The Rules for 2005???

[Juno]

Well we are nearing the end of 2004 and with only the South Island Championships and may be a competition held in the Northern Region left to go before Christmas. I thought that we should address something that has really not been addressed this year and should really be addressed before the start of 2005 and the start of another season (if I'm allowed to call it that). At last count I have played under 4 different sets of rules this year for the sport that I call canoe polo:

1. NZCPA rules '99 version
2. ICF (with New Zealand interpretations)
3. ICF (with New Zealand 'changes')
4. ICF (with New Zealand 'changes' but it was a different competition so we thought we would make another rule change)

I have also had to coach a team under ICF rules with Australian interpretations which added a little bit of frustration but this can be expected when playing in a different country. This needs to be sorted!

I keep coming back to the same question why do we have to play under a different set of rules than the rest of the world? Now somebody is going to come back with the response that we do. Under the rules we played under in National League 2004, but we didn't we played under 'ICF' with New Zealand 'changes'. Why can't we play to 'ICF' rules with a nice little thing called an appendix in the back with comments to refs on how we feel they should 'interpret' the rules. As it is always said rules are open to interpretation and we can only suggest how referees and players read, play and enforce the rules.

Well that's my two cents,
Juno

[Jimmy]

Isn't that just the problem with ICF rules, they need interpretation. Rules should be clear enough to not require interpretation, which is why there has had to be NZ rules. To bring about some consistancy.
Leaving the rules up to interpretation results in refereeing to the standard of which we saw in Japan. Where some referees were very good and others skill as a referee could be easily eclipsed by that of an 11 year old school girl who had never heard of canoe polo before.
I'm sure you fit somewhere in the range there Sean.

[becks.c]

I would like to see NZ officially adopt ICF rules, with an "advice to referees" section at the rear of the publication.

While I agree there are some inconsistencies within the wording of ICF rules, I do not agree that bar_stardising the ICF rules to suit our own interpretations does anything to address what is an international problem.

As a responsible member of the international community, I believe New Zealand Canoe Polo should contribute actively in the area of refereeing - for the greater good. The best way for us to improve the situation with the international rules is to be 'part of the solution'.

By choosing to play under a bar_stardising set of ICF rules (however valid those changes may prove to be) we are certainly perceived to be part of the problem. (This does nothing to help our cause)

If our rules and interpretations are so great, why not give everyone the benefit of our work? Work to change the system from within!

As for the inconsistencies of ICF in the written ICF rules being the cause of some of the poor refereeing at Worlds - Jimmie, I have to disagree with your assertion the blame lay at the door of the rules.

Having had the pleasure of taking part in a theory and practical ICF referee training session in Japan, I believe the weakest link in the chain is the administration behind the ICF rules.

The NZ W vs French W game at World's was superbly refereed by an Italian & German referee. - As they were refereeing under ICF, this occurance disproves your hypothesis Jimmie.

I have no problem with the quality of the assessors - I think the problem rests with the administration of refereeing accreditation and formal review processes for the rules themselves.

Every coach in NZ should actively encourage their players to gain at least a theory pass in the first level of refereeing qualification. The large bulk of complaints from players/spectators come about through ignorance of the rules. In order to take part in an informed debate on the playing rules, participants need to have a firm grasp on the rules (if not mentally, at least physically - so they can refer to any rule in question)

That's my 20,000 cents.

:twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents:

[Jimmy]

My apologies for the misunderstanding Becks about all the referees at worlds being useless, but allow me to quote myself by saying
"Where some referees were very good"
which was part of my original post.
Some of the referees were brilliant, especially the Swiss referee who did a very good job with what he had to work with. It's always nice to check what your disproving first.
My problem was with the way some things which you would expect any monkey to call, such as being paddle hacked while taking a free shot were not being called. You wouldn't have had to of seen a game before to know that it was illegal. But the referee can still claim that is the way they interpreted the rules and let it play.

[James]

Firstly Worlds: As a rule of thumb, totally atrocious refereeing! Sure there was about 10 or 12 good or great referees! But a lot of the refereeing was not consistant with what the ICF rule book says.......as Jimmy points out paddle hacks on free shots (to open goals) were not called!!

I agree that we should adopt ICF rules, though we must put some sort of notation regarding the interpretations. Actually this year, that is what happened. Who really cares where the notes go, though it does make a certain amount of sense having it next to the rule we are actually talking about.

I would disagree with Becks regarding NZ utilising a modified set of rules being part of the problem. By NZCPA offering a few clarifications to the ICF rules all we are doing is pointing out where the rules need some work. Mind you ICF probably doesn't care what rules we play under, to be part of the solution surely we need to be on what-ever entity actually changes the ICF rules??

[becks.c]

Thanks Jimmy - you're right, I wasn't particularly clear about what I was disproving.

Leaving the rules up to interpretation results in refereeing to the standard of which we saw in Japan. Where some referees were very good and others skill as a referee could be easily eclipsed by that of an 11 year old school girl who had never heard of canoe polo before.
If the rules were the problem, then surely this would negate any ref from being able to referee to a level you were satisfied with? Does it not make more sense - given that there were a number of very good referees, that it is more about how each referee makes their decisions?

We're probably at cross purposes - I think we both agree that the rules themselves need work.

I personally think 95% of the NZ NL rules are excellently written, what I object to is that NZ players are spoon fed a particular interpretation of an ICF rule, and that it is fobbed off as "ICF rules with clarification"

James - your comments about 'clarifications' are misleading - a more appropriate description of the NZ NL 2004 rules would be as a 're-written' version of ICF - as the wording of ICF rules has actually been changed to more strongly support the way it has been decided a particular rule will be reffered in NZ.

For example, if you asked a class of school children to study a play by Shakespeare - you would ensure they were all using the same edition/published version. - You wouldn't re-write your own version to encourage a specific interpretation of a passage.

Why not give NZ players the ICF rules in their ICF approved format, with 'clarifications' as an appendix, and encourage educated debate?

By rewriting ICF rules, you are duming down ICF rules for NZ players - and so run the risk of being seen to implying that we are not smart enough to establish our own interpretations.

If the NZ interpretations are so great, why do they need to be enforced by being written into/over ICF rules?

[vish]

I personally believe that the wording of the rules needs to remain the same as ICF with Guidelines for NZ referees as an appendix. Either that, or put an asterx "*" and then a note under the rule.

I would like to see some refresher courses available for referees so that we can improve our understanding of the rules, especially since they are different to the format the NZ rules were under.

As for 11 year old girls refereeing, I have two teams of boys playing "tube polo" at the moment. They basically play polo in inner tubes. They can even roll the tubes if they tip- I'd prefer kayaks but this is as close as I can get during school time. Anyway, last week, I taught a ten year old boy how to ref and he was superb. He absolutely loved refereeing, but it proves Jimmy's point- the child was taught the rules and applied them. Referees need to be taught the rules and apply them. International referees need to be on a tight guideline as to what interpretation they use. It is not fair of different countries to use the rules as a political football, where they refuse to accept intended guidelines in place of their own ideas. Referees who consistently do not apply the rules and guidelines in practice need to lose their ICF qualifications.

[SeanT]

Ahhh, to think I’ve been blissfully unaware of this thread for a whole 10 days or so. WHY WHY WHY did I check the net today?! Just kidding………?.



I agree with much of what’s been said, and if you draw a line down the middle I probably sit somewhere there.

Juno’s problem is the whole problem, he has only played under 3 sets of rules


NZCPA 99 – now pretty much dead with respect to the format – not by my choice! ChCh area hasn’t used these at all this yr. The change away from these was as a result of responding to mainly representative player pressure – many of you guys responding – so don’t complain about it now
2004 Nat league rules – no changes since introduction throughout the year (that I recall) so not sure what comp Juno’s referring to in that respect (never fobbed off as anything else by myself)
ICF – any country interpretations is still ICF – Thats the whole issue!!!!
Regarding the rules for 2004.

I have been actively trying to get feedback re the 2004 rules all this yr. I have had some specifics and general comments from people who have responded on this thread as well as others. By far most comments have been supportive of the 2004 version of the rules. Some people would prefer a different format such as Becs suggestion. I can see the merits of this but there would also be significant disadvantages. Many many players just want to play and have a vague understanding of the rules and might look one up occasionally when they think the ref was a tosser in their last game. They need to have one place to look to see what the rule we are playing under says. For those few with more interest / irritation you can generally see whether this is straight ICF or whether its been changed a bit or a lot. You can also see what ICF originally said or in some cases where that’s not so easy you could look up the ICF rule separately. So in my opinion the current format caters to the majority.



Additionally, in my opinion these rules assist us in “reading from the same edition” so we can get consistently read / interpreted and hopefully applied rules so players can enjoy a fair game and predictable reffing.



Are these as easy to read as the previous nz 99 rules? – not even close, but we’re trying to go to the ICF format for many of the reasons discussed above by others.



Regarding the rules for 2005

There are a couple of small additions I would recommend. Still a spelling mistake or 2 and I’d like to add …into/over the spray deck…. in the kayak tackle rule. This is how ICF consistently ref the rule. I’ve been asked by a regional ref what was going on with this rule as he couldn’t see why various things were being called – justifiably confused as the ICF rule doesn’t say “over”.



Regarding ICF, changes etc

ICF is supposedly in the process of completing a rule review. There was supposed to be a meeting re the rules in Japan during worlds. This kept getting postponed due to various more pressing problems such as the protests re the Aussie men / France game. Eventually this meeting never happened. Duncan is supposedly the player rep on the rules committee or so I’ve been lead to believe. He has a copy of the 2004 rules we’ve used. We have also sent him a commentary on the specific rules / changes and the shortfalls some of us see in the straight ICF version. These were also forwarded to Jon Bisset - also involved with the rules committee. As well as our suggestions I’m also aware of some changes proposed from the Australian side. The Rules committee I believe was supposed to consider put forward their proposals to an ICF or some such body meeting in Oct/04 for approval.



To my knowledge there hasn’t been a huge amount of discussion going on but maybe it has behind closed doors. I emailed Duncan a couple of days ago to see if there was any news but no reply as yet. I’m certainly not holding my breath that much will have changed but you never know.

Any changes that are made we’ll incorporate into our rules – hence we can’t really further finalise the rules for 2005 yet.



“We” certainly haven’t been sitting on our thumbs but can’t do much more just yet. Once I know anything more re ICF changes if any I’ll let you know.

Anticipating having a reffing w/e in likely in central region likely erly next yr


Sean

[Juno]

Sorry Sean I still count four, I was informed that we were playing under ICF rules at IR so I coached the Central Youth teams to these rules. But when playing at IR a free shot was awarded after the whistle had gone. In ICF only a goal penalty shot may be taken, when I asked my captain if a protest would be lodged he informed me that we were playing NL'04 rules.

This is where I concluded that we were playing under the NL'04 rules but with another rule 'change' because as I found my team at half way when a goal was scored ??? Well I just re-read the rules again before I dig myself a hole and I maybe slightly wrong in my assumption because there is these to words 'where applicable' but where is it applicable when it is in a certain location. These two words changes the whole nature of the game. And the paragraph that includes these words needs to be removed.

Why are these rules titled National League Rules 2004 not NZCPA rules 2004 so what rules should we have been playing under at IR or other non-NL competitions. Now that's got to be confusing and we say ICF rules can't sort their act out.

When is a date going to be set for the publication of the rules for 2005 I suggest the 1st January 2005 (what better date, than any other) gives NZCPA time to get the rules published and teams time to adapt to the rules before the start of the season. The rules shouldn't come out the week before National League starts let alone after two inter-club competitions and schools competitons have already been played.

Looking at the poll and the differences between the rules that have been included I come to the conclusion that most people like playing centreline restarts and until the rest of the world decideds that goaline restarts are better, can we at least play to this. And if a club decideds that in a local league they want to adapte the rules to goaline restarts then fine, allow this by putting it in as a variation in the appendix of the NZ 'interpretations' of ICF as a variation for 'local' competitions and at a inter-club or inter-school level we play as close to ICF as we 'interperet' not 'change'.

[SeanT]

So you're saying you weren't correctly informed about which rules were being played at IR - fair point. Some people keep calling the nat leag 04 rules "ICF...with x or y" which only adds to confusion. I call them the Nat league 2004 rules. I wasn't sure what we were going to be playing under though it'd been clear for a while that it was centreline restarts.

Anyway, IR were the nat leag 04 rules with centreline restart option as they allow. So being given misinformation may have lead you to believe you've played under more sets of rules than you actually have.

The rules were titled nat league rules 04 as this is what they were prepared for. Yes they were finalised late largely due to lack of volunteers then the initial efforts being done in completely the wrong format. The problem got passed on to me as I had some time available (despite not wanting any involvment initially). Taking into account the input I'd had from various sources, the rules were produced. I don't recall any input from yourself at the time Juno (though I may be completely mistaken).

What rules should other comps have been using? MCPA made the choice at the start of our season to use the Nat league 04 rules. All other regions had this option if they choose to use it. I'd encourage all regions to use the Nat league 04 rules for every comp til they are superseeded. Any changes from these will be bringing us more into line with straight ICF.

Players in some areas like goalline restarts, others seem to like centerline. The nat leag 04 rules allow the comp organisers to set it how they/their players like. Stop whinging about this PLEASE and play your comp how you like while letting others play theirs how they like.

There's no point setting a date for changes to come out. We are awaiting the reviewed rules from ICF. Once we have these we should incorporate them asap, even if we get them in february. I'm hopeful that they should be around long before then and once we have them I'll try to get them sorted straight away then circulated. Yes ideally well before next yr.

Remember that almost all of those involved with any of this are volunteering their time to do it. All feedback I've had has been considered. If it hasn't happened as anyone in particular has suggested it doesn't mean you weren't listened to.

[Juno]

I have never once personally attacked anyone that has spent the time to try and inline our rules closer to ICF to make the transition for our National players from National comps to Inter-national comps which I guess that is why the rule 'changes' came about.

And 'whinging' I am just bringing up a discussion that was happening alot at IR and I am really not worried about whether I re-start under my goal or at the centreline in a local comp, I am more worried about at a inter-club or higher level we can't seem to get a conscensous on where we should restart. Which is unbeneficial for the players having to adjust to it at every major competition.

I am also sorry Sean you did not receive the feedback that I offered on the National League Rules 2004 and if these are the ones we should be playing to then this should be made a little clearer. Once again I am sorry if this feels like a personal attack and I really appreciate what you have spent what is a huge amount of time on.

[James]

HI all,

A couple of clarifications and justifications (or excuses if you want to view it that way):

In late 2003 the NZCPA executive decide to adopt ICF rules (called NL rules 2004) with a few clarifications to tidy up ambiguities in the current ICF rules. It was also decide that National league would run with goal line restarts, and Inter regional Champs would run with centre-line restarts. The National Senior and Youth coaches were present and supported this approach.
The NL 2004 rules were released at a late date due to the person volunteering their time being very busy, hence the late release date (day before NL started?). I understand that this was a great inconvenience to all.
Inter-regional Champs were run under the same rule as NL, with the variation of centre-line restarts. There clearly wasn't enough communication on my behalf to all the regions regard this.
Regarding Juno's comment about a free shot being taken after the full-time whistle at IR......well the NL rules 2004 say:
44. COMPLETION OF PLAY

1. The timekeeper will indicate the end of the period of playing time by the use of a loud signal. The ball is dead at the start of the signal. The referee shall use signal 2 to confirm the timekeeper's signal.

2. If a goal penalty-shot or free shot should be awarded for an infringement which occurred has been awarded prior to the signal for completion of play, the goal penalty-shot or free shot must be taken before play is to be considered completed. In this situation, the ball shall after it has been thrown immediately be dead if it hits the water or the goal frame and comes back into the playing area.

I remember clarifing this with Juno shortly after the incident occured.

As Sean has mention, we will try and get the 2005 rules out as soon as practical. If for some reason there is too much of a delay, National League 2005 will play under the same rules as 2004.

James Mitchell
National Competitions Director
NZ Canoe Polo Association

[SeanT]

I don't take any of this as a personal attack at all. I'm just aware that a lot of people do a lot for NZ polo and if they get a lot of bagging about it then thats not much incentive to keep doing it. The comments I made were not refering to me as such.

I agree that there was some confusion as to what was being played at IR. This had nothing to do with the various rules as such but just that there has been a change from our previous rules (NZCPA 99) - made following feedback from mainly representative players. This confusion would have still been the same had it turned out we were playing straight ICF. The issue here would seem to be regarding the competition organisers / notification of rules. Those involved do a huge amount of work for NZCPA (ie for all of us) and I'm not about to bag them. Maybe it just needs to be made clearer before the next comps (using correct rule description/title) including the restart option. The rules applying have been made clear for the SI comp I believe (though I better check whether Jimmy said goal or center line restart...).

Hopefully this confusion will settle now that the changes have been here for a bit. Anticipated new changes are essentially only reflecting what ICF actually does and any extra sensible changes that come about as a result of their rule review.

We could use straight ICF but many of us want a more consistent standard of reffing/ interpretation of rules than this currently allows. The rule format could be as you suggest with another appendix of NZ interpretations. This was considered during the their development but the current format was felt to be preferable.

No personal offense intended re "whinging", I'm just a bit sick of the discussion re this. As I said above many people like goal line restarts, others want centerline. Play what your local players want in your local comp. I believe the National comp organisers are taking a very balanced approach by playing goal line restarts at one (NL) and centerline at the other (IR). The main difference I find this makes is that I have to try to remember to relax for a bit after a goal has been scored when playing CL restarts. Others I guess may have more of a problem. If we insisted on one over the other we'd have even more unhappy people.

If you do have more specific feedback re any of the other changed areas I really would be most grateful to get it.

Sean

[Jimmy]

I'd just like to say that I remember scoring that goal at IR vs Central and it felt great.
Te he he

South Island Champs will be end line restarts and only a small amount of whinging will be tollerated before your team gets landed with more scorekeeping duty or a beer tax is introduced (I'm yet to decide which as it may come down to a case by case basis).

[troy]

As for the inconsistencies of ICF in the written ICF rules being the cause of some of the poor refereeing at Worlds - Jimmie, I have to disagree with your assertion the blame lay at the door of the rules.
....

The NZ W vs French W game at World's was superbly refereed by an Italian & German referee. - As they were refereeing under ICF, this occurance disproves your hypothesis Jimmie.

.....(from second post)
If the rules were the problem, then surely this would negate any ref from being able to referee to a level you were satisfied with? Does it not make more sense - given that there were a number of very good referees, that it is more about how each referee makes their decisions?
I don't follow the logic presented here ...
- it's easy to conceive the situation where two referees can carry different interpretations but referee quite effectively together in a particular game because situations never arose that challenged their differences in opinion (I've experienced this lots as a referee!)
- there are also no doubt numerous situations where one or both referees are challenged by their differences in interpretations but the players don't become aware during the game - 1) because the players are too 'involved' to notice, or 2) because out of respect for the players and each other, the referees don't create an issue over their difference during the game - that doesn't mean to say that there weren't serious differences. (I've also experienced this from a referee perspective!)

The good judgement demonstrated by many good referees, and their common sense application of the principles of the game, does not negate the fact that the rules they are trying to apply may be grossly inadequate... this situation is analagous to many areas of common law, where there is inadequate legislation or precedence in a particular area but a judge comes up with a very reasonable verdict from applying common sense and good judgment.

In fact I've played some highly competitive, elite-level games where the referee had never read any rules but did a more-than-adequate job of refereeing because they used good judgement (and had seen a few games so knew what the gist of it was about).


The sole reason for promoting and publishing "rules" is to promote 'self-compliance' - so that the participants involved know what they are meant to do, what their boundaries are, and what the implications are for exceeding those boundaries. Based on their understanding of those rules, participants will choose some degree of compliance.

To avoid unnecessary frustration and promote sporting behaviour, it is fundamental to have a set of rules that can be understood and applied consistently!

This is where we have been let down by ICF Rules
- from the outset, certain rules have knowingly been left ambiguous enough to be open to a range of different interpretations when no consensus could be reached
- a large degree of beaurocracy has stalled (if not made impossible) the process of getting rules reviewed and amended in a timely manner (similar to our last two years of rule reviews in NZ)
- ICF referees have allowed interpretations to deviate from the written ICF Rules without getting them updated
- ICF referees have been allowed to apply widely different interpretations, even when they have agreed otherwise amongst themselves.
As Becks has noted, this is all about the administration behind the rules - inadequate clarification and training on the written rules, and inadequate administration of accreditation and review of ICF referees.

It isn't all too gloomy - ICF Rules have come a long since 1987!

But it is important that you add clarity to the rules themselves with specific amendments or enhancement - it is insufficient to merely add commentary, because then it becomes ambiguous as to the extent it will apply.

But getting everyone to agree, well that will never happen so don't expect it!

Good luck.

[becks.c]

Thanks Troy and Sean for your comments re the requirement for clarification within rules. I can definately now see the need for clarification in context.

Although, still think that clarifications need to be clearly removed from actual ICF rule wording.

I guess this is starting to come down to a question of democracy (gee, can't even spell it!) While I appreciate that the poll is not scientificly representative, of the non representative group who did take part in the poll - seperating 'clarifications' from actual ICF rules is strongly supported.

So we have to question why we aren't being listened to?

Is it that we need to trust our betters?
(and when I say this, I mean people who have taken the time to examine and critique the rules/observe international trends/take part in informed debate with ICF officials...)

Unfortunately for numerous reasons, the rule review and changes to rules in new zealand have not been managed in a way that has resulted in players trusting their administration.

HOw can trust be rebuilt? I think this is the question those in positions of power within NZ admin should be thinking about.
No matter how great your rules are, if players don't 'own' and trust them - they just wont fly!

Suggestions for action?
Try to get some representative feedback on what players really want.
Put your views aside and really listen to your players requirements, then look at how you could address them.
Work with other in power administrators to ensure you're all singing the same tune.
(It might help to get the official name of what you've sorted out and use it uniformly)

[SeanT]

Re trying to get "representative feedback" : I've been asking at every oppurtunity for this from people. Almost invariably I get nothing or when I buttonhole people I get some generalized comments which actually often aren't very helpful - fine if people say "yeah they're good" but if they say "Nah don't like them" well what don't they like, ICF? the change from NZCPA99? but I often don't get much more. There are invariably differing views re format and goal/center restarts. Also remember the views expressed here are only one part of the spectrum. To quote a ChCh player this yr "Why did anyone f*** with the rules - we had a perfectly good set". Personally I was happy with our old ones as well.

From talking to players and from many yrs of polo, I believe what the majority of players really want is consistancy of reffing. (Tell me if I'm wrong there anyone) You'll find this reffered to quite a few times through the threads discussing rules on the general section.

I (and others) don't believe this can be gained from reading the ICF rules - there is a lot that needs to be understood about the game before ICF makes much sense -eg a kayak tackle and a jostle are defined as exactly the same thing yet most of us realise there are quite different things allowed in each situation - this leads to varied interpretations and inconsistent reffing - (the opposite of what I believe players want) Hence NZCPA did not ellect to adopt ICF outright when they decided to adopt the ICF format and hence our current rules (NAT league 2004)

I'm happy to continue administering the rules and take up the post of refereeing director (or whatever its called) within this rule framework - which I firmly believe is the best style while using the ICF format. Additionally I'll keep trying to clear up discrepancys. I don't believe a poll of 41 people at last count is at all a compelling reason to change things. By my approx reckoning this is ~20% of MCPA's membership alone or <5% Centrals (correct me if I'm wrong) Yes I agree that they need to be called one thing by everyone Nat league 2004 fits the bill for now - I've always called them this. It would have been a bit silly not putting them out til even later so as we could all discuss what to call them.

If you insist on having what the majority on this poll want then simply print out the ICF rules, add them to the front of the Nat league 04 rules and this is exactly what you have. Just to save time reffering back and forwards you can read the whole rule/interpretation in the "appendix"

If you want to have it all intergrated but completely seperate wording as you seem to be advocating above Becs (note: not what the poll backs ) then I'd suggest you or someone else you can persuade should do this. Remembering that it needs to be out asap. If people could convince me this was in the best interest of Polo in NZ for the majority of players I'd happily support it. If you couldn't convince me but it was clear that was what the majority of players wanted I'd happily stand aside for whomever was planning to promote it. Likewise if it became clear that "players don't trust the administration" as you suggest, I'd happily stand aside - but it would be best for polo in NZ to have some else prepared to take up the position.

Don't get me wrong, sure things can be improved, lets work on that. But lets also get in behind the current rules and accept this current format, remembering as Troy says
"getting everyone to agree, well that will never happen so don't expect it!"
Otherwise you've got a few months to finish and promote the style of rules you want - go to it.

Specific feedback re specific rules happily accepted seanandkathy@xtra.co.nz

[vish]

Sean, you're a credit to our association, but I don't agree with you, mate, sorry! The majority of NZCPA members do not know enough in order to contribute effectively to the discussion. They rely on people to explain it for them, they feel intimidated by the positions taken, and they have every right not to contribute given that there has been inadequate education about the rules. I'm glad that people have voiced their opinions on this forum, but the minimal turnout is reason for concern, not reason to discount the opinions given.

First, we're not the rules policemen of the ICF- we're a nation that plays canoe polo, and all the NZCPA have to do is teach us what the ICF rules are, and then how to apply the rules, and then if if they really feel they must (and it's probably a good idea to), explain the NZCPA approach to the ICF.

Secondly, the players who had an interest in this area did not get what they asked for, continue not to get what they ask for, and then the people who decided that they didn't need what they asked for, play the martyr card and decide that they're the ones hard done by. Well, when you do stuff that people don't want, that won't make them want it. Just ask Owen where his version of the rules are! (Yo, Eoin, where's the rules you wrote?!!)

I find the frustration levelled at the players here unacceptable. Why should they contribute to a whole new set of rules? They just want the set everyone else is using, with an explanation so that the OPINIONS- and we are talking about OPINION, not FACT, can be taken into account. They're interested in how NZCPA thinks ICF can be improved- but they're not mindless automatons who just take that point of view as the one true way. They need to know what the status quo actually is- and it's not the NZ version of anything. Remember that.

I personally have lost a lot of faith in the NZCPA over its stance on the rules. Good on them for telling the ICF what to do, without actually adopting the ICF rules, modelling consistency to the rest of the world, or adequately educating their players and referees. Nice one.

Finally, while I appreciate the outstanding efforts and good intentions of everyone involved, if I were to suggest anything, it would be to stop editing the ICF rules and write up some exams, some educational material and some courses so we can get out there and BE the best referees possible. Like Troy said, we'll never get the world to agree on everything, but maybe we can show them how good we are at reffing before we tell them how c_r_a_p they are! That'll be all from me. :cool: You're dismissed! :thumbup: (Just practicing my teacher's college stuff, no need to be alarmed people).

[troy]

....telling the ICF what to do, without actually adopting the ICF rules, modelling consistency to the rest of the world, or adequately educating their players and referees. ....

.... if I were to suggest anything, it would be to stop editing the ICF rules and write up some exams, some educational material and some courses so we can get out there and BE the best referees possible. .....
My suggestions:

1. NZCPA can adopt ICF uneditted
2. Interested parties can write up some exams and educational material
3. Let any issues get resolved from there

Note that this was an option seriously discussed at one stage last year when Sean & I were just sick & tired of being badgered for not giving players the ICF rules they asked for... you should note we were actually quite keen to just adopt ICF uneditted and let the process take its own course (...you must realise this was subversive in that we were convinced that it would just promote more inconsistency in NZ rules and refereeing, and we personally struggled with the dilemma as to whether it would do more damage than good for NZ Canoe Polo, but it might have helped us get over the hurdle long-term by giving clarity to the real problems at hand... and at least it would have taken us out of the firing line)
... inevitably it wasn't our decision to make - we were instructed to make modifications on the aspects we had already cited as significantly deficient and we did the best we could.

I think now might be a good time to go ahead and do it, just adopt ICF uneditted**, and let people discover what issues that will then be created:
- do think you'll get better inconsitency of refereeing?
- do you think it'll make education and examination more or less difficult to undertake?
- do you think you'll get more regional variation?
(** Sean, I don't think your efforts will have been in vain, because it will be useful next year when the problems resurface and people are ready to resolve them)

Now on the challenges of education and examination of the ICF rules -
- is anyone looking out to develop some training and assessment material?
- how much consistency can be achieved from referee training and assessment when you're working with an ambiguous and inconsistent set of playing rules as part of the framework? (personally from my experience, I see a consistent set of rules as a requisite for effective referee training!)

One day we'll get there.

[vish]

I think Seans efforts with the rules will help with writing an exam that confronts the inconsistencies... We shouldn't be tested blankly on the rules, but have the opportunity to note the NZCPA position on how it should be reffed. The last exam noted the differences between versions of the rules too.

[SeanT]

This is not a suggestion I plan to be involved with as there are no favourable answers to the questions Troy puts forward.

If NZCPA adopts the current straight ICF rules then they adopt them warts and all to quote Becs a while back. So our position would be the same as ICF/Oz Italy/GB/Japan/Germany etc. Great you say but many of us know the degree of consistency that exists between interpretations by various countries / people, none of them necessarily "wrong" technically.

So you then add in NZ interpretations to get some consistency for ourselves and presto we're back to where we are now but with a significantly less self explantory set of rules, more confusion etc. I see nothing beneficial in this.

Should we have an exam that confronts these issues as suggested? Do you really think that would be appropriate for district level for example?? If we adopt straight ICF now, what inconsistancies could there be? We'd be playing ICF so whatever way you interpreted it (with-in the rules) would be fine surely?
As I've outlined above - I've no plan to be involved with this. If straight ICF is what you want, I've suggested (earlier posts) a course of action. I'm happy to be involved with and try to organise some more benificial reffing stuff than these posts, but I'm just as happy to spend more time mountainbiking if someone can convince NZCPA to adopt the current ICF rules outright

[DeanM]

Hi guys

I've been unwilling to comment much on this because actually I'm more ignorant than I'd like to be. :o

I haven't put the time in to have a really informed opinion on this whole thing, but I can say that I like what has been done with the rules so far and fully support the direction Sean and others have been heading in. It seems to me that we have an ICF framework with clarifications in context that improve our ability to referee consistently, and that's all good!

We have something that we can show international referees which clearly illustrates some of the deficiencies with ICF and which has a well-reasoned set of workarounds. In other words, I see the NL 2004 rules as potentially a very useful contribution to the international refereeing / rules discussion, as well as being a practical solution to the problems we are facing here in NZ.

And from a formatting perspective the clarifications "in context" is important, because it just makes things a whole lot easier.

Just my 1.5 cents worth (I think a more considered opinion would be worth slightly more than that, possibly as much as two cents, but alas! I have not invested the time or thought required to be truly authoritative:) ).

- Dean

[vish]

Sean, to clarfiy, I haven't voted on this poll, and I haven't advocated one or the other option, I've simply stated my frustration with the rules, outlined my opinion on why people are so grumpy about it, and admitted that I want more education. I have time off uni and work over the summer, and I am happy to work with people to write exams or whatever. I'm not interested in editing the rules any further, as I stated earlier.

( According to Dean's rule of thumb about the worth of a post, I owe the forum about $2.50. ) :confused:

[Ben]

but since sean asked for our opinions here you go.... (this opinion is largely based around int play because this is where i believe this issue is the most impt)

Take on icf rules in all their glory and make our interpretations of the shady pts the same as the aussies (sub in europeans if you wish)...

I think this is the best idea as we play them the most often at an international level, not because i think the aussies play under the best set of rules possible. Their interpretations appear to the uneducated observer to be closer to europe than we are so it would mean we get less suprises when playing overseas... Of course this doesn't mean we won't meet with inconsistencies but it might lessen the shock

We have been getting messed up at an international level for too long by the sound of it and just saying, "well our rules are better", doesn't take away the goals scored on us due to the penalty from a boat tackle we thought was legal. Remember we are still the little boys and girls of world polo and although everyone is polite and smiles they probably don't really listen when we tell them we have a better idea.

I realise the aussies probably don't have a clear set of interpretations either but i'm sure something close can be figured out, the importance i think is centralising our interpretations, not being out to one side...

Anyhow, a rather uninformed view and i realise everyone isn't playing internationally but it would make sense to play to the rules used by the majority of the competitive polo world (if there is such a thing).

Hopefully all this means that the ridiculous idea of sticking with baseline restarts is dead.

[Nick B]

I agree with dean here but have probably put in about 1c worth.

The NL 2004 rules are by far the best step we have towards the ICF rules.
It is simply not possible in my opinion to just adopt ICF rules and let everyone go for it. We need to have a set of rules that does not require people to spend hundreds of hours trying to work out all the possible meanings (thanks Sean for your hours). Although I have a large interest in the international side we need to remember that most of our players will never even think about playing for NZ and the rules should be done for all.
For those that consistently bitch about NZCPA remember that you are all NZCPA (as it is just a collection of players) and if you're not helping those doing work for your benefit then don't complain about what they do.

As I said my 1cents worth.:D

[Aaron]

In order to understand where we are at it is useful to understand where we have come from. Troy will have a much better knowledge of this than me but here is my brief history of the rules.

The New Zealand rules were developed in order to overcome some inconsistancies within the old ICF/Australian Rules that were being used and also to improve the format to be easier to understand. Despite some votes for the old ICF I think most people would agree that the NZ version was an improvement.

Over the years this NZ version was updated and some changes to the rules and interpretations were made. This gave the situation where we were playing a different game to the rest of the world. Over time this could have resulted in difference similar to that between rugby union and rugby league.

When we went to Europe in 2002 we were surprised to find that the ICF rules and interpretations had infact changed and improved to be more similar to our own changes. Despite what some poeple think it appears that we do have some influence on the international scene. Of course the different refs had their own interpretations but the intention of the rules were close to ours.

When we came back we asked that the rules be reviewed as it seemed the best time to go back to ICF. This was agreed to and Sean and Troy put in a lot of work to revise the ICF rules to bring them into line with our own.

This was distributed to a limited number of top refs to critique, many of whom were not happy with the extent of the changes. A compromise was eventually reached where a number of inconsistancies were fixed up but the intention of the ICF rule was for the most part kept. This process was the reason the rules were late in being distributed as a lot of discussion was involved.

Personally I think that we need to try to keep as close to ICF as possible while still being easy to understand. Our process of rule improvement should not be done in isolation but as part of the effort to improve the rules world wide so we have a good common set of rules. However until we are satisfied that the ICF rules overcome the limitaions that we know exist it would be unwise to go to straight ICF.

In the meantime I think the rules that were used this year were satisfactory (with the exception of the goal line restart). The biggest problem that the majority of players have with the rules is that they are percieved to be always changing.

[guest]

Hi everyone,
When talking about NZ having the best level of refs around, I'd have to agree with it pretty strongly. However it does not mean that the NZ rules are the best, just the fact that the way you teach refs to ref a game is very well structured and supported. No matter what rules the country plays under, if you keep this structure, the reffing standard should not change.

As for saying that icf refs are really bad, its the same as any country in the world or indeed, any competition, you will get good ones and bad ones. I know what the reffing is like at the worlds and personnally hate it, just as i hate bad reffing at a local comp.

Not that my opinion is worth much but what ever rules you play under, keep them as similiar to icf as possible, keep the ref's surpport and structure in place, ie handouts, meetings at comps, exams etc- the whole of NZ will have the best of both worlds.

I have had to adapt to the ozzie icf rules now and once explained professionally, have found it easy to play and ref.

Anyway, hope everything and everyone are well and look forward to seeing some of you at Easter and possibly in Christchurch.
Eoin Whelan

[Jimmy]

To be completely counterproductive, I reckon we should develop some light weight medieval knight style armour and do away with rules altogether. It would result in absolutely no one complaining about definitions, interpretations, safety concerns or anything else you could possibly whinge about.
We wouldn’t even need referees, the scorekeeper could just count the goals and get the spectators to kick the ball back into play when it leaves the field of play. It’s almost full proof, the only problem would be that we still wouldn’t be able to agree on the length of the game.

OR we could ask the members of NZCPA what they want, not just us few who seem to enjoy arguing amongst ourselves, apparently on behalf of a number of others.

Do the members want, not just those who use this forum:
-a rule review undertaken by NZCPA appointed people
-develop the 2004 National League rules
-adopt ICF rules unaltered
-adopt ICF with NZ interpretations
-some other option

Get these and other options out to everyone somehow, compile the results, do what is asked. Then we will be able to be done with this these brilliantly mind numbing threads for good and not just until next year. It seems so simple doesn't it, but don't worry I'll be back in two months time when we're still having a go at each other with my next inspired counterproductive idea for bringing canoe polo back to the dark ages.

:bfire::bang::bfire::bang:

[Juno]

Hey Jimmy, that sounds like fun maybe we should cage the battle so the ball never goes out of play. But where do we start the goaline or at centre.

Well there is that major difference or variation again, I'm off to start another poll just to cause some more trouble.