In the month of January 2009 I was meditating on the high-goal polo season that had just come to a close and I realized that polo was not only changing, but that it was heading towards something that I efinitely did not like. I had attended most of the Triple Crown matches for one reason or another, and I couldn’t remember having watched one single game that I could consider entertaining. The Open final between La Dolfina and Ellerstina was the cherry on the icing: it was a cut-up, slow game; fouls galore, where the only thing worth watching was the final outcome in the supplementary chukka.

I became ware that players found that they were more efficient when forcing a slow game in which being in possession of the ball and not passing it was key, and by scoring through penalties.

I also became aware of something particularly worrying: 40-goal team La Dolfina; three times Argentine champion from 2005 to 2008; with the best player in the world today on the team, had lost three matches during the 2008 season when playing against the teams immediately below them as regards handicap rating. At Tortugas they fell at the hands of La Aguada in the semi-finals. At Hurlingham, Pilará also beat them in the semi-finals. And at Palermo, the final went to Ellerstina. And in all three cases, as Lucas Monteverde stated at some interview, they were beaten by having “to take a dose of their own medicine”, i.e. playing a closed game; trying to keep possession of the ball; catering to whoever is holding the ball and aiming at a “foul-orgoal”. Based on this, I asked myself the following question: How are those three teams going to set about playing the 2009 season?

In exactly the same way. They are going to go out to play using the same tactics they used before in order to win, and La Dolfina–that last year displayed a rather curious performance from the point of view of its being a 40-goal team in which each of its four members played up to their 10-goal rating, and despite this, did not win any of the Triple Crown tournaments–will probably not change their pattern of play which they have been putting into practice for several years.

It occurred to me, therefore, that the first thing I had to do was to share my concerns with as many people as possible, including the players, to see if we were in any way unanimous in our diagnosis, or if it was only me who saw things this way.

I began by watching videos of matches as from 1980 to this day, so as to remember what polo was like before and where the more marked differences appeared. I read the rules for the first time in my life, to see which are the rules and regulations that an umpire must abide by in order to be able to judge a play on the polo field. As I knew that any change in the rules must be agreed by consensus by all the parties involved, I decided to meet up with as many people who understand about polo as possible, but I also informed the polo regulatory authorities in Argentina (the Argentine Polo Association, the Argentine Polo-Players’ Association and the Argentine Association of Polo Referees) as to what I was doing. I wanted them all to participate, one way or another; that they should all feel part of it. I don’t mean part of a change, but part of a trial to see if by means of some alterations in the rules we may be able to preserve certain characteristics pertaining to Argentine high-goal polo that are beginning to disappear.

What follows is the result of all the meetings I held with current players; former players; referees; management; spectators; specialized journalists; horse breeders; veterinarians; etc. Many have provided me with some valuable ideas, opinions and points of view. In order to avoid suspiciousness; prejudices and other such evils, I have taken the liberty of not mentioning any names or saying who suggested what, or who thinks that a certain change in the regulations is called for, or who does not. I believe that it is a way of being able to appreciate and analyze the idea itself and that that idea should not be conditioned by who might have suggested it or by who is for or against it.

I wish to thank everyone with whom I spoke for their time; for what they have taught me and for the ideas they contributed. I hope this may turn out to be of some use.