence use a pinch ;-)

Taken from the old BCU Polo website

34.0
ILLEGAL JOSTLE (New Section) - Free Shot


Signals 10 and 15 apply. A jostle is a player manoeuvring their kayak against an opponent's kayak between the 6 metre lines and the goal line, to gain a position where neither player is attempting for the ball. The following jostling is illegal.

34.1
When a player is stationary or attempting to maintain a position and their body is moved by more than half a metre through sustained contact from an opponent's kayak.

34.2
When the contact to the opponent's kayak would be defined as a kayak-tackle.

34.3
A player with the whole kayak behind the goal line may not be jostled, as they are not in the 6 metre area.

35.0
ILLEGAL SCREEN (Was Obstruction) - Free Shot


Signals 9 and 15 apply. A screen is a player's stationary kayak impeding the progress of an opponent's kayak. A player's kayak is stationary if the kayak is not moving and the player is not attempting any active paddle strokes. The following is an illegal screen or obstruction.

35.1
Actively impeding, outside the 6 metre area, the progress of a player towards the goal where neither player is competing for the ball.

35.2
Actively impeding the progress of a player towards the ball, where the player is not within 3 metres of the ball.

35.3
Actively impeding the progress of a player where the player is (a) not in possession of the ball, (b) not within 3 metres of the ball and is not the nearest player to the ball, the ball being on the water, not in the air, (c) not competing for the ball.


I see where you are coming from, (I know how much of a pedant you are for clarity!) I would suggest that maintaining a stationary position would require active paddle strokes so how do you ref these two rules together? Well in theory it only becomes an illegal jostle when the player has been moved >0.5m. However, how does a player remain stationary without making active paddle strokes?

I haven't addressed question 2 of yours but I think it is covered by 35.3 above? In fact rereading this I'm not sure I've helped at all other than highlight the inconsistency you are talking about!

Anyhow, keep it real dude.
Cheers
Andy

[evs]

The quick answers.

1) No
2) Yes
3) Not sure.

;-)

[troy]

Hi 'Evs'

I'd like to agree with you except ICF Rule 35 now states:

"An illegal screen is when a player actively impedes the progress of an opposing player except where:
...
4. Both players are jostling within the 6m area."

We have people interpret what I described in scenario 2 as 'legal jostling' and therefore believe it is not 'illegal screening'.

Our real problem here is with interpreting the application of rules to 2 and 3 above (#1 was easy!).

The reason we need the clarification is that we are reverting to ICF Rules (yep - throwing away the NZ Rules we introduced in 1995) and our players and referees need clarification of some of these points... as for why the need it, the philosophy is that we should be encouraging self-compliance from players and this is only possible if they have a clear idea of what is allowable and disallowable by the rules.

I ope you are enjoying it back in Mother England after you brief spell in the Antipodes! Best wishes to you and your good wife.

Troy