2016 Season: Survey Results, NAHBPC & Worlds Hosts

Thank you to everyone who filled in our survey. We had over 350 responses, and it’s provided us with some great info. I’m going to discuss what these results mean for NAH tournaments going forward, and what needs to happen to achieve those aims.

 

Demographics

We received responses from a wide range of players, both skill and experience wise, which makes us comfortable that these responses cover a large cross section of the community.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.05.03 PM

The majority were from North America, though 14% were from other parts of the world.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.11.01 PM

We had a wide range of experience in the responses, though there is a trend towards those in the 3-7 bracket.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.12.53 PM

Almost everyone responding played a tournament last year, with three quarters have played at at least 3.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.12.59 PM

Two thirds of those responding have played at least 10 tournaments since they started.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.13.09 PM

Two thirds have played in an top level tournament.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.13.15 PM

We had a very wide range of responses in terms of tournament placing, with roughly equal numbers for most of the categories, except for DFL and finalists.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.13.22 PM

More players players rated themselves as a 3 out of 5 in skill than the other categories, with roughly equal distributions on both sides of the curve.

Format

These responses will shape how future NAH tournaments will be structured.

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 8.35.56 PM

It’s clear from these results that 3vs3 and 5vs5 squad are the most popular formats at the moment. Most players would be happy to play either format. There was some interest in other formats, but not enough to justify the NAH hosting anything at this point. This means the NAH Bench will not return in 2016.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.29.00 PM

Specifically for the NAHBPC, there was a stronger preference for 3vs3 compared to squad. With PHBP pushing forward the squad format in 2015, and many other tournaments around North America starting to host squad tournaments, at least for this year we will stick with 3vs3 as the primary championship format.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.29.11 PM

More people prefer to play Swiss Rounds than Round Robin groups, though there significant interest in both formats, so it’s possible Round Robin may be included at some level. With the size of NAHPBC, we will stick with Swiss Rounds, at least for the first day.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.29.16 PM

Double Elimination is the preference for many players for the final day, though the “Worlds” format of round robin leading to single elimination also had a reasonable amount of interest. There was little interest in pure single elimination, or a best-of series. We may experiment with some element of round robin on the final day this year.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.29.06 PM

Two thirds of players wanted as many teams as possible, though there were many comments around increasing the wildcard, with a smaller main event.

 

2016 Tournaments

We wanted to find out if we should hold an NAHBPC this year, and what other tournaments players wanted us to host.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.28.40 PM

Three quarters of players do want an NAHPBC championship this year, and almost everyone wants us to continue organizing tournaments. As such we will try and make an NAHPBC 2016 happen, if a club is able to host it.

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 12.28.44 PM

There was also considerable interest in experimental formats. Given the lack of interest in formats other than 3vs3 or squad, we would consider hosting a continental squad tournament, if the right host club can help us make it happen.

 

Qualifiers

We asked if qualifiers should be open or closed, and if players should be able to play in more than one.

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 8.27.37 PMScreen Shot 2016-04-05 at 8.27.46 PM

In both cases, player voted for no change to the 2015 format. As such, we ask that regions prepare to host qualifiers, or tournaments that could be qualifiers, so that if an NAHBPC takes place, we have the process to select teams to play in it. If the NAHBPC does not take place, the same players would be eligible to play those tournaments in either case.

Other Comments

There are too many to list them all, and many repeated options in the survey (such as requests for certain formats), but some comments that came from multiple players, and weren’t covered in the questions, include:

  • Make all NAH tournaments co-ed
  • Unlimited Goals
  • Points/Ranking system, instead of qualifiers

We’ll consider these subjects too, though there may be no changes for 2016.

Hosting NAHBPC 2016, NAH Squad 2016 and Worlds 2017

For NAHBPC to take place in 2016, we require a host. Many players have requested we return to Lexington, but they are already hosting Bench Minor this year, and would consider bidding for Worlds 2017. Too many tournaments will burn out any host, so this means we require a new location for 2016.

Ideally this means a club with access with three permanent courts, though building some temporary courts is an option too. We have a budget of $6000 from player registrations, hopefully extra sponsorship money is available, though nothing is guaranteed. Any money beyond that would need to be raised by the host, through their own sponsorship connections.

If we cannot find such a court, we would also consider a two court bid, though this would require a smaller NAHBPC, with less teams. If your club would like to bid to NAHBPC 2016, please email tournaments@nahardcourt.com, by the end of April.

 

Given the interest in squad format, we would like to host a squad tournament. This would likely be small, for this year, a 12-16 team tournament on two courts, over 2-3 days. If your club would like to bid for such a tournament, please email tournaments@nahardcourt.com, by the end of April.

 

Summer/Fall 2017 is likely to be when the next Worlds takes place. After France and New Zealand, the NAH would like to see this take place in North American again. As such, please email any bids or questions to tournaments@nahardcourt.com by the end of June.

2016 Tournament Survey

With the Worlds in Timaru fresh in the memory, and preparations starting for the 2016 season, we would like players in North America, and throughout the world, to provide us with feedback on what they think NAH tournaments should look like.

We have gathered plenty of feedback since NAHBPC 2015 regarding what individuals want, but we would like to get a bigger picture of what the community at large thinks. To do this, we have written this survey, and would request that you respond to it.

Any results of this survey will used only as an indication of the views of players who play in NAH tournaments, but may not be binding, when making decisions. We will publish the results after the community has had plenty of time to respond.

Please share this with as many people as possible, the more data we get, the more accurate it will be.

There is no cutoff date for answers, but we are likely to make decisions on the format for this year (or the lack of it), within the next few weeks.

John – Tournament Director

Click here to complete the survey

Posted in NAH

NAHBPC Format

© Kev Walsh 2012, leagueofbikepolo.com

The format for the NAHBPC 2015 is going to change slightly from the past few years.

The main thinking behind this is to condense the amount of time anyone needs to be playing, meaning shorter periods of time between games, and being able to relax for 2/3 of the day. This will also make it easier to find refs and other volunteers, as only 1/3 of players will be playing at any time.

Day 1 (Friday 18th September)

54* teams, divided into 3 groups of 18

  • Group A, 5 rounds,  9am-1pm
  • Group B, 5 rounds, 1pm-5pm
  • Group C, 5 rounds, 5pm-9pm

The top 6 of each group will qualify for the top 18 group on day 2, the rest will go to the bottom 36.

*while we could divide 48 into 3 groups of 16, it makes scheduling easier, if there are an even number of games per court, so 9 games in a round is better than 8. It only adds 15 extra games over the whole day, and it also means that we can qualify 6 extra teams from the wildcard.

Day 2 (Saturday 19th September)

The top 18 teams will go into the morning group, the remaining 36 will be split into two evenly seeded groups of 18.

  • Top 18, 4 rounds, 9am-12pm
  • Bottom 36, Group A, 5 rounds, 12pm-4pm
  • Bottom 36, Group B, 5 rounds, 4pm-8pm

The top 18, and the best 7 of each Bottom 36 group, will play on Sunday.

Day 3 (Sunday 20th September)

32 team double elimination.

NAH Club Bench Championship 2015

© Liam Gilson 2014, www.liamgilson.com

The NAH Club Bench Championship 2015 will be taking place in Guadalajara, Mexico, over three days, Friday Nov 20th – Sunday Nov 22nd.

Teams will be either club or region based.

A maximum of 12 teams will play in one of two round robin groups, playing 5 games over Friday afternoon, and Saturday. On Sunday, the top 8 teams will playoff to be the Champions.

The following teams have qualified:

  • Champions – Portland
  • Hosts – Guadalajara
  • Cascadia – ???
  • Great Lakes – Winner of Great Lakes Regional Bench (Minneapolis)
  • Eastside – Winner of ESBI (NYC)
  • Heartland – ???
  • South Central – ???
  • Northside – Northside Representative Team
  • Southeast – Southeast Representative Team
  • South West – ???
  • Great Plains – ???
  • Mexico – ???

In the event a region cannot, or chooses not to send a team, regions will get a second team in, going down the order above (based on finishing position in the 2014 NAH Bench, and 2014 NAHBPC finishing position, for the 3 regions that did not send a team). This process will continue to 3rd teams, 4th teams, etc, if required. The regions who already have 2 teams (Cascadia and the host region), will be skipped in the first round of re-allocations.

Podium: https://www.podiumbikepolo.com/nahcbc2015

Registration will open in late September. The cost per team will be $200.

League of Bike Polo: https://leagueofbikepolo.com/nah-club-bench-championship.

Posted in NAH

Ruleset v4.5 Unanimously Approved for 2015

This page is a companion to the newly published ruleset for 2015. V4.5 can be found here: http://www.nahardcourt.com/rules/

Over the winter the rules committee has been drafting rules, discussing ideas for the future and play-testing early versions of rules. In January a call was put out for clubs to play-test a version of the crease rule, and Boston and Portland both responded with excellent feedback. In addition to that, we utilized this ruleset in two non-NAH events: Fixcraft’s PHBP Momentum event, and Toronto’s GLWC. We used these opportunities to gather real-life feedback from the players who are pushing these rules to their limit. We are confident that we have successfully built upon the foundation of last years comprehensive ruleset in such a way that work can be focused on specific rules efforts such as these. We no longer need to overhaul an entire document and can pour our minds into heavy topics such as the crease and obstruction. We will continue to gather feedback and improve the language of the entire ruleset.

The voting was open to the regions for the period of 7 days and after some lengthy discussion the vote came back unanimously in favor of enacting this ruleset for the 2015. We gave the voting options of: Affirmative. Affirmative with Comments. Negative with Comments. Abstain.

Votes in:

Cascadia: Affirmative
Eastside: Affirmative
Heartland: Affirmative
Great Lakes: Affirmative with comments
Great Plains: Affirmative
Mexico: Affirmative
Northside: Affirmative
South East: Affirmative
South Central: Abstained
South West: Affirmative with comments

For transparency, here are what the various regions responded with for feedback from club representatives:

South West Feedback:
Crease:
minor penalty too harsh – delayed turnover instead,
size of crease too big, also prefer a half circle shape
doesn’t like the no contact against the goalie rule
how will the 3 seconds be counted?

Obstruction:
Needs fleshing out a bit and more precise language before people can get on board completely
Should be contingent on having more than one ref per court
Worries about subjectivity of refs and how that will affect differences in calls from game to game

Other:
Interfering with another player’s mallet when off-ball should be penalized similar to the way off-ball body contact is. Slashing could be called but it’s too limiting an infraction.

Great Lakes Feedback:
Obstruction:
Perhaps add some more clarity that it’s extended offensive off-ball screens that are elimated. A fair amount of people assumed that while on defense you couldn’t screen someone from receiving a pass. This really just boils down to players not understanding the rule.
I would highly recommend adding an appendix (I realize it makes it longer) that describes the type of play that is illegal. I think eventually it could be eliminated but right now it’s just not natural enough for players to understand. When I’ve explained to people what are the type of plays that are now illegal they’ve almost all agreed that it’s ok. Some additional clarity with a list of a few examples would go a long way.
Consider adding an off ball ref for semi-final and final matches. I realize that we already run short on quality refs but if we’re talking about qualifiers, NAs and World’s we can hope that this would be possible. Usually at this point we’ve moved to one court which would make it easier.


We will continue to refine the ruleset and there will be an update this week and potentially more updates before or during the qualifier season as more play-testing is done. As always, plase contact joe@nahardcourt.com if you have constructive input!

Below is some additional clarification on the obstruction rule and some various scenarios that have been brought to our attention over the past months. Thanks to Mr Do for the video used to make the clips.

NAH Ruleset V4.5 – Obstruction Rule

  • §8.7.1 – An obstruction penalty will be assessed when a player actively impedes the movement of an opposing player who is attempting to make a play on the ball.
    §8.7.1.1 – This movement, referred to as “screening” or “picking,” will be defined as blocking an opponent to gain access to the ball, blocking them from challenging the player in possession of the ball, or preventing them from free and open movement to gain a defensive position on the court.
    §8.7.2 – If a “screen” is set that is stationary, momentary and in a safe manner an obstruction penalty will not be assessed, however, legal bodily contact as described in §10.3 is possible.

Examples

We’ve taken clips of games from last year to provide examples of what is legal, what isn’t and some calls which are on the border to best understand that the line is very fine and will only grow more clear over time. There was no such rule when these games were played, so we aren’t suggesting any of these plays were illegal at the time.

Legal


Legal – Eddy (in red) has the opportunity to screen harder but holds back. This is an example of an equally effective block without impeding movement.

 


Legal – Henri (in blue) nearly screens out Daren (in black). He occupied the space early enough to allow the T-Bone to be avoided. Daren accelerated into the screen. This is a great example of being in the way, rather than getting in the way.

 


Legal – Joey (in black) has the ball, therefore Luca (in gray) had the right to stop short on him.

 

Legal – David (in red) pivot turns, plants his rear tire and inadvertently causes a screen while moving into position to defend or make a play on the ball carrier. David was merely playing the ball without intention to screen.

 


Legal – All of the players involved are continuing their movement in order to avoid any active impeding of movement.

Illegal


Illegal – Eddy (in red) uses his brakes to ‘screen’ Luca (in gray) from making a play on the ball/ball carrier. This is an example of when it’s illegal to prevent a player of moving towards an open ball. If Eddy choses to move towards the ball himself, and uses a screen only to give himself space, then it can be done legally.

 


Illegal – Prolonged impeding of movement by Sean, but it’s also in the crease.

 


Illegal – Obstruction on Will (in gray) but not Polo (second screener in gray). Polo just happens to be in the way while Will put himself in the way by using his brakes.
 


Illegal – Obstruction on Henri (in blue), he rides to the front of the net and stops directly in front of the Mosquito’s player. This is also potentially inside of the crease.

 


Illegal – Obstruction, LML (in turquoise tanktop) cut off line from behind the net while braking hard causing a dab. LML needs to continue rolling forward.

 


Illegal – Obstruction and Tail Whip on Forrest (in turquoise), this could potentially be a Minor penalty if it results in a shot on net.

 


Illegal – Obstruction, Polo (in gray) stops short, with eyes off ball and on Joey (in black) which results in a breakaway. Polo has to let Joey attempt to make a play on the ball carrier.

 


Illegal – First Eddy (in red) interferes, at which point Polo (in gray) protests for a call. Then Eddy Obstructs Polo by cutting his line and stopping short. This results in a 1-on-1 situation with the goalie which means this obstruction could be considered a Minor penalty.

 


The factor’s at play here are the duration of the screen and intensity of braking, but essentially Polo (in gray) is preventing a player without the ball from getting up court into a position. This is illegal, but since it has little effect on the play a referee could let it go with a warning.

 


This is a clear obstruction on Polo (in gray) as he accelerates into a position to deliberately force physical contact with the player in red. If he were already in the position to block, it’s legal, but since he had to move deliberately and held the screen, it’s Obstruction. Moreover, it results in a shot on net that wasn’t fairly won..