Viewpoints

Feeding the Butt

Rules intended to provide safety for horses and players

By Rege Ludwig

There is much talk today about speeding the game up and making it safer. Fifty years ago, those same topics were talked about, and with the same degree of fervor, as they are today. In fact, one of the greatest polo players of all time, Memo Gracida, was moved to the point of writing an article for Polo magazine on that very subject many years ago.

If my memory serves me correctly, in that article Memo refers to a defending player entering the ROW in front of another player to slow them down as feeding the butt, which is not so different then the modern term of blocking. Both are used to upset the flow of the offensive team to slow it down in hopes of it losing possession of the ball and give defensive teammates more time to mark their offensive opponents. Memo’s contention was because feeding the butt is so potentially dangerous, it should not be condoned.

Imagine in a soccer game an offensive player makes a quick maneuver to run down field to receive a pass, and just in time, a defensive player grabs the offensive player by the arm and holds him back. Foul? For sure. Well, feeding the butt, or blocking, creates the exact same effect of slowing the offensive player down. However, feeding the butt, or blocking in polo is so much more potentially dangerous to both the human and the equine players.

Again, if my memory serves me correctly, Memo effectively stated that the player with the right, or precedence, to hit the ball should know that when they look down field to the ball, and [make a move] to get there, they can close their eyes and not have to worry about a defending player entering their ROW (i.e., feeding the butt, or blocking, in front of them to slow them down).

Because speeding the game up and making it safer are still fervently talked about issues, one can only assume neither issue has been resolved. That has me wondering, why, after 50 years or more, the same problem still exists and to an even greater degree.

Could it be the rules are not written to where they are sufficiently clear and concise so as to be enforceable? Another possibility is that the authorities who have had the responsibility of enforcing the rules over the last 50 years, have not been sufficiently forceful in their efforts of enforcing the rules to create the effect for which they were written (i.e., create safety, speed and fairness of play for all players involved in the game, both human and equine).

The problem of a lack of resolve probably falls somewhere between the two scenarios. If we are truly a concerned community of polo players, let’s stop talking about the problem, determine where the problem lies, address it and resolve the issue so a resolution is not forced upon us from outside our community of polo players, which is not outside the realm of possibility.

The problem of blocking, or feeding the butt, is not disappearing. As a matter of fact, I feel quite comfortable in saying most polo players who have been playing polo for 20, 30, or even 40 years will tell you the problem is greater today than it has ever been.

According to Memo, who is still an active player, that is just the way polo is played today. I truly understand 40 years ago is not today, and things and times change. However, when that statement is put into perspective, it truly is a sad commentary for the state of the modern-day game and sport of polo.

I seriously doubt the intention of the rules is to protect the highest-rated player and better horse in a game more than the lowest-rated player and the lesser horse. If common sense were to prevail, the opposite is true. However, the rules of the game are intended to be applied equally to all players in a game, and the over riding prerequisite should be the safety and fairness of play as applied from the lowest to the highest level of playing ability in a game.

When there is a 0-, a 1-, or even a 2-goal player in a game with high- or medium-goal players, a play that would have not been a foul in a 35-goal game could easily be considered a foul at the 10-, 15- or 20-goal levels of play.

Not allowing feeding of the butt does not suggest the defensive player is being denied a play on the offensive player. What it is suggesting is the defensive player must make the play earlier, and do it back alongside of the offensive player rather than in front of them to slow them down.

A truly unfortunate aspect of this whole ‘make the game faster and safer’ scenario is the rules that govern those situations have been in the rulebook for 50 years (or more), using basically the same words, every year.

From the way I understand Rules 24 & 25, once the

USPA RULE 24—RIGHT OF WAY c. No player shall enter or cross the Right of Way except at such speed and distance that creates not the slightest risk of a collision or danger to any player.

USPA RULE 25—STOPPING ON BALL b. A player who has safely entered the Right of Way of another player along the projected path that the ball has yet to travel, whether meeting or following the ball, may not slow down or stop in that other player’s Right of Way.

offensive player has complied with the rules, and is safely established within the right to hit the ball, that offensive player must be given every benefit of doubt to proceed safely within the established ROW to the ball. Any maneuver the defensive player makes that could be construed as creating the slightest risk of danger to any of the players (humane or equine) must be considered a foul, and as such, that maneuver must evoke the immediate response and retribution of the whistle.

I follow that statement with my favorite rule of all time: USPA rule 26 Dangerous Riding, Subparagraph e. Exhibiting a lack of consideration for the safety of one’s self, one’s mount, or for another player or mount.

I told my classes over the years, polo does not need any rules other than USPA Rule 26 e. With a clear grasp of that one rule, the umpires and the referee can control the safety, fairness and speed of play of any game. The problem with that rule is the umpires and the referee must be made stringently aware of what a lack of consideration for safety means relative to the level of the game being played.

When the rules are not enforced by way of the whistle, the players are effectively being told they can determine their own interpretation of slightest risk of danger. The problem with that situation is there will be a huge difference of opinion between the offensive and the defensive players as to how the slightest risk of danger should be applied to any particular play. Not only that, according to USPA Rules 30 and 33, players are forbidden to express their opinions on the field, verbally or by gesture, during the course of the game.

I was inspired to write this article by three separate

incidences. The first was an article on blocking in the July 2017 issue of the Polo Times magazine. Another incident was a play I had the unfortunate experience of witnessing. The play was so potentially dangerous, I still cannot believe I saw what I saw.

The scenario was as follows: A defensive player had fed the butt to the offensive player with the ball by being completely crossways of the two projected ROWs in front of the offensive player. The block was so successful the offensive player had to turn his horse and the ball right and away from the defensive player to maintain possession of the ball.

The play developed to where the defensive player’s horse was put into the position of having its chest perpendicular to and in contact with the left shoulder of the offensive player’s horse. At that point the defensive player started using the whip, and pushing more aggressively to where the offensive player’s horse was pushed side ways 5 to 7 feet, and at one point stumbled to the point of almost falling down. When

that happened the defensive player backed off, however the offensive player had already lost the ball. Fortunately, none of the players (human or horse) were obviously hurt, however, the potential of a truly disastrous incident was far beyond probable.

It is not like no one saw that play because, immediately after, three different people watching the game asked me, “Did you see that?” As well as, once

USPA RULE 30–APPEALING A FOUL No player may appeal in any manner to the Umpire for a foul ... USPA RULE 33–UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT a. Unsportsmanlike conduct, including but not limited to the following, shall not be permitted: • Vulgar or abusive language • Disrespectful attitude toward any official, player, coach, or spectator • Arguing with Umpire(s) or other officials

*Other examples are listed in the Blue Book

USPA RULE 26—DANGEROUS RIDING On even terms, a player may ride off an opponent or may interpose the player’s mount between an opponent and the ball, but he or she may not ride dangerously. ... a. Riding off in a manner dangerous to a player or mount; i.e., with undue force. What is considered a dangerous ride off is left to the discretion of the Umpire. Whenever a mount is knocked off balance, whether it falls or not, a dangerous ride off has occurred, and the mere fact that some of the dangerous factors listed below were absent does not mean that a foul should not be called. ...