No advantage when players fall off – 14B.6 (Closed for comments)
Comments about this discussion:
Started
The referee can choose not to interrupt the game if (s)he thinks there may be an advantage. This makes sense in situations where someone may touch the ball with their hand twice and then pass it to their opponent but makes little sense for safety related rules. Another problem is that when the referee doesn't set clear lines for what's acceptable the game can descend into chaos as players start pushing the limits on what might be accepted.
I would suggest maybe thinking about 3 categories of fouls which may occur in a game and handle them individually:
– Gameplay fouls like hitting the ball twice with your hand or shooting from ones own half. Ultimately these rules exist mostly to make a good game for everyone.
– Safety fouls that are there to protect players like SIB/SUB, high stick and holding on the end of the stick. These are the base rules that are there to protect players and so advantage should count less here (especially since this is where the game might escalate).
– Safety fouls that result in players falling off their unicycle. If player A is riding with the ball and gets knocked over that should result in a foul regardless if player A can pass the ball to a teammate in time.
I think it should be clear from the rules that advantage should have less sway with safety rules than with gameplay rules. When fouls are not called out, more fouls will be committed. It also frustrates players and ultimately lead to a game that's less fun for everyone.
Comment
I think this is not a problem with the rules but with insufficient experienced referees. The referee has the right to interrupt the game if (s)he thinks that this is necessary.
If you interrupt the game e.g. because of a SUB but another player could have score in the empty net, this leads to even more discussions. If the foul was violent the referee can interrupt the game, but in other cases at the moment the referee has also the possibility to continue the game with an advantage.
Making 3 different categories of fouls makes the whole rulebook too complicated.
Comment
I go with Nicolai, an experienced referee would use his options.
"Unsporting behaviour should be penalized even after the game has been interrupted."
"Exaggerated roughness can lead to injuries and must therefore be avoided."
"The Referee can send a player off the field for ...This is done in the case of unsporting behaviour and also for
intentional or dangerous disregard of the rules."
"If legal play would have led to a direct chance to score a goal, a “6.5 m” is given."
"The Referees suspend the game if an injury occurs."
" ...give a free shot for the original foul in the case where no advantage was gained."
The referee has a bucket of options and if possible he should use at first advantage; the foul, especial hard fouls, can be punished some seconds later.
I think there is no need for more rules in this case. An insufficient experienced referee will not know or will not use existing rules. even when the game might escalate.
Comment
So, a couple of things here:
I've started this discussion specifically after a situation that arose at Unicon where we had some really great refs and some inexperienced refs. We also had refs with different styles and at the last games I played we asked the refs to never use the advantage rule. In other words, this rule is already inconsistently applied. The rulebook should specify how the game is played and which calls the ref should call and I see a couple of problems with the rule as it is now.
For one, it shouldn't matter if a high stick or sub/sib changes the flow of the game. Those rules are there to ensure a safe game for everyone. It must be up to the players who make fouls to stop making fouls (even if that means going slower, not getting as close to the ball with the stick or similar) to change their behaviour.
Another thing is that when the ref stops the game there'll be a common reference to what happened: a SUB, a high stick or something else. In case the foul play continues the team will then either switch out the player or the ref can send the player outside the field for 2 minutes. It would be unfair to a player to explain that you've seen them commit a foul 5 times and now you send them out of the field.
Even then the language to define advantage is weak. It could be clarified that the ref should only allow the advantage where it can lead directly to a goal or that the ref can choose to penalize the foul 10 seconds later or something like that. Right now it's not clear when the ref should call the advantage.
Another thing that I would just like to address head on: we had refs with a lot of experience make different judgements and we should expect that when these rules will be read by event organizers and refs and that the spirit of the rules will make a difference to how the game is played. There shouldn't be such a big variation in the ref quality as there was at unicon and we should expect that the refs who'll be using these rules will understand when to use advantage and when not to based on what's in the rules and not based on which calls they've personally made earlier.
Comment
I personally would be extremely displeased if a ref didn't play the advantage after I was subbed/sibbed if we were in a position to score. Most falls on indoor courts are relatively minor and if I had passed off the ball and we had an opportunity to score from it I would consider that terrible referring to bring the ball back and give a free hit. On the flip side if our team fouled someone and the team scored against us from advantage played, that would be a much harsher punishment than play stopping and them getting a free hit where we all have time to get into position.
I think possibly we could make it clear that a referee can play advantage AND send someone from the field for 2+ mins after advantage has been played. I also think we need to stop play if advantage WASNT gained.
Example of advantage ruling in Australian Rugby League.
The advantage is over when the referee deems the non-offending team has taken their opportunity. This varies from referee to referee. Last year we tried to make the ruling black and white by saying that the advantage is taken when the ball is advanced 10 metres from the point of the infringement. By doing this we were trying to take away the grey area around the ruling.
We changed this after constructive criticism arose last season when teams were passing it from sideline to sideline, but were ruled to have not taken their advantage because of the 10 metre rule we had in place.
In the Cronulla v Manly game, it is unanimous across the referees that Manly did not take their advantage. They did throw one pass, but they didn’t have an opportunity to take advantage and that is why the play was called back for the original infringement.
Ultimately, it is now up to the referees discretion to decide when the advantage has been taken.
Scoring against a team who has fouled is a bigger punishment than a free shot against them, the only way it would be a bigger punishment to the team is if they had a player sent off for 2 mins and I think that can be done even after playing advantage.
I am unsure of whether a team can "request" referees don't play advantage for them, I'd personally just request that referees penalise appropriately for repeat infringements and send a player off.
Comment
I disagree with this, and I don't think we need extra categories for fouls. As others have said above, it's down to the referee what happens. Also, no matter what happens, you'll always end up with referees with different styles.
"Safety fouls that result in players falling off their unicycle. If player A is riding with the ball and gets knocked over that should result in a foul regardless if player A can pass the ball to a teammate in time." - I think this goes against what nearly all sports do. If this happens to player A, they pass the ball to their teammate in time, and their teammate plays on, then play should definitely not be stopped, as that team has decided to play on.
"at the last games I played we asked the refs to never use the advantage rule" - I'm very against this, as you influenced the referee's decisions on the game, which would have had an impact of how the game was played. At Unicon, a team should never ask the referee to exclude a rule in a game, and the referee should never do this. This is basically fixing games.
Comment
Thinking about this more Magnus I believe that in order to have the advantage not played you should stop when the advantage is called (referees SHOULD be calling advantage) I believe if you do not receive an advantage then the game should be stopped, I am assuming that other referees bring the play back if an advantage was not received however..
Do other referees rule something similar if advantage was not received?
Comment
So just to be clear about Unicon, we had some very bad experiences with some of the refs. That is obviously a different matter. We ended up substituting a new ref in one game and asking for a different ref in another game based on recommendations from some of the Australians there. It was definitely something that messed with the team, but that's another matter.
In one game we played both teams ended up being completely confused when fouls weren't called (and both teams agreed fouls should be called). We played another team which we had seen play rough and so requested that the advantage wouldn't be used so the game would be less rough – and it was less rough.
At the end of the day the advantage rule can lead to a lot more rule breaking – if I'm racing towards the goal and get subbed, but pass the ball to a team member in isolation the advantage should be played. However, when it happens 3-5-7 times in a game it gets annoying and suddenly the whole strategy has to be changed to account for foul play. At that point you still have a man down and it's disorienting. I believe the advantage should end after a shot on goal. This is as much about establishing a clear record for both teams.
This is related to the proposal about policies when a whole team behaves badly. There was a specific team at Unicon we were told multiple people had been annoyed with as they always play super rough. They may not gain an advantage in each single play but over time it grinds the gears of the team being fouled against. This is especially prevalent if one of the teams has players much older than the other.
Comment
If an advantage is called, I don't see why the referee can't have a word with the player who has fouled another player and still keep the flow of the game. This happens in a lot of sports e.g. football, where the referee can then have a word with the other player or card them after or during the play.
Even after your explanation, I still very against someone requesting a rule to not be played, and the referee allowing this during a game at Unicon. Removing a rule from a World Championships is definitely not something that should be done. If there is an issue with a rule, it should be discussed (like it is now) within the Rulebook Committee.
Removing the advantage rule would also affect the following rule:
14B.7.3 Riding The Unicycle - "If a player who is not riding a unicycle shoots into their own goal, the advantage rule applies for the attacking team and the goal is valid."
In my opinion, the advantage rule is an important aspect of unicycle hockey.
Comment
I took over that game. I believe that was a refereeing ability issue rather than too much use of advantage. When referees are questioned about why they didn't call obvious fouls often the go to excuse is to say you played advantage. I think the refereeing was just poor in general.
I think if the refereeing actually at a reasonable level then the advantage rule shouldn't cause an issue as players should be sent off for repeat infringements and play should be brought back when an advantage wasn't received.
You bring up a good point however which I think should be discussed in another thread perhaps. What constitutes advantage and whether or not it is received. This could be clearer.
Comment
I believe Magnus' request to stop giving advantage was in response to a rare chance of having a very rough game that had absolutely nothing called. I believe the referees responded to criticsm of calling nothing with "I was playing advantage" so I can see why they requested them to stop playing advantage in an attempt to have fouls called at all.
I believe and perhaps Magnus can comment, that if we sort out the issue of how "advantage" should be ruled (e.g. can a player still be penalised even with advantage given, should play be brought back if advantage isn't received) it possibly solves the issue that occurred here by providing a more direction about what is "advantage" and means it is not necessary to put in rules requiring play to 100% be stopped.
Comment
Right on @Steven Hughes. This discussion is in response to a specific situation at Unicon which was made worse due to bad ref'ing. Getting better refs all around (different discussion) would solve this issue to a large extend.
It's obviously also not a good solution to ask the ref to judge advantage one way or the other, but it was the solution we came up with to have a good game.
I think it's important to note that the advantage is often smaller than it appears. If you're within the 6.5 meter line there's an obvious advantage to getting the foul since it allows for a direct shot on goal. If you're on your own half the free shot might be better since it allows your team to go deep. The only place where the advantage seems to make sense is on the opposing half outside the 6.5 meter line.
I don't have a precise proposal right now that would clearly and always distinguish when advantage should be played and when it shouldn't be. Since most attacks on goal end up not succeeding, the attack should be extraordinary (say 2 players against 1) for the advantage to very clearly be the best move. Allowing one shot on goal and then calling the foul would make sense to me, especially if the foul is called out anyways to the offending player in case the goal is shot (so everyone knows the advantage was played).
Comment
Most penalties within the 6.5m line result in corners not direct shots on goal so most times you'd prefer advantage in this situation. 6.5 is only given if you had a real opportunity to score such as it was just you and the goalie. More often than not penalties within the 6.5 are just contacts/subs/high sticks but the attacking team does not have a direct chance to score.
I don't have a precise method either, as you can see from my post above Rugby League in Australia tried to put in a specific wording for advantage but then removed it and put it as refs call whether advantage had been played due to difficulties with a specific ruling.
Ice hockey play a delayed penalty, the penalty is not given until the team who is penalised touches the puck. So it means that the team who is NOT penalised receives a short period of play when the opposition can not score against them and they can pull their goalie and use more players on the field instead. The penalised team cannot score because the moment they touch the puck the penalty is given. In this way the non penalised team gets an advantage as long as they can stop the opposition touching the puck.
I think the first step is having referees know that they can play advantage and bring play back if an advantage was not received. I am assuming that the Swiss and Germans rule this similarly though. I am influenced by Australian sports and this is what we do if an advantage wasn't received.
Rugby League Advantage:
"The advantage is over when the referee deems the non-offending team has taken their opportunity. This varies from referee to referee. Last year we tried to make the ruling black and white by saying that the advantage is taken when the ball is advanced 10 metres from the point of the infringement. By doing this we were trying to take away the grey area around the ruling.
We changed this after constructive criticism arose last season when teams were passing it from sideline to sideline, but were ruled to have not taken their advantage because of the 10 metre rule we had in place.
In the Cronulla v Manly game, it is unanimous across the referees that Manly did not take their advantage. They did throw one pass, but they didn’t have an opportunity to take advantage and that is why the play was called back for the original infringement.
Ultimately, it is now up to the referees discretion to decide when the advantage has been taken."
Comment
I think adding language saying that the free shot can be taken after the advantage is played makes sense. The rugby league example seems to hit the right balance in that the advantage can be played but the foul is still recorded and corrected. Currently there's no guidance as to when to call the advantage meaning a ref can always point to advantage as the reason for not stopping the game.
Comment
I think this discussion can be closed and a new one should be started to discuss the advantage rule. But I cant seem to do that despite supposedly having editor privileges. I will correct this as soon as they fix it on their end.