The Rule Problem in Water Polo Isn’t What You Think It Is
The Rule Problem in Water Polo Isn’t What You Think It Is
The Philosophical Issue at the Heart of the Rules Debate in Water Polo
By Breck Weiny
In his recent excellent article, “The (dis)Advantage Rule,” Coach James Graham makes a compelling argument that the advantage rule as applied in water polo negatively affects the sport and that water polo “must address if, why, when and how the advantage rule should work within our sport.” He offers several alterations to the rule, such as a delayed penalty option, or suggests eliminating the rule altogether. While I agree that the gray area around the advantage rule is a major inhibiting factor to the broad adoption and entertainment value of the sport, I would suggest that the advantage rule is not the cause of the gray area in water polo officiating, but rather a symptom of a gray area that is created by antiquated language in the rules that does not reflect the technological and tactical evolution of the game as it is played today. The disconnect between how the rules are written and how the game is played is the result of a philosophical conflict at the heart of the rules of the sport. Addressing this conflict is essential to answering the questions Graham asks about the advantage rule. Furthermore, addressing the conflict will allow the sport to make deliberate decisions about how to make the game more enjoyable to play, officiate and spectate.
The History of Water Polo as a Contact Sport
To understand the philosophical conflict at the heart of water polo, it is necessary to understand both how sports are classified and the history of the game of water polo itself. Much is made about the status of water polo as a “contact sport.” Many people are first introduced to water polo during the Olympics. As a helpful 'introduction' to our sport, Insider described water polo as “the most nightmarish sport in the world.” Undoubtedly there is contact in water polo, but there exist further delineations within the context of what constitutes a contact sport that are worth examining. When water polo is classified as a contact sport it is generally to associate it to sports like rugby, American and Australian rules football, and ice hockey; however, these sports would be more accurately classified as “collision sports” to differentiate them from other contact sports (sometimes known as limited contact sports) like basketball and soccer. One way to view this divide is that “[i]n ‘collision’ sports...athletes purposely hit or collide with each other or inanimate objects, including the ground, with great force. In ‘contact’ sports...athletes routinely make contact with each other or inanimate objects but usually with less force than in collision sports.” Even a spectator unfamiliar with water polo might be confused by its classification with sports like rugby when the game as played more resembles a sport like soccer or basketball, but examining the rules of water polo and their history provides the answer.
The reason for the confusion in classification of water polo within the context of contact sports speaks to the origins and evolution of the sport itself. In water polo's infancy in the late 19th century, the game was designed to be water rugby; the goal was to literally transpose the sport of rugby into the water. The style of play that predominated at this time was one in which “it was necessary, in order to obtain a goal, for a team to press down in full force with one of the players holding the ball, the rest of the team round closing him” to prevent the ball being stolen as it “was not allowed to be thrown, players having to swim it with in their hand or push it in front of them.” Since the game as played at the time was a rough and tumble match of wrestling and dunking played without goals and with a heavy leather ball that made passing difficult, it is no surprise that water polo was at its outset a full contact affair.
In transitioning the game of rugby to the water, the rules of rugby were transferred as well. This transfer from rugby can be seen by examining the original rules of the sport from as early as 1885. The constitutive rule of water polo that is pertinent to this discussion is rule 5 in the 1885 rules which states: “No player [shall] hold his opponents in any way, unless such...opponents are in possession of the ball.” This concept, with surprisingly little change in language, has remained in the rules of the sport ever since. In the modern NCAA rules, this concept is expressed in rule 7.9 and the note to rule 6.9. There is another piece of language that occurs often in the rules of water polo which is a relic from this time: “tackle.” The word appears in some form 5 times in the FINA rules, 7 times in the NCAA rules and 10 times in the NFHS rules. Although it is never defined, with how it is used in the rulebook it can be understood that “tackling” is holding, sinking or pulling back an opponent and is acceptable except where specifically disallowed by the rules (i.e. when a player is not in possession of the ball). By combining these two rules concepts, the resemblance to the game of rugby becomes clear. As in rugby, a player in possession of the ball was expected to release the ball when tackled to prevent the other team from taking possession. Furthermore, it is the combination of these two rules concepts that constitutes the classification of water polo as a collision sport.
How the Game has Evolved While the Rules Haven’t
Had the game remained the slow, physical, often brutal contest that it was at its outset, the spiritual relation of the rules to rugby would not present the issues that they do today. However, the game as it is played has been drastically impacted by rule changes (many of them to address the physicality of the game or to better determine when a foul occurs), changes in player ability and skill, and changes in the technology surrounding the sport--namely shot clocks and a rubber ball. All of these changes have resulted in a game that both stylistically and practically has very little resemblance to its land-based, collision predecessor and a very great resemblance to contact sports like basketball, soccer and handball. It could further be argued that this general allowance of holding a player with the ball has seeped into increasing physicality all over the pool as it just becomes too difficult for an official to determine when a hold is and isn’t allowed.
Nowhere is the antiquity of the language of the rules and disconnect between that language and the game as it is played more apparent than in the use of the term “tackling.” To my knowledge, this term is not in the vernacular of any coach in the game today. No coach is discussing proper tackling technique or teaching tackling to their teams. That language and technique has been replaced by phrases like “press” or “stunt.” Yet, the sport hangs on to rules--or more specifically language in rules--that are a relic of a game that no longer exists. Tackling by its very nature (and therefore the rules as written) encourage playing the man, not the ball. This concept is not only contrary to every other similar sport, but also is contrary to what is taught by coaches in the sport of water polo itself! Furthermore, it is this archaic concept of allowing the tackling of a player who is holding the ball that is the root cause of all the complaints, gray area, confusion and interpretations that exist in the sport today.
The manner in which the rule allows a player holding the ball to be tackled makes the modern sport of water polo difficult to officiate, difficult to play and confusing to watch. The resulting sport includes a strange and rather silly mini-game in which the player with the ball alternates between holding it and setting it down while the defender responds by holding the player with the ball and letting go. This mini-game takes place under the watchful eye of a referee who must make a constant assessment of whether a foul is being committed and whether the player has possession of the ball. On the perimeter, this manifests as the oft-lamented “quick foul” in which a defender holds a player’s shoulder and that player simply ducks their shoulder and grunts while letting go of the ball to get a free pass. At the center position, in contrast, the consequences of this rule manifest as players being absolutely pummeled with the ball without a foul being called because the offense may have had “advantage.”
Frustratingly, the current FINA rules add further interpretations that attempt to reconcile the problems in the game without addressing the cause of the problem directly. Rule Amendment #9 states,
“[w]hen a player with front position is facing or swimming toward the goal and/or is holding the ball and is impeded (attacked) from behind during an attempt to shoot, a penalty foul must be awarded. The only way to defend in this position is for the defender to make contact with only the ball or hand of the attacking player”
This amendment institutes both the concept that to impede (what we have called tackle) another player is a foul regardless of whether that player is in possession of the ball as well as playing the ball as opposed to playing the man. By dragging our feet on updating the fundamentals of the rules, we are left with a patchwork of 100 words with three diagrams, and the need to define the simple concept of "holding a ball."
We build different sports to measure different combinations of skills (strength, endurance, agility, etc.)." Therefore, if a sport is seen as a combination of constitutive rules and “a set of sport principles that are presupposed (internal) by the idea of the sport itself,” then the sport principles can be understood to be those acts which “better test the skills or abilities that the sport is supposed (designed) to test.” We use water polo to test our cooperation as teammates, athleticism, speed and water and sport specific skills..The language and rules of tackling run contrary to what we value as members of the community. In the sport of water polo, there exists a constitutive rule (the allowance of tackling a player possessing the ball) that is contrary to the sport principles (the skill, athleticism, ball handling, speed etc. of a player in the water) under which the game operates. While a radical change to the constitutive rules of water polo may seem to be extreme, it is actually a simpler and less radical proposition than changing the sport principles of the game. By changing the rules to emphasize what the sport is designed to test rather than what amount of fouling a player can get away with before an opponent releases the ball, the game has a chance to evolve and improve.
Impact of the Proposed Change
As discussed above, there is a conflict in water polo between the sports that the game most resembles as played and the sports that the game most resembles from a rules perspective; a conflict between the constitutive rules of water polo and the sport principles that guide the sport. The unspoken question at the core of this rules conflict is: should water polo be a collision sport as the rules state or a contact sport as the game is played and instructed? While this could largely be seen as a purely academic question, the answer could have real and practicable impacts on the game of water polo.
The rules of water polo must change to reflect the game as it is played and to emphasize the sport principles the community values. Specifically, we must remove the language from the rules in the ordinary and exclusion fouls sections of the rulebook that allow a player with the ball to be held, sunk or pulled back. Any hold, sink or pull back of a player would be a rules infraction whether they are holding the ball or not. Likewise, all instances of the phrase “tackle” should be removed from the rules.
These rule changes address all the common complaints and concerns about the state of the game of water polo and makes the sport easier to understand for all stakeholders. Simply making holding, sinking and pulling back a universal foul in the game could:
Reduce physicality
Increase goal scoring, especially natural goals
Reward skill and technique over brute strength and wrestling ability
Lessen the whistles in the game
Minimize the impact of strategic fouling
Make the sport more exciting and understandable for spectators
By removing the language from the rule book that allows the tackling (holding, sinking and pulling back) of a player with the ball, we would firmly establish water polo as a contact sport and align the rules of the game with similar sports. More importantly, this rule change would also remove the gray areas from the sport. All at once, all instances of holding, sinking and pulling back would be rules infractions. This simple change would then allow the sport to re-examine the advantage rule in the way Graham suggests without the burden of other rules that complicate its implementation. It would also open the sport to other rule change proposals that would improve the flow of the game and increase the accessibility of water polo to (sorely needed) new fans.
Citations:
Graham, J. (2020, May 13). The (dis)Advantage Rule. Retrieved from https://www.cbwaterpolo.com/blog/2020/5/13/the-disadvantage-rule
Renfro, K. (2016, August 12). Olympic water polo is the most nightmarish sport in the world. Retrieved from https://www.insider.com/is-water-polo-hard-olympics-2016-8
Medical Conditions Affecting Sports Participation. (2001). Pediatrics, 107(5), 1205–1209. doi: 10.1542/peds.107.5.1205
Henry, W. (2011). Water Polo: A Brief History, Rules of the Game and Instructions on How to Play. p. 11
Ibid. p 10
National Collegiate Athletic Association.2018. 2018-19 and 2019-20 NCAA Water Polo Rules and Interpretations. Indianapolis, Ind.:NCAA
New FINA Rules - USAWP Implementation. (2020, January 15). Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cbTchCLgdOnlXjyWnGck7fJ4bcGXOISPOfmCrhKuE-A/edit
FINA Water Polo Rules. (2019, February 10). Retrieved from https://www.fina.org/sites/default/files/13-03-2019-corrections-2018_congress_amended_rules_def-1.pdf
Agler, D. (2017). Philosophy of Sport. Penn State University.