USAWP New Rules Quick Reaction
New rule interpretations mean new polosophizing!
Christmas came early for this water polo rules nerd as USAWP released their 2024 Rules Update and FAQ today (December 15). In celebration, I decided to post some quick reactions. I will only be posting brief snippets of each, so I encourage you to refer to the new rules document and FAQ released by USAWP for more detail. Interestingly, USAWP chose to adopt most but not all of the rules of World Aquatics (something that I may need to examine in a later article). While many of the rule changes are positive or neutral there are also some that I am skeptical or downright hostile to, so let's get into it.
Leaving the Field of Play (WP 5.6)
The Change: This rule change allows a player to exit the field of play from anywhere without punishment provided they do not exit the pool. Furthermore, that player or any substitute player must re-enter the field of play from the re-entry area or be excluded for 20 seconds
My Take: To me, the greatest benefit of this rule is that it removes the game exclusion for leaving the field of play. In my experience, this scenario rarely happens at higher levels of play, but is very common at the age group level especially with less experienced players. While not a major change, it is a good one.
Additional Provisions Regarding Timeouts (WP 13)
The Change: This change clarifies possession of the ball as “when one of [a team’s] players is holding or swimming (dribbling) with the ball.”
My Take: This one is not anything groundbreaking, but I’m all for clarity in the rules.
New Goal Area
The Change: USAWP is aligning with World Aquatics in implementing the 2m box area that extends from the sides of the goal and out to the traditional 2m line. The 2m line remains in 12U and 10U, but all other ages will play with the box.
My Take: I love what the new rules regarding the 2m box have already done to the tactics of the international game and the US development certainly will benefit from adopting those rules as well. I made a comment to a friend when WA made this change that any coach who isn’t already adjusting their tactics to anticipate the box was falling behind; however, he countered that as primarily a high school coach he couldn’t justify coaching to the box until NFHS adopted the rule. So, I guess the biggest question here is: Will the NCAA and NFHS water polo change their rules to align with this new direction the game is going?
To Be Within the Goal Area (New WP 21.10)
The Change: “New” WP 21.10 is where the meat of the rule changes regarding the 2m area are found. It serves to clarify what is and is not an offense as relates to the new goal area.
My Take: Anyone familiar with current international water polo should be familiar with these concepts and they are largely intuitive, the real question to me is how can coaches use this new playing space to create unique tactics for their teams.
Clarification on Goal Area Foul
The Change: This is less a change and more a clarification, but solidifies in the rules that no player on offense in the goal area can be in front of the line of the ball. The result being a contra foul.
My Take: This is a very interesting change especially (as the rule itself notes) on the extra man. It is fairly common to see a player move forward to meet a pass and shoot. According to this change, that is no longer allowed. As the FAQ clarifies, this should be thought of as “similar to a ‘lateral’ pass in football.” The ball at no point can be passed toward the goal line. I can appreciate the intent here and the wording makes sense; however, I do not know if adding another referee judgment call like this in the fast and close quarters in front of the cage will be well-received. In my mind, you are going to have a lot of upset coaches and confused players. I also think that even after everyone has “adjusted” to this rule it will be contentious in tight games. Unfortunately, this is one of the toughest situations that the rules create and there will likely always be disagreements about the enforcement of this rule.
Location of the Taking of Free Throws (WP 20)
The Change: This rule clarifies how to take a free throw in relation to a foul called in the new goal area. The foul can be taken either above the 2m goal area directly above the position of the ball or laterally outside the goal area.
My Take: This is a minor but important clarification. I like that the free throw can be taken from either position, but am a little concerned about the language in the FAQ regarding “the most expedient direction.” I assume that is to say that if the foul occurs in the middle of the goal area a player shouldn’t attempt to take the ball laterally to take the throw. Again, the issue here is the introduction of referee judgment call, in this instance in a place where it is unneeded. Just allow the player to move out of the goal area as they see fit and take the throw, there is no reason to allow a referee to step in and slow the game up because in their determination the “most expedient direction” differs from that of the player in the water.
“Going Under Water” Foul (New WP 21.18)
The Change: The penalty for going under water to gain position is a contra foul when committed by an attacking player and an exclusion when committed by a defending player.
My Take: Going under water to gain advantage has always been an offense of some kind in water polo (“ducking under” fouls for example). I am in favor of penalizing players for going under water primarily because it encourages and increases dangerous play (I can't be the only one who was clocked with my head under water and told it was my fault for being under water); however, I am more interested in this rule because of the tactics I am seeing used by attacking players at center. Going under water is both coached, common and effective. Watch the recent NCAA champions if you want examples. My concern is that there is a disconnect here between the tactics coaches are teaching and the rules that are being enacted. Will we see officials penalizing that style of play? Will coaches adjust? Or will this be another rule change that becomes largely ignored because it doesn't suit the reality of the game as it is played and coached?
Clarifications on “Wasting Time” Foul (New Note Under WP 21.16)
The Change: This rule empowers the referee to reward the defending team with a contra foul if they determine that the attacking team is intentionally wasting time. Particular attention is paid to the last minute of the game as well as the number of players (more than one) who must be in the attacking team’s own field of play in order for them to receive a pass.
My Take: I hate this rule and I hate it for one reason in particular. It should not be up to anyone other than the coach what tactic is best for his or her team to implement to win the game. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, this is another instance of introducing referee judgment where it isn't needed. The rule is written for close games to encourage attacking, but what about blowouts? A team that swims the ball from the middle of the pool to the lane line on a wide open counter is also wasting time, but because of the game situation the referee gets to decide differently? That's not a good rule. If the sport wants to minimize the wasting of time in late game situations, have an objective measure (10 seconds for example) for getting the ball past the midline in the pool instead of a subjective ruling.
Advantage and Taking of the Throws (New Note Under WP 17.3)
The Change: In this new note, a player with advantage on a counter attack is no longer required to give up that advantage to take a throw (free, goal or corner); the next closest player may take the throw.
My Take: I like this rule change a lot as it seems designed to remove what I deem the “targeted tactical dump” to prevent a counter attack as well as the annoying contra foul for “abandoning the ball”; however, I have questions based on some wording and the diagrams provided. The rule states that the next closest player can take the throw provided “there is no undue delay” and all of the diagrams have the position of the ball behind the player with advantage. Does a player with advantage having to alter course to swim to the side to get a dumped ball remove the advantage? I say yes. Therefore, I think a player with advantage should be able to swim past a ball to maintain advantage and allow a trailing player to take the throw. Because the diagrams provided (purposefully?) omit this scenario, either the omission is to illustrate that that scenario is not included or further clarification is required to address that.
Tactical Foul (New WP 22.11)
The Change: This rule change sets the penalty for tactical fouling as an exclusion for the offending player and defines some (but not all) instances of tactical fouling.
My Take: I am broadly in favor of harsher punishments for tactical fouling and especially in instances of fouling with two hands and aggressive fouling, but again the language in the FAQ causes me some concern. The FAQ clarifies for those concerned that deliberate fouling and dropping is not included in this rule as this rule is targeting fouls that “stop the flow of attack and take away advantage.” By that definition, a deliberate foul and drop tactic qualifies under this rules definition of tactical fouling. Likewise, I dislike here again introducing the referees judgment into what the tactical plan of a team or an individual player may be. All of the examples given are already exclusion fouls according to the rules and the single most common instance of tactical fouling in the game is excluded, so what is the point of the new rule?
Actions to Prevent a Probable Goal or to Delay the Game (WP 23.8)
The Change: This rule punishes an attempt to prevent a goal or delay the game by any member of the team with a penalty and specifies the instances of a player deliberately throwing the ball away or moving the ball inside the 6m to prevent a direct shot.
My Take: There’s nothing to disagree with here. Unsportsmanlike actions like those described should be punished harshly.
New Regulations for Taking a Penalty Throw
The Change: This rule change adjudicates the positioning of players during a penalty throw. The primary aspect to note is that the closest defending players must be at or behind the 6m line and at least 3 meters away from the shooter. Something else to note is this wording seems to solidify that the goalie or defenders get one warning about position and are then excluded.
My Take: This rule change is primarily administrative, but the positioning of the defensive players well clear of and behind the shooter is a positive change. Many familiar with water polo are familiar with uncalled interference by those defenders (even in at least one notable international example I can think of). There should never be any interference in a penalty throw and this positioning helps to ensure that it doesn't occur.
So that’s what I think after looking over the new USAWP rules. Please let me know if you agree or disagree with my assessments or think there is something I missed. In addition to the questions I posed here, there is the larger questions of whether we will see the rules applied consistently, whether they will last more than a few years until they are changed again, and whether the other major organizations overseeing water polo in the US will attempt to align their rule sets with those of USAWP. While we are waiting on answers to those questions, enjoy the holidays with your loved ones and keep thinking water polo!