The USPA has tried its best to eliminate the ringer. Until 2005 players were generally handicapped once per year. (In truth, the USPA reserves the right to change a player’s handicap at any time). But, when a player improves quickly and becomes worth two goals more than his handicap, the USPA can step in to immediately level the playing field for everyone by invoking the “monster rule” and raising the player’s handicap to match his playing ability.

In fact, according to USPA Executive Director Peter Rizzo (my husband), there is no such thing as a monster rule, per se. “The so-called monster rule was always a guideline used by the Handicap Committee for any handicap change request that did not occur during the endof- the-year handicap evaluations. The handicap guidelines were established to inform both the Handicap Committee as well as the registered players about the handicap process. The guidelines basically say players are entitled to a handicap for a year, but if a player is worth a goal [more than his handicap], that player needs to be re-handicapped. The word ‘monster’ means that a grossly under-handicapped player can be considered a monstrosity.”

Beginning this past spring, players’ handicaps are now evaluated twice a year and become effective July 1 and January 1. Though some players don’t like the twice-ayear handicapping because they say it makes it difficult to plan their next season without knowing if they will keep the same rating, some believe it will be a benefit to those players whose handicap doesn’t match their ability because it can be changed sooner.

In almost every case of a player having the monster rule invoked, the player was young and often just a teenager. This leads critics to say we should protect our young players and give them a chance.

According to Memo Gracida, whose son’s handicap was raised under the monster-rule: “You are asking them too much. It is just like a green horse, and the answer to that is the Handicap Committee. They have to have knowledgeable people that are out of the loop and are willing to accept mistakes. They don’t accept mistakes. …”

Others believe a player’s organization, horses and job situation should be considered. According to Rizzo: “The handicap committee looks at a variety of factors during the handicap process. A player’s ability is certainly based on horses, level of competition and is also measured against other players at or near that player’s handicap.”

In almost all the cases, a player gets on the radar screen because he is competing in high-goal polo, where it is extremely costly to compete and the stakes are much higher. In some cases, if a player’s handicap is raised under the monster rule and his new handicap pushes his team’s handicap above the tournament’s upper limit, the team has to reorganize to fit within the tournament level unless they are granted an exception and the team agrees to give the handicap differential to opposing teams. This is only true if the tournament has officially begun before the monster rule was invoked, and it is up to the team to decide if they would rather replace a player. Sometimes, players lose opportunities to play and that may mean losing a paycheck.

“The USPA is not in the business of providing polo-playing jobs, especially concerning if a player will get a job based on his or her handicap level,” Rizzo says. “Handicaps are assigned to make the games more competitive and level the playing field for teams. No one wants to play against under-handicapped players, and no one but the under-handicapped professional benefits from being under-handicapped. The Handicap Committee does an amazingly good job of awarding nearly 4,000 handicaps per year, but sometimes players, particularly younger ones, outgrow their handicaps before the system can catch them and properly rate them. … The USPA should protect [its younger players] by having them fairly handicapped. Being under-handicapped is not fair to the other players and weakens the tournament system in this country.”

If the USPA were to decide to give a player a break so he won’t lose a playing opportunity, where would it stop? Dropping a 7-goal player, worth at least 7 goals, to 6 goals would likely give him more job offers, too. According to some, if the USPA wants to help the sport, why not protect the sponsors who have to play against ringers? The only way to be fair is for the USPA Handicap Committee to base handicaps on players’ abilities. If a player thinks he is truly not playing as well as his handicap, he can request the Handicap Committee consider dropping his handicap.

Looking at some of the players whose handicaps have been raised under the monster-rule, in all but one case the players have not only maintained their new handicap but have had it raised since. And in nearly all the cases, the player admitted he was playing as well as his new handicap but thought he should have been given more time before his handicap was raised. Still, they all agreed that playing against a grossly-underrated player isn’t fair.

According to Martin Ravina, who was recently raised, “I understand people who spend millions of dollars on horses, organization, hiring players and they lose by a lot. … If I were one of those guys I would be mad, [but] at the same time they have to understand I came [to Florida] myself. I’ve always been on my own. I never had a sponsor, nobody to pay my bills. This is my job. This is what I do. Without polo I don’t know what to do. Maybe these guys do it for fun, and their job is something totally different, but I don’t want to lose my job. I understand their position and they are right, but they have to understand my position.”

Ravina was thrown into the spotlight when he played for White Birch in the U.S. Open. When asked if he regrets having played, he said: “No, it was the right decision. It helped me a lot because not too many people knew me here. Now, after … what happened with the monster rule … my name was everywhere so people know me now.”

Rizzo says: “The question really is, is the handicap system working as it was meant to? And the answer is yes. Could it be better? Yes, and with two-times-a-year handicapping more players will be handicapped after the winter season. The more we can compare handicaps, the better the system is, but there is always room for improvement.”

Judge for yourself if the monster-rule hurts or helps polo after looking at some of polo’s monsters: