Game Design, Dr. J and the Rules of Water Polo

How athletic expression and spectator delight are enhanced or diminished through the confines of rules

There is a well-regarded essay in game design by noted art critic Dave Hickey, The Heresy of Zone Defense. The essay begins by describing a famous shot by Julius Irving over Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the 1980 NBA Finals (watch it here). That Dr. J baseline scoop shot is “everything you want to do by way of finishing under pressure, beyond the point of no return, faced with adversity” and the shot is exceptional in part because it is “at once new and fair!” The argument in the essay that is subsequently made about this play is—in part—that the rules of basketball allowed this to happen because of the manner in which they recognize “the moment when a rule ceases to liberate and begins to govern.”

Put another way, good rules in games and sports tell what a participant can not do rather than what they can do; the paradox here being that telling a player what can be done through the rules is restrictive whereas telling them what can not be done is liberating because it leaves the individual player the space to think about what they can do. This is what results in beautiful plays like the Dr. J shot in basketball; a player was confronted with a new scenario and had to “solve” it through creativity and ingenuity within the rules of the sport. In soccer there is a term for this, allowing a player to “invent the game.” Ultimately, the aesthetics of a sport or presentation of a game come from what the rules tell a player they can’t do, because this gives the player the freedom of what they can do; moreover, the aspects of a sport that make it entertaining and appealing to spectators are the individual expression of the players as they find novel ways to do what they can. Like basketball or soccer, water polo is made better or is more aesthetically pleasing when the rules liberate the players by freeing them to create solutions for water polo problems that are novel.

If it is accepted that the value of a rule can be judged by its ability to liberate the players to invent the game, then there is one rule in water polo that inhibits this invention and, in so doing, perverts the sport and the presentation of the sport. The rule in question states that it is an ordinary foul to hold, sink or pull back a player not in possession of the ball. The first part of this rule satisfies the criteria established for a good rule as it tells a player what they can not do: hold, sink or pull back. This is agreeable and understandable as a foul and encourages players to create both offensively and defensively by encouraging free movement for offense and charging defense to endeavor to defend effectively given those restrictions. However, the rule does not stop there. It amends that troubling little clause at the end, “in possession of the ball.” It is in this clause that the rule ceases to be a good rule, but it is also this poorly thought out rule that has disrupted the presentation—the aesthetic—of the game of water polo.

What does the addendum of “in possession of the ball” do to this rule that makes it so that it restricts the sport and its players rather than liberates them? Instead of the rule telling players clearly what they can not do, this rule instead tells players when they can do something they normally can not: commit a foul. It takes all the “can nots” in the sport and opens them up in one specific instance of “can.” The emphasis of the rule becomes focused on when a player can commit those fouls. As a player on offense, the ability to express oneself is hampered because at those crucial moments in the game where the individual has the ball and should be creating and inventing, the defense is allowed to commit fouls that would not be possible otherwise. Likewise, the defense is hampered because their focus becomes trying to get away with as much fouling as possible in those moments where they are allowed to. In both instances the player is more concerned about when the rules allow something to occur which normally can not be done rather than creating a new manner of expression within the rules. 

Making this discussion especially troubling is that this poorly written rule is not a minor aspect of the way the sport of water polo is played, but rather seen as one of the foundational rules of the sport. In essence, the sport is willfully choosing to define itself by a rule that emphasizes actions that generally within the sport a player is not supposed to do. As I’ve argued elsewhere, this rule does not reflect the game as it has evolved and is played today but is instead a holdover from when the game was a more brutal and physical affair. However, there is a pervasive mindset in water polo that certain rules are sacrosanct or that altering “foundational” rules would change the game so much that it wouldn’t even be water polo anymore. So the rules of water polo are changed superficially every few years with the hope it will make the game better or more appealing, but because the rule changes don’t seem to understand or address what the underlying issue is or what makes the game appealing they never have the desired effect. 

These rule changes are especially infuriating when they alter a specific instance of the sport to address this rule issue without addressing the fundamental rule itself. In the modern game of water polo, this inconsistency exists in how the rules are altered for fouls inside the 6 meter area when the offensive player is facing the goal. Now, miraculously, whether a player possesses the ball or not is irrelevant if they are being fouled. In other words, things you can do when the player has the ball that you normally can’t (hold sink or pull back) all of a sudden can’t be done again because the player is in a specific area of the pool. Is it really a wonder why the sport of water polo is so inaccessible to spectators with Byzantine rules like these? We acknowledge in that one instance that it doesn’t matter whether a player is holding the ball or not, the defense should not be allowed to foul because it takes away from something we should want to have happen–a natural goal. But as a sport we can’t expand that thinking outside of that instance and acknowledge that is just the way the rules should be all the time. And that’s what makes the sport not make sense. That’s what makes the sport not look good. If the desire is to clean up the game, don’t make it so that you can get away with breaking rules.

Another of the points made in Hickey’s essay becomes relevant to this discussion of water polo as well: Since basketball’s inception, “all subsequent legislative changes to the game have been made in the interest of aesthetics—to alter those rules that no longer liberate its players, that have begun to govern the game through tedium and inequity.” As Hickey argues, the rule changes in basketball have avoided the tyranny of coaches and administrators who want to control the game in order to better control the outcome of contests and instead favored the experience of playing and, especially, watching the sport. Here again water polo is working against itself either due to ignorance or apathy as the justification for rule changes in the sport is represented as a need for more goals. In a recent interview with Total Water Polo (listen here), Tomas Molnar emphasized that World Aquatics vision for water polo is more goal scoring and that if the game has 40 or more exclusions/penalties to that end then so be it. Likewise, he sees the prevalence of whistles to be a player problem and they should stop committing fouls. In this view, the rules of the sport are mostly good with minor adjustments and it is the participants and spectators who are wrong. With all due respect to Mr. Molnar, this mandate seems to grossly misunderstand what makes a sport appealing to watch and is a mindset that could ultimately doom the future of the sport.

To Mr. Molnar, a goal is a goal no matter how it is scored; however, it has to be acknowledged that all goals in water polo (just like all scoring attempts in all sports) are not created equal when we are talking about the presentation of the game from an aesthetic or spectator perspective. While Dr. J’s shot is worth the same two points he could have gotten had he been fouled and sent to the free throw line, no one would be writing essays and articles and still be talking about those free throws 40 years later. Hickey also points out that “it was Kareem’s perfect defense that made Irving’s instantaneous, pluperfect response to it both necessary and possible.” It was only when both players were doing everything they could within the confines of the rules that the transcendent brilliance of the play could unfold. Had basketball had rules like water polo, Kareem’s perfect defense would have been to tackle Dr. J in mid-air to prevent the play and accept the foul call when Irving dropped the ball as just part of the sport. This is what the current water polo rules not only allow but encourage in the game: escalating physicality and an acceptance in the game that good defense is about committing a foul when allowed.  At the moment where an athlete is able to express the most aesthetically pleasing and creative thing that can happen in the sport–because he’s doing/inventing what he can do within the rules–something that is not otherwise allowed is suddenly now allowed. This allowance destroys that aesthetically pleasing moment and replaces it with an artificial penalty shot. Or nothing at all. Offensive players are being denied the opportunity to create beautiful and compelling natural goals because of this rule and mindset; but also, defenders are being rewarded for actions that are ugly to watch and require no skill (holding and grabbing). To see the sport open up, the skill of the players must be more important than the strength of the players. Strength matters in any sport and skill matters in any sport, but brute strength is being overly emphasized on both sides of the ball in water polo in favor of skill, because of the rule that is allowing so much holding.  

Based on this discussion, there is a simple solution to this rules issue in water polo: Make a foul a foul everywhere in the pool regardless of the position of the ball. A player is not allowed to hold another player in water polo, pull another player or sink another player. Those things don’t make the sport better and having rules that allow them in a certain instance (and those instances being the most exciting instances in the game) does not make sense. Make holding, sinking and pulling back punishable as the unskilled and aesthetically bankrupt actions that they are. With that rule change, a player on offense is given more freedom to create and a defender will have to be more creative as well as they work out what they can do to defend rather than when they can do what they normally can’t. The game would become immediately more pleasing, presentable and understandable for spectators and new players alike. Changing this rule doesn’t actually change much of what you can’t do in the game, but it greatly expands what you can do because it removes a lot of instances of can’t.

A major rule change like suggested here would not be easy, and it could be argued that what is suggested here will just result in more fouls and penalties in the manner Mr. Molnar suggested.  However, the distinction is between doing something superficially that maintains the flawed rule compared to removing the flawed aspect of the rule. Certainly, this would require a major adjustment period and may necessitate changes to other rules (like the levels of fouls and the number allowed in the game), but not acting at all will result in the continued stagnation of the sport from a spectating perspective. The rule changes can not be made to preserve some abstract version of the game nor should they be made to preserve the status or ability of nations or styles of play. As Hickey points out, this comes from a bureaucratic desire “to slow the game down, to govern, to achieve continuity, to ensure security and maintain stability.” Instead, the sport of water polo should want (as Hickey claims basketball fans want) “for their team to win beautifully, to score more points, to play faster, and to equalize the opportunity of taller and shorter players—to privilege improvisation, so that gifted athletes, who must play as a team to win (because the game is so well-designed), might express their unique talents in a visible way.”

---

Thanks for reading The Water Polosopher. If these ideas intrigue you consider checking out the recommendations for reading below and until next time keep thinking water polo.

Further Reading

What will it take to change the game of water polo? Rule changes or changing coaches attitudes? —Dante Dettamanti

Rules Rule #1: Why We Need to Rewrite the Rules of Water Polo —Wolf Wigo

Rules Rule #2: The Future of Water Polo —Wolf Wigo

Rules Rule #3: Letter to NCAA Coaches —Wolf Wigo

Rules Rule #4: Historical Comparison of Rules —Wolf Wigo

Rules Rule #5: Proposed NCAA Experimental Rules —Wolf Wigo