Héctor Martelli

ILLUSTR ATION PHIL DISLEY

In this article, I want to explain and analyse issues surrounding the rules of polo. When discussing this particular subject, the frst thing that comes to my mind is that, unlike other sports, there is not one single set of guidelines for the game worldwide. Surprising as that sounds, this situation has come about because of four different sets of regulations that have been established by various different polo associations – not to mention the few countries that go on to apply their own rules.

Looking back at the history of polo, it was the British who brought the sport from India and who were the frst to set the rules of polo, in 1873 – as they did with many other sports. Its popularity quickly spread to the United States and Argentina, in addition to other European countries. However, as time went by, the game of kings acquired it own rules according to each country in which it was played. This is why polo has become the only sport with four different types of rules, each with clear differences in content.

Here, I am referring to the rules set by the Hurlingham Polo Association (HPA), United States Polo Association (USPA), Asociación Argentina de Polo (A AP) and the Federation of International Polo (FIP), which has since added rules from all three associations. Therefore, and depending on where a polo match is played, players and referees alike need to be familiar with all these differences. To me, this is meaningless. The majority of the time, the players who take part in the most important tournaments organised by different governing bodies of the sport are the same. And, at the same time, these players are umpired by referees who are called in to do their job in the world’s most important polo destinations.

As a result, both players and referees continually have to adjust to a different set of rules each time they arrive in a new country. This issue was a matter of discussion between the three most important Associations (HPA, USPA and A AP) a few years ago. Unfortunately, there was little progress on the matter and no conclusion was reached, probably due to a battle of egos and disagreements between associations.

After an analysis of the rules, I can see the HPA and A AP’s are similar, but with slight differences. At the same time, if we put them together, we can appreciate these rules are the most commonly applied worldwide. Indeed, the UK, Netherlands, France, Germany, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, UAE, Barbados and Jamaica, among others, play according to the HPA rules. South America, Spain – with some local ruling – and Italy play under the A AP rules. On the other hand, there are just a few countries that play under the USPA rules – namely the US, Canada, Mexico, Dominican Republic and some other countries in Central America.

I will highlight these slight disagreements, each of which I think could be resolved if those parties interested could take the time to sit together and discuss with good intentions. 1. Line of the ball and right of way. Both associations defne the line of the ball as the extended path along which the ball has travelled or is travelling. The HPA specifes that the right of way is what gives the player the rights and obligations within ball possession – but this is also what the A AP says about the line of the ball. And so, despite appearing to be different, the principles of both rules are the same. 2. When referring to walking, the A AP says: a player in possession marked by an opposing player must remain in movement. If the player ceases movement, the umpire will stop play and award a throw-in on the spot. The HPA states exactly the same, but adds that the opposing player should be at least at a distance of two horses’ lengths and that the players in possession can tap the ball only once,

after which they must immediately leave it, accelerate with it or hit it away. Should the player leave it for another member of his team to take, that player, whether challenged or not, must immediately run with it or hit it away without the option of a tap. In my opinion, it is easier for the umpires to penalise according to the HPA rules than the A AP rules. 3. A very important rule that is penalised by the HPA is when a player takes a full swing under a pony’s neck, particularly while being ridden off. However, this rule regarding the misuse of the mallet – explaining that the mallet should not pass ahead of the opposing player’s pony’s forelegs – does not exist in the A AP rules. As this constitutes very dangerous play, I would urge the A AP to add this type of penalty to their list of rules. 4. Another slight variation in rules concerns a hidden way to hurt a pony by dropping the head of the polo stick onto the pony’s rump. The HPA considers this to be a foul, while the A AP only states no pony should be hurt by a mallet. 5. The A AP allows players to defend a 30-yard Penalty 2 shot by coming out behind the line and out of the goalposts. The HPA, however, does not allow this type of defence. I think players should be allowed to defend in this way. It is more dangerous to allow players to defend only 30 yards from the ball during a Penalty 4 (60 yards) than running the same distance with speed while defending a Penalty 2. 6. The HPA specifes that the striker must have the intent to carry out a penalty in only one hit and, if he misdirects, mis-hits or misses the ball completely, he, or any member of his team, may only hit or hit at the ball with a half shot. Only the AAP states that the ball is at play. 7. Circling is penalised by the HPA whether it is done right or left. According to A AP rules, the circling is a foul on the right side, because, whether a cross occurs or does not happen, it goes left. I guess the HPA determined that to oblige a player to hit a backhander. 8. The HPA does not allow players to hit ponies with a whip when they are not playing – that is, before the start of the match, between a chukka or during stopped play. The A AP does not consider this situation.

Following this detailed analysis, I believe an approach between the HPA and A AP is needed to agree and unify the criteria on these slight differences. This should be encouraged by the FIP, where the three involved countries – Argentina, the UK and the US – have vice-presidents, as well as directives and members of the rules committee.

If the two aforementioned agree, the USPA must follow them, meaning that at least most of the countries where polo is played will do so under the same rules. Therefore, having one set of rules applied worldwide will beneft polo, with clear rules for players and umpires, and for the fans who follow the sport on television. The FIP is also currently negotiating with the International Olympic Committee to bring polo back to the Olympic Games – so it is very important to have just one clear set of rules before this application is approved.