14B.7.7 Restart After A Goal: Time Limit?

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

Comments about this discussion:


"After a goal, the non-scoring team gets the ball. All players must go to their own half. After the Referee’s whistle, the game resumes when the ball or a player of the team in possession crosses the center line. It is legal to directly shoot a goal after passing the center line, for example without passing the ball to another player first."

After commenting on 14B.9.2 Long Shot - Why?, I realized that there is no time limit where the team in possession needs to cross the line.

Not having a time limit could lead to a very boring game if the opposing team cannot attack the team in possession, as they won't cross the line. This could be a tactical move. For example, If team A was winning 14-0 against team B; however, team B came back to make the score 14-13, team A could remain in possession of the ball in their half until the end of the game when restarting after a goal.

I propose we introduce a time limit, where the non-scoring team in possession of the ball gets x amount of time to cross the center line starting from the Referee's whistle. After the time limit has passed, the referee can blow their whistle again, permitting the opposing team to cross the center line.


I currently I warn the team and then would penalise the team under "unsportsmanlike" conduct if they were clearly timewasting.

Perhaps we should just put a "foul" in the rules for timewasting as it can occur at any point in the game not just at the start. Then the referee has scope to rule it at all times, restarts, free hits, 6.5 etc.




I think putting a general rule in the rules about time wasting would work. I've also seen a situation where the goalie would hide with the ball behind the goal and wait until someone would chase the ball.

It could be something like this:

Foul: Excessive time wasting
It's a foul for players or teams to deliberately slow down the pace of the game. Deliberate slowing of the pace of the game could be to take longer than needed to cross the middle line after a goal, keeping the ball behind their own goal and waiting for a player to chase after them, taking longer than needed to shoot a free shot or similar. 


I agree that a rule for timewasting could solve this.


I don't agree about time wasting for a team slowing the pace of the game down e.g. goalie keeping the ball behind goal and waiting for a player to chase him.


I DO believe that a fast game is more exciting however I see this situation very different from time wasting at the restart or time wasting when taking a free shot/6.5

When wasting time taking a freeshot/restart the other team cannot do anything as in the rules they cannot touch the ball.


When a goalie takes the ball behind the net and waits for a player to chase him the opposing team has every ability to immediately go behind the goal to get it, the goalie can use it A) as a way to use up time or B) as a way to drag one opposing player behind goal so he can get a numerical player advantage on the field for his team.


If a team is ahead I believe they have earned the right to take the ball behind goal and make the other team chase, I don't believe they should be able to slow the restart of play where the opposing team has no possible way of getting the ball though.


We had a simular discussion 2 years ago (http://iuf-rulebook-2016.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/38). We should pick up some of the old ideas Maybe this Committee is able to find a solution.



It's a good point that "wasting" time in a game that's in progress is just part of the game. Time can also be wasted by continually shooting the ball very far up the field causing the other team to chase after it or by passing the ball continually behind the goal. Maybe there's no point in making a new rule there.

That leaves us with intentional delay after the game has stopped (either when there's a free shot or a goal). You could delay after a goal by not getting back to your own half super fast or by taking a long time to cross the middle (e.g. shooting the ball back and forth on ones own half without crossing). Similarly if there's a free shot you could delay by positioning players and then changing the shooting player at the last second. It's pretty clear how it looks when a team is looking to resume the game quickly and it's also clear when a team is wasting time, even if it's hard to put on a formula.

I think there's a key distinction between a team that's tired and taking a bit longer to resume the game (e.g. taking positions after a freeshot at a slow pace) and a team that's adding delay by taking more actions (e.g. changing a player while waiting for the game to resume after a goal).


The icing rule was introduced in Ice Hockey for that very fact Magnus. A team protecting a 3-2 lead hit the ball up the other end 50 times in the match to kill time. Then the same two teams had a match where it was done 87 times. I think we are not at the point where a rule against hitting the puck up the other end would work for us and at the moment I think it only works on very large courts.

I believe referee's discretion for ruling time wasting should be an appropriate fix, I believe we are intelligent enough to hopefully rule this correctly without a set time limit. But I do believe we should put it into the rule book under fouls so referees know it is an option.


I don't think there's any reason a game shouldn't end up with long balls across the field. If you have a straight shooter and a fast player there can be many situations where you'll want the fast player to sprint ahead and get the ball in passing. I think that's a valid strategy. On the other hand if the ball is constantly shot across the field the other can have a player to pick it up and shoot it back in. Again, valid strategy choices.

Shooting the ball out is obviously different but that gives the ball to the other team similar to a foul.


I agree


I agree that there should be something against delaying the game especially for when the other team can't do anything about it (after a goal restart or a free shot). I think it should be OK for a team to take the ball behind the net to slow down the game or hit it to the other end, that's just good strategy.

I'm a bit on the fence about if the team keeps hitting it out of bounce on purpose. Awhile ago at a Unicon I remember getting in trouble for doing just this as we were ahead by one with less than a minute to go. I got the ball twice and both times was able to hit it out of bounds on purpose. This wasted probably over 20 seconds as the ref didn't have a spare ball and had to go fetch the ball. I don't remember what happened, I don't think I was penalized but I do remember the ref and other team not very happy at the end especially since we won. And to be fair, it's not like it was in the rules that you couldn't do it so I wasn't really cheating, just good strategy if you ask me.

So do we allow this or not? It sure makes for a boring last minute if the ball keeps going out all the time. I guess the best solution would be to stop/start the time every time play is stopped especially for say the last minute or two. But I don't see that happening. And what if the team accidentally hit it out of bounds, or it was two different people from the same team, etc. Thoughts?


There's merit to the idea that time should stop every time play stops and some sports do that. It will make it harder to organize a tournament since the time keeper need to be more alert and also it can be cause for delays. Right now it's easy to know exactly how long a game is for planning purposes.

As for shooting the ball out you say what the problem is – the ref didn't have spare balls. I think that's an organizer issue and is something that needs to be handled separately.

I believe there's a difference between shooting the ball outside the court and other types of delays, but I also feel that's something that would be handled with the rules about unsportsmanlike conduct. It's also hard to discipline except if the offending player end up getting a warning/2 minute penalty.

In general I also feel we're a bit hindered by the fact that ref'ing has been poor in the past. There's a lot of nuance in this so upping the ref'ing will be needed for the rule to mean anything.


I feel we shouldn't put in a rule to penalise hitting the ball out to waste time though I am yet to see someone do it repeatedly until time runs out. I think doing it once near the end of the game is ok but if I started seeing people doing it over and over i'd change my mind on whether we should bring in a penalty for it.

In Ice hockey a player gets sent off for 2 mins for hitting the puck out on purpose, they use lots of rules to try and make the game as fast as possible. 

Ice hockey also stops the timer when play stops, however a 60 minute match can go for as long as 2.5 hours in ice hockey so I don't think we want this, it would be a nightmare for tournament schedules and all our comps are run in a tournament not in stand alone games.


I do not think we are currently in a place where we need to stop the time during a game. Especially considering the time of a tournament... Implementing this into a Unicon would only cause more issues.


Since 2 years we have  "Intentional delay of the game is not permitted." (14B.8.1), "The Referee can send a player off the field for two minutes, five minutes or for the remainder of the game. This is done in the case of unsporting behavior..." (14B.6.5), "2 minutes - • Intentional delay of the game • Repeated fouls by the same player" (14B.6.5)  and "Unsporting behavior should be penalized" (14C.2.6)

I think it worked out that tactical behaviors especially during the last minute(s) is within the rules. (For shooting a ball out of bound this team has come first in possession of the ball!) And nobody realy likes to vote for

Add to 14C.2.6 General: "The Referees can suspend the game with time-out if intentional delay of the game may happens."

Anyway this goes with the current opinion of the referees using their finger tips.

A player gets sent off for 2 mins should be used after a warning.




14B.7.7 Restart After A Goal "After a goal, the non-scoring team gets the ball. All players must go to their own half. After the Referee’s whistle, the game resumes when the ball or a player of the team in possession crosses the center line. It is legal to directly shoot a goal after passing the center line, for example without passing the ball to another player first."

Discussion Point 1 Whether or not we need a time limit for starting after a goal.

Consensus. This is covered by the delay of game penalty that comes under 14B.8.1 "Intentional delay of the game is not permitted." and 14B.6.5 "2 minutes Intentional delay of the game" No time limit needed, referee should look for intentional delays.

Discussion Point 2a Delay of game penalty for restarts.

Consensus. Yes this should be penalised.

Discussion Point 2b Delay of game for hitting balls out on purpose or riding behind goals and stalling with the ball.

Consensus . No currently this should not be penalised

Discussion Point 2 Should we add ability of Referee to suspend the game time if intentional delay of game occurs to 14.C.2.6 General

Consensus. Unclear as no responses since suggestion.




Personal Opinion

I like this suggestion I believe the referee should have the ability to pause time in case of intentional delay of game. I can only see it being used near the end of the game though and rarely. But would probably be a deterrent to players trying to delay game as they could get sent off and the time is paused. 


It's a good idea that in cases of intentional delay or where delay would favor one team over the other (ie, the leading team) the game stops. It's hard to make this consistent unless there's a general rule that in the last 60-90-120 seconds of the game the time is stopped every time the whistle sounds. Otherwise the ref and the time keepers need to be super synced so the timekeepers know when the time should be stopped and when it shouldn't be stopped.

I guess an alternative is the soccer rule where the ref decides on a certain amount of overtime depending on how much the game has been stopped but that has its own pitfalls as well.


My opinion is that we don't need to make the referee stopping time for delay of game "consistent" by putting in a specific time of when you can use it.

At the moment we rarely penalise anyone for delay of game. Players should receive a warning for delaying the game before being penalised (I usually hurry them up to cross halfway). It is only after this that they are penalised. I believe the pausing time would go along with this. You are unlikely to pause the time at the first instance of someone taking 5 seconds too long to get over halfway. But by being an option it means people are less likely to try it as it wont work and if a team is trying to do it repeatedly to run down a 60 second clock it wont work as you can then pause time. I think referee discretion will work fine here.


Has anyone tested out where the referee stops time in a game due to intentional delay? I'm curious if this works, and if there are any issues.

My only knowledge of the time being stopped during play is where something has interrupted the game, and it's taking a while to resume. Meaning that the time is paused until the game is resumed.


For the moment I know only this: The Referee is forced to suspend the game due to an injury (14C.2.6). But there is an other rule:

"The time only stops if the Referee requests a time out."(14B.7.1)

As a referee I request a time out e.g.

-supposed injury

- a situation happened and it looked like a violation but it was not clear what has absolutely happened and it will need time to discuss with the 2. referee and or the players

- it will take more time to explain the individual decision

- to give time for "down cooling" the players

- "to have a (longer) word" to whom ever

- it needs time to fix something with the field, marks,benched, score board  etc.

- all kinds of intentional delays (also after a goal)


I think there should be no time limit how long a referee should wait before he requests a time-out.


I would stop time with an injury where the person cannot be moved off the court quickly and it is eating into time, also when I discuss with the second referee about an appropriate call and would do it if needed for sending someone off and explaining why.


I think if we changed


14B.7.1 Game Duration

"The time only stops if the Referee requests a time out"


"The time stops only at the request of the Referee"

A "time out" in sports is often a specific periods that a team can quest during play to stop the game and go to the bench to talk tactics . Basketball and Ice hockey have it. Teams have a limited number of them also.

By calling it a "time out" it suggests to me these time outs that are used in sports suggesting the referee A) can stop the game for a specific duration only and B) has a limited number of these to use.

We should just say that the time stops only when the referee requests it and in the "time delay" penalty we are discussing we should write that the the referee can stop the time in the case of intentional delay of game.


That fixes both issues.




^agree with you Steven. 


"time out"

The tactical "time out" in other sports is different to our "time out" so far. Thank you for this clarification. I would follow.

14B.7.1 "The time stops only at the request of the Referee".

"At the request" , "On request" , "By request" All this expressions I found in my dictionary, what is the best?

In 14C.2.7 Referee Hand Signs we should also rename the hand sign from "Time out" to "Time Stop".


I suggest that this part of this discussion can go quick to a proposal.



14B.8.1 General Considerations

"... Intentional delay of the game is not permitted." change to "... Intentional delay of the game is not permitted, the referee may stop the time."


We make progress. We will get in general intentional delay into rule. But it is still open how we get the game restarted after a penalization of delaying team/player(?) haven´t crossed the centre line after a goal.

-repeated start by the offending team and hope the team will now cross the centre line "...the previous Referee ruling is repeated."?

- restart with a face off at center mark?

restart with a free shot by the not rule offending team from the initial point of the violation (where ever this should be)?

I prefer in this case a restart with a face off at the center mark.



I think face off would be most fair. It would be too good if the non offending team got a free shot from where the foul occurred since it could be far down the field (assuming we went by ball position). It would also be weird to move the ball to the non offending team or let them start, so the compromise is meeting on the middle for a face off. It also means there's still only two ways game can start (cross the center or face off).




14C.2.7 Referee Hand Signs

“Stop Timer” Form the letter “T” with both hands. The stoppage of time is deemed necessary by a referee for example if a player is injured, intentional delay of game occurs or discussion between referees or between referee and players is needed.

In case we want to stop the time when a player is sent off, we should add this as example.


Are people happy with the proposal? If so it will go to voting.

Copyright ©

IUF 2018