6.5 M Clarification
Comments about this discussion:
Started
Last rulebook committee we had already a discussion about 6.5 m (https://iuf-rulebook-2016.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/41). Now (sorry not earlier) it happens that a probably rule gap or rule contradiction was found and is still in the rule 6.5m.
"If legal play would have led to a >direct< chance to score ..." and
"A goal is disallowed if the last contact with the ball was made when the ball was in one´s own half."
Now there is the situation "An attacking player is fouled when moving towards the opposition goal with a single opponent in front." If this happens in one´s own half of the attacking player there would be no >direct< chance to score.
In my point of view this would be an emergency foul or a tactical foul to stop the play. The punishment would be >only< a free shot because it happens in one´s own half. But this kind of foul is a case of unsporting behaviour and intentional, therefore the referee should punish the offender with sending off the field for 2 min (this definitely is as well possible in the opposition halve).
Other opinions are that it doesn't matter where this situation (except behind the extensions of the goal line) happens in the one's halve or in opposition halve, because it is possible to have a direct chance to score a goal, a 6.5m is to given.
Anyway what most of us think in this situation a clarification should be written (if we have time to do so or for the next hockey rulebook committee).
Comment
22 May is the last day to submit a proposal and 1 June is the last day to begin voting for this year’s Rulebook committee.
Comment
An player fouled in their own half while moving towards to opposition goal with only a single attacking player in front is stilla direct chance to score in my opinion. I don't rule the "direct chance to score" as being the exact moment they were fouled as often players are not looking to shoot yet when they are fouled.
The direct chance to score that they are robbed of by being fouled is the ability to ride up to the goalie and shoot. So even if they were in their own half, they would have gotten past halfway if not fouled
Comment
"they would have gotten past halfway" this would be if all opponent field players except the goalie in the near of the own goal line. I will not calculate with which pro mill this situation will happen.
You are right with "The direct chance to score that they are robbed of by being fouled is the ability to ride up to the goalie and shoot." but currently "A goal is disallowed if the last contact with the ball was made when the ball was in one´s own half." is a rule as well.
We have a rule contradiction, we have to decide where this kind of foul has to happen nearly full field or only in opponent half of the field.
Afterwards we have to amend a little somewhere the rule text.
Some more opinions? Only 2 days left!
Comment
But if they weren't fouled the last contact with the ball wouldn't have been in their own half? Because they were fouled it resulted in them unable to bring it over and shoot. So to me they were still robbed of a chance to score.
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding but the "a goal is disallowed if the last contact was within their own half" doesn't Apply in this situation as they were fouled, which stopped them from having a direct chance to score.
Comment
Could you draw a picture of a court layout where the foul would occur that this would be an issue. I may not be thinking outside the box enough.
Comment
Sometimes you have situations where all players end up all the way in one end of the court and there's plenty of situations where someone may cross the centerline with the ball with all other players behind them. In many ways I think it's easier to judge in this instance since it's pretty clear what the chance was and how the foul undermined that chance.
In most situations I can think of the advantage rule would be played and there would be more defensive players on the other half anyways, making it speculation if a direct shot was possible. But that doesn't mean the situation can't occur.
It's also worth noting the rule, as it stands now, has the right incentives. If you foul a player that otherwise has a chance to shoot on goal (even if they need to cross the centerline first) the player actually gets a direct shot on goal. If the rule was changed a free shot would have to be played and the team that made the foul would have the chance to get all players back on their own half.
That said, in all cases it'll be up to the ref to make the right call and it's bound to be a difficult choice regardless if the rule is restructured or not.
Perhaps a solution would be to add wording that a 6.5M shot can be awarded even if the foul was on the opposite half if it's clear legal play would have lead to a direct chance to score (ie, that the center line would be crossed).
Comment
Here some pictures with situations.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oWX42GAUzUtrjL9wFq_Nqa2xS4T9oayc8L_Ze5UY-2w/edit?usp=sharing
For good referring this rule should be without doubt, during drawing a further question shows up: what is "in front"?
Only one day left to be made into a proposal. Some more comments from other voters?
Comment
In front would be "between the player trying to score and the goal". Granted, the longer distance the more players can be considered to be "in front" since more players can block the shot. Most often the way a goal is intercepted in this situation (going from own half to other teams half) is by making it difficult for the player to get into a position to shoot. If there's a goalie and a defensive player on the opposite half the player trying to score wouldn't get a direct chance to shoot anyways since there's more players to pass.
I personally think the rule is good as it is although I can see it causing some confusion.
Comment
1. no 6.5 as there was no direct chance of scoring and more players between player and goal
2. 6.5 assuming that the person laying down was past that defender and therefore is only the player and goalie left.
3. On that picture I would rule no 6.5m penalty. There are at least 2 other players between the fouled player and the goalkeeper both who look close enough to get sticks and bodies in the way. If they were wider on the court (so wide that they couldnt possibly get there or in the way) you may consider it a 6.5 m as as a referee you still need to interpret could the other players have possibly stopped the player or forced them into taking a bad shot.
4 Extreme Example. I would most likely provide a 6.5m penalty for that. I think they would definitely be robbed of a direct chance to score in that situation.
5. Is this the same as example 4? Yellow has been fouled in his own half with no players between him and goal keeper? I believe I would still rule 6.5 m here despite it being behind halfway.
Comment
So we need to clarify what "direct chance to score" a goal means?
I have always interpreted direct chance to score" was that the fouled player had the ability to take the ball up and shoot at a single goalkeeper with no defender. Because when you only have you and the goalie you have the luxury of doing some method of stick handling or deciding when to shoot.
I personally don't interpret it as they would likely shoot at that exact moment they were fouled. That is why if someone was fouled when in their own half but there was no people in front of them to stop them (say they had just made a quick break past the last defender who subs them on the way past) I would probably give a 6.5m even if they were overhalfway. I guess it does get trickier with the further back you go into your own half and whether someone ELSE from the opposition could catch them, but I try not to rule based on the "what if's" of the players abilities and more on a general basis.
Do others rule differently, how should we clarify this?
Comment
Does anyone have any other thoughts on this. This discussion just came up at our practice and would like to know what people would rule. If someone was subbed in their own half as they were passing the last defender, there were no people between them and the open goal at the other side would a 6.5 be awarded?
Comment
I think that's how the rule should be understood. If you're subbed as you're about to pass the middle you would have had a clear shot. On the other hand if you're further towards your own goal line there would be more of a chance for a defender to intercept you. At the end of the day it's up to the ref's discretion.
Comment
I give you an other tricky situation: Someone has bee fouled close to the corner mark, there was a small angle to the goal and goalie and no defenfender between. 2 forwards in positions around marker 6.5m awaiting to get a pass:
"An attacking player is fouled when moving towards the opposition goal with a single opponent in front." > "Yes"
"If legal play would have led to a >direct< chance to score ..." > Only a small >direct< chance, but "Yes"
A position to score but as well a "strong" position to score?
Back to Steven´s question:
The trouble is the wording what confuse us and allows us to make different interpretations. (If only 20% of the referrees have an other interpretation there is a need to make a clarification.)
What does "in front" mean?
- On the field all areas full width of the field in front of the forward
- Only the area between the forward and the goal, a triangle!
a) full playing field or
b) only opposing halve ("A goal is disallowed if the last contact with the ball was made when the ball was in one´s own half.") The last contact would be the goal shot.
For me it is important where the foul has happen, this is obviously and therefore safe. Or we have to write an assumtion to above rule.
First we should find out what the heart of this old rule should be and later we should improve the wording!