1

RESULTS OF THE 2ND PCWPOLO PLAYERS' REFERENDUM 2010www.polocontacts.com

2

• The 2nd PCW Polo Player’s Referendum is an online survey for polo players only

• It was held for one month between late March and late April 2010 by Polo Contacts Worldwide, the largest social network dedicated to polo: www.polocontacts.com

• The questions were formulated by PCW members with contributions from polo identities from major polo associations, publishing, press and coaching

• 438 people from 53 countries responded to this survey, of which 402 are current or past polo players

• As this is a survey for players only all non-players’ responses were omitted from these results

•402 responses by current or past polo players have been included in the results

• Significant care has been applied to ensure integrity of the data in this survey

• PCW (www.polocontacts.com) has no agendas in this initiative aside from providing a useful channel for the polo community to interact and collaborate

Introduction

PCW 2010

3

Professional Player

Amateur Player

Former Player

Umpire Coach Official0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Respondents’ relationship to polo

Survey Sample

*Note: respondents were able to select more than 1 optionPCW 2010

4

8 Goa

ls

7 Goa

ls

6 Goa

ls

5 Goa

ls

4 Goa

ls

3 Goa

ls

2 Goa

ls

1 Goa

l

0 Goa

ls

-1 G

oal

-2 G

oals

-3 G

oals

-4 G

oals

Not R

ated

0102030405060708090

100

Respondents’ handicaps

Survey Sample

PCW 2010

5

Survey Sample

Number of Respondents by Country

Argentina 38 Hong Kong 1 Peru 1

Australia 35 Hungary 1 Poland 1

Bahamas 1 India 12 Russia 2

Barbados 3 Indonesia 1 Scotland 2

Belgium 3 Iraq 1 Singapore 2

Brazil 4 Ireland 6 South Africa 5

Canada 9 Italy 5 Spain 6

Chile 2 Jordan 2 Sudan 1

China 2 Kenia 1 Sweden 2

Colombia 3 Luxembourg 2 Switzerland 3

Czech Republic 1 Malaysia 4 Thailand 2

Dominican Republic 1 Malta 1 United Arab Emirates 9

Ecuador 1 Mexico 8 United Kingdom 96

Egypt 2 Netherlands 3 Uruguay 1

Ethiopia 1 New Zealand 2 USA 88

France 24 Nigeria 17 Uzbekistan 1

Germany 9 Northern Ireland 1 Zambia 2

Ghana 1 Pakistan 7

*Note: respondents were able to select more than 1 optionPCW 2010

6

According to the survey respondents:

• More penalty 1’s should be awarded to deter deliberately induced technical fouls, improving the flow of the game and spectator enjoyment

• The criteria for handicaps needs to be more descriptive through use of a standard scorecard to assist club handicap committees to be more consistent when assessing players

• A minimum handicap should be required for certain levels of matches (e.g. 8, 12, 16+ goal)

• There should be international handicaps, i.e. a 10 goal player should be 10 goals worldwide

• An optional certification system for polo grooms should be established to better enable recruitment of skilled staff

• More investment is required into an international pro polo circuit in major cities to increase the sport's profile

• One set of polo rules should be communicated by the FIP through openly distributed videos (on YouTube etc) explaining rules & umpiring

• More attention is required to the health and well being of polo horses before, during and after competitions

• Random drug testing of horses and professional players should be sponsored by polo governing bodies, as occurs in other sports

• Clubs should be providing coaches for low-goal tournaments to offer advice on correcting high risk traits of novice players, in an effort to reduce accidents and dangerous play

Summary of Key Findings:

PCW 2010

7

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100

Should a knock in from the backline for the defending

team replace a throw in mid-field to improve the flow of the game and spectator en-

joyment?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100

Should possession of the ball be awarded against the team

hitting it out of play to im-prove the flow of the game and spectator enjoyment?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100

200

Should 1 opposing player be required to be 30 yards be-hind the penalty hitter to balance the match ups?

Results: Proposed Rule Changes

PCW 2010

8

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100

200

Should the number of players in the throw in be limited to 2 with the other players hav-ing to be elsewhere, perhaps behind the second umpire, in order to reduce penalties?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100

200

Should chukkas be reduced in time (e.g. to 5 minutes 30 seconds) and the number of chukkas increased with no

changing of ponies allowed?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100200

Should more penalty 1’s be awarded to deter deliber-

ately induced technical fouls, improving the flow of the

game and spectator enjoy-ment?

Results: Proposed Rule Changes

PCW 2010

9

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

4080

120

Should extra time be a full extra chukka for important

matches?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100

200

Apart from halftime should the time between chukkas

be reduced to 30 seconds to speed up the game?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100

200

Should penalties have to be taken within a prescribed

number of seconds to speed up the game?

Results: Proposed Rule Changes

PCW 2010

10

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

40

80

120

160

Should the 30 yard penalty be abol-ished and replaced by a choice of a 40 or 60 or a spot within the 40?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

40

80

120

Should penalty 2s & 3s have to be taken by the lowest handicapped

player?

Results: Proposed Rule Changes

11

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

4080

120

Should the handicap number-ing system be extended to

more accurately reflect play-ing ability at novice and ex-

pert levels (e.g. range to between 0 and 15 goals)?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100200

Should the criteria for handi-caps be more descriptive through use of a standard

scorecard to assist club han-dicap committees to be more

consistent when assessing players?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100

200

Should a minimum handicap be required for certain levels of matches (e.g. 8, 12, 16+

goal)?

Results: Handicapping & Testing

12

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

50

100

150

200

Should there be international handicaps, i.e. should a 10 goal player be 10 goals worldwide?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

50100150200

Should an optional certification system for polo grooms be es-tablished to better enable re-

cruitment of skilled staff?

Results: Handicapping & Testing

PCW 2010

13

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

40

80

120

160

Should there be more investment into an international pro polo cir-

cuit in major cities to increase the sport's profile?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

50100150200

Should one set of polo rules be communicated by the FIP through openly distributed

videos (on YouTube etc) explain-ing rules & umpiring?

Results: Communications & Promotion

PCW 2010

14

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

50

100

150

Is more attention required to the health and well being of polo horses before, during and after competitions?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

50

100

150

Should random drug testing of horses and professional

players be sponsored by polo governing bodies, as occurs

in other sports?

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agree

Neutra

l

Disagr

ee

Stro

ngly D

isgre

e0

100

200

Should clubs be providing coaches for low-goal tour-naments to offer advice on correcting high risk traits of

novice players, in an effort to reduce accidents and dan-

gerous play?

Results: Health & Safety

PCW 2010

15

PCW, 2010www.polocontacts.com