polish up the rules

This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.

Comments about this discussion:

Started

Hello all,

I think the current rules for unicycle hockey work very well. Maybe
that's the reason why the hockey section of this rulebook committee is
very quiet so far. This is probably a good time to "polish up" the
rules. Here, I have prepared a couple of ideas to remove redundancies,
make the rules more structured, and easier to read:

A) 6.2.1) A team cannot have more than 5 players on the field. It
   follows that, during substitution, one player has to leave the field
   first before the substitute can enter it. To make this clear, 6.2.1
   should be slightly rephrased:

   OLD: The new player must enter the field where the other exits it.

   NEW: The new player must enter the field where the other has left it.

B) Intentional delay: Section 6.4.2 mentions that the player has 3
   seconds time for the 6.5 m. Other than this, no explicit times are
   mentioned. Sometimes, players of the leading team intentionally delay
   the game to secure their lead. Under the current rules, this is
   considered unsporting behavior. Instead of adding explicit times to
   several sections in the rules, I suggest to add one sentence at the
   end of section 6.6.1 (General Considerations) to cover intentional
   delay:

   NEW: Intentional delay of the game is not permitted.

C) How to resume the game after an injury? We currently have a
   contradiction in the rules. As no team is penalized, rule 6.4.4 says
   the game MUST be resumed with a bully. However, according to rule
   6.9.6, a free shot is given to the team that was in possession of the
   ball at the time of the interruption. This contradiction can be
   removed by rephrasing 6.4.4:

   OLD: Whenever the game needs to be resumed without penalizing one of
   the teams, this is done with a bully.

   NEW: To resume the game without penalizing one of the teams, a bully
   can be used.

D) 6.4.4) There is no good reason why a bully is executed "near" a
   corner mark and not "at" a corner mark.

   OLD: Exception: Within the goal area, the bully is always executed
   near one of the corner marks.

   NEW: Exception: Within the goal area, the bully is executed at the
   closest corner mark.

   For consistency, use exactly the same phrase in 6.4.1 as well:
 
   OLD: the free shot is done from the closest corner mark

   NEW: the free shot is executed at the closest corner mark

E) Inconsistency in 6.5.1 Game Duration: Until a few years ago, the
   duration of the game was defined as 20 minutes. Then, the definition
   was removed to give the organizer more flexibility. Nevertheless, we
   still have the duration of the extended time defined as 5 minutes.
   For consistency, this time should be flexible as well.

   OLD: If [...] a decision is necessary, play is continued for ten more
   minutes: five-minute break and change sides, five minutes of play,
   change sides without a break and five more minutes of play ...

   NEW: If [...] a decision is necessary, play is continued with
   extended time.

F) 6.5.8 Ball Out Of Bounds

   Unfortunately, some referees do not stop the game if the ball leaves
   the field but soon bounces back into the field. This needs to be
   clarified in the rulebook.

   Also, a corner shot is not an independent penalty. It's only a
   special form of the free shot. This is explained explicitly in 6.4.1.
   Therefore, it is not necessary to mention the corner shot again in
   6.5.8.

   OLD: If the ball leaves the field, the team opposite to that of the
   player who last touched it gets a free shot or a corner shot,
   depending where the ball went out...

   NEW: If the ball leaves the field, the game is interrupted
   immediately (even if the ball comes back in). The team opposite to
   that of the player who last touched it gets a free shot.

G) 6.6.3 SUB (Stick Under Bike) and 6.6.4 SIB (Stick In Bike)

   These rules both contain redundant text. The distinction between a
   free shot and a 6.5 m is already explained in 6.4.1 and 6.4.2.
   Intentional Fouls are already covered in 6.4.5. Therefore, these
   rules can be simplified:

   OLD:

   6.6.3: A player who holds his or her stick in a way that someone else
   rides over or against it is committing a foul, regardless of
   intention. According to the situation the player who was “subbed” is
   given either a free shot or a 6.5 m.

   6.6.4: If a stick gets into the spokes of an opponent, the holder of
   the stick is committing a foul regardless of intention. According to
   the situation the player who was “sibbed” is given a free shot or a
   6.5 m.

   NEW:

   6.6.3: A player who holds his or her stick in a way that someone else
   rides over or against it is committing a foul.

   6.6.4: If a stick gets into the spokes of an opponent, the holder of
   the stick is committing a foul.

H) 6.6.6 Intentional Fouls

   This section can be deleted completely because this has already been
   described in 6.4.5 (Penalty Box).

   TODO: remove 6.6.6

I) Section 6.4 already defines what penalty is used in what case. There
   is no need to repeat this elsewhere. Rule 6.8.1 (Throwing Sticks) can
   be simplified:

   OLD: A player who intentionally drops or throws his or her stick is
   sent off the field for at least 2 minutes, at the discretion of the
   Referee (8.6.6). Also, the opposing team gets a 6.5 m.

   NEW: A player must not intentionally drop or throw his or her stick.

J) The current rules use the term "bully". However, what is actually
   meant is a "face-off". See wikipedia for details:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face-off#Field_hockey
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face-off

   Note, however, that in German the word "bully" is correct:
   https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bully_%28Sport%29

   TODO: Change the word "bully" to "face-off" everywhere in the rules.

Let me know what you think!

Best regards
Rolf

Comment

Think it all looks good (and you must have spent some time finding all this) but I disagree with one thing. I think if the ball goes out of bounds but bounces back in right away then it should be played on. I prefer games that are faster with less stops/starts. And don't see any advantages in stopping the game.

Comment

The problem is where to draw the line. If the ball comes back in
immediately, the game continues. If the ball bounces on the floor once
before going back in, play probably also continues. What if it bounces
twice? What if it slowly rolls back in?

Anyway, if others also don't like this, I will simply take it out of the
proposal.

Comment

Hi,

Nice work Rolf.

I like the rule; when the ball is out of play, the referee needs to stop the game. Of course in a friendly game you can choose not to play this rule. But in a professionally run game I think its best to have it in there.

One thing.

Intentional delay. Should we put what the penalty is, eg. send off, 6.5m penalty? I think referees don't really know what to do here.

Ash.

Comment

c) I fully support to delete the contradiction of 6.4.4 & 6.9.6, but I disagree with this change. To change 6.4.4. to "can be resumed with a bully" only adds more confusion. When do  you resume the game with a bully and when not? This can be treated different by each referee. I personally like the bully more as it is very clear, although it might be unfair in some cases. Fair-Play can be done by the teams and they sort it out themselves.

However, most important is to delete the contradiction of rules. But please let's make it clear.

F) I fully agree with Rolf. A clear rule is much easier for players and referees. Otherwise confusion is caused as everyone interprets this rule in a different way.

I) With this change throwing the stick would be a "normal" foul. Currently it is a very hard one, according to the penalty. From my perspctive this should stay.

 

Good work, Rolf! Thanks!

Comment

Thanks for your comments!

@Ashley:

B) Since we have the word "intentional" in the text, I think it is clear
   that the referee has the option to choose a time penalty as described
   in "6.4.5 Penalty Box" (in addition to the standard penalty "free
   shot").

@Timo:

C) In principle, we have two possibilities how we could continue the
   game after it was interrupted because of an injury:

   1) If one team clearly was in possession of the ball when the game was
      interrupted, the referee assigns a free shot to that team. This is
      the current rule as in 6.9.6.

   2) The game ALWAYS continues with a face-off. This would be a change
      from the current rules.

   Either way would be fine with me.

I) Even with the proposed change, throwing the stick is more than just a
   "normal" foul because it is intentional. Therefore, the referee can
   choose a time penalty as described in "6.4.5 Penalty Box".


Copyright © IUF 2014