10.4 High stick near goal

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

Comments about this discussion:

Started

There's an exception for high stick that says that in the direct vicinity of ones own goal the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal. I'm not sure I've seen it in play super often and it also seems kind of confusing to have a special rule there.

I'm thinking this rule is mostly to help with defence, so would it make sense to clear that up. High sticks are mostly problematic when shooting, so perhaps it should be made clear that the stick can be raised up to the bar provided it blocks a direct shot on the goal and you're within 2 (?) meters of the goal or something.

Comment

The rule was originally only goalies can raise their stick to the height of the crossbar to save goals. It was altered to any defending player because our goalies have no special marking so technically anyone can be considered the goalie in play.

I haven't had much issue as I don't even see many goalies putting their sticks up to crossbar height but I see your point. I have generally considered vicinity for this as within the attacking area (6.5m out to goal) 

Comment

Yeah, it's pretty clear it's from a time when goalies were referenced in the rules and this just hasn't been clarified.

Personally I would think anyone within 2 meters in front of their own goal would be a "goalie" for the purpose of this rule. It's a bit much to apply this rule in the entire area up to the 6.5m line and if people were really aware of the rule it could change some game dynamics a bit.

I also think that in any case it should be specified that the stick can only be raised to defend against an incoming shot and that when shooting normal high stick rules apply, regardless if it's close to the goal. In this way the rule would be analogous to the rules on using a flat hand on the ball.

Comment

Please have a look to the discussion "https://iuf-rulebook-2016.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/34" (start half way down).

I not for sure what you like to change?

Comment

The way I see it we have two rules that are simple to understand:

– No special rules for goalies
– Stick should be below hip

And then we have another rule that's counter to both, namely that the stick can be higher if you're close to the goal (without any clarification). The things I want to clarify in this rule is:

– the defender can raise the stick higher than hip height only if it doesn't put other players in danger
– the defender can only raise the stick higher than hip height to defend against direct shots on goal (normal rules apply when shooting and the stick can't be higher to intercept a pass for instance)
– normal high stick rules apply when shooting
– "vicinity of the goal" should probably be clarified. Could be the closest player to the goal or could be any player within say 2 meters of the goal
– only one touch is allowed with the high stick, similar to playing with ones hand

Right now a liberal reading of this rule could mean that players shooting from close to their own goal don't need to maintain high stick rules, something I don't think is the intention. I do think it's a good rule that a goalie can use their stick to defend against shots regardless how high they come in on the goal.

Comment

14B.10.4 High Stick

The blade of the stick must always be below the players’ own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered. Exception: In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal.

 

Right now a liberal reading of this rule could mean that players shooting from close to their own goal don't need to maintain high stick rules, something I don't think is the intention. 

@Magnus

But in our current rules you cannot score over halfway much less next to your own goal, how often does someone take a shot from the vicinity of their own goal?


That being said if people want to change the wording to something like what I have below I have no objection. Covers that it has to be a defensive effort not whacking the ball away and must be near the goal.

 

14B.10.4 High Stick

The blade of the stick must always be below the players’ own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered. Exception: When defending a shot in the direct vicinity (2.0 m from goal line) of one’s own goal , the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal.

 

 

 

Comment

"But in our current rules you cannot score over halfway much less next to your own goal, how often does someone take a shot from the vicinity of their own goal?" <– True. I often shoot the ball far down the court.

I think it's good that the rules clearly state our intentions and I think you've worded a rule change well. I would be happy for that rule to be made a proposal for us to vote on.

Comment

Ah my apologies Magnus this was a language barrier issue. Generally "shooting" or taking a "shot" is referred to trying to get it into the goal. If I was to be talking about a defender hitting the ball down the other end to clear it I would probably say somethign like he "hit the ball down court" or "cleared the ball down court" or something like that. Yes you are right sometimes people will hit the ball far down court and the current wording does enable a high stick up to cross bar height in this instance.

Comment

No worries – great we're in agreement :)

Comment

14B.10.4 High Stick

The blade of the stick must always

-be below the players’ own hips and as an exception only for defending in direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal

and

- not be higher as the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered. Exception: In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal.

I dislike here this definition "direct vicinity (2.0m from goal line)" because you will start a discussion what is included in the 2m, the blade of the stick, the wheel, the player and was it only 1.9m or already 2.1m away. For me it is more key that nobody "might be endangered" and this is not only a question of distance but also of speed and direction. I would like to leave this to the referee for the situation as a whole.

Comment

I think "nobody will be endangered" should be the start of the definition and may need to be worked in. However, I think the two meters from the goal is no different than when we expect people to be two meters from the place where a free shot is taking place. If we are to take care of that, the definitions should be defined in one place so we can use them here :)

Comment

From my point of view there is a big difference. A free shot starts with a stationary ball after a whistle blow, here it is more or less easy to calculate 2m. But in the vicinity of the goal all is in action and in motion, distances are changing every tenth of a second. Therefore I would like to leave this to the referee for the situation as a whole.

Comment

I think we could work in a change here to make it clearer. Maybe a combination of Steve's and Herbert's?:

14B.10.4 High Stick

The blade of the stick must always be below the players’ own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered. Exception: The lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal in the direct vicinity of one’s own goal when defending without endandering other players.

Comment

I am happy with. I leave the best wording to the native speakers.

If nobody complains we should bring it to proposal.

Comment

I don't really like the "without endangering other players", in the high stick rule before that we specifically say if someone is within 2m they could be endangered.

 

Now we are saying that you can do it if someone is within 2m as long as you dont endanger them. If you just add the text "when defending a shot on goal" that means that you will only ever be raising the stick to block a shot not to hit the ball far down field. 

Raising the stick to block shots is almost never a violent swing at a ball so it is almost never going to endanger a person.

How many players do we have who's face is below crossbar height? I think even our smallest players have their head above the crossbar and in my mind are not endangered by someone blocking a shot on goal.

The real thing we should do is to ensure players cannot do clearing shots down field as THOSE are the big swings that could be dangerous in my opinion

Comment

Nice catch Steven. Playing hockey by definition carries some risk and it's our role to manage and regulate those risks. It shouldn't carry much risk raising the stick to the crossbar and it's already against the rules to endanger other players – further, everyone should know that this special rule applies in the goal zone and take precautions.

Comment

When I ad our last discussion (https://iuf-rulebook-2016.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/34) to this one, it seemed to be longest discussion for years. If we like to get red here of cross bar, defender, goalie and vicinity we should turn this rule 10(?) years back. Therefore cancel the exceptions! Everything is easier to referee!

Comment

Regarding 'when defending a shot on goal' - there could be another instance (even small) where someone defends their goal e.g., a deflection off a barrier/player/unicycle/stick - which isn't regarded as a shot. Even though it's a small instance, this can happen a lot. Therefore, I suggest removing the word 'shot', leaving the following: 'when defending their goal'.

Comment

14B.10.4 High Stick

The blade of the stick must always be below the players’ own hips and as an exception only for defending in direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal but never be higher as the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered.

Comment

Herman, that proposal kind of has it both ways since it's not really clear who can be endangered. It could make sense if it's specified that this rule only applies if the player raising the stick is alone. In any case, hitting someone (badly) with ones stick would be a foul, regardless if it happens close to the goal or you hit someones leg somewhere else on the field.

Comment

"In any case, hitting someone (badly) with ones stick would be a foul, regardless if it happens close to the goal or you hit someone's leg somewhere else on the field." Yes, this is a key rule or safety rule.

"It could make sense if it's specified that this rule only applies if the player raising the stick is alone." Not only if the player is "alone", "The blade of the stick must always be below the players’ own hips..." and if some other players (independent from which team!) nearby >"but never be higher as the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered."

Only in a situation the above conditions are kept the exception can be used.

Comment

I think the idea of the defenders being able to raise stick to crossbar height was meant to be irrespective of who was around you.

I think we should either a) remove the ability to raise the stick to crossbar height when defending altogether or b) allow defenders to raise their stick up to crossbar height (and higher than waist height) even if there is someone around them.

Comment

I believe we should keep the rule and specify the vicinity of the goal. 2 meters have been proposed, which makes sense as it's the same for faceoffs and free shots. This rule is mostly in use for long shots with fewer people around anyways.

At the end of the day there's already different rules depending on where on the field players are (e.g. need to cross centerline, freeshots are taken in the corner in the goal zones, etc) – this is just one extra such rule.

Comment

... and if we follow your line of arguments it would be more consequent to cancel the exception with the crossbar instead of thinking around of a vicinity of 2m.

Comment

Pro's of removing the crossbar rule:

Less annoyance refereeing

 

Cons of removing crossbar rule:

If you have a 7 year old in goal he doesn't get to use his stick like a tall person does.

Goalies who use their sticks to save balls may be very annoyed.

 

Pros of putting in a 2m blanket vicinity around goal and stipulation that you need to be defending a shot on goal:

Keeps the person raising there stick within the goal area meaning it will almost always be someone playing goal or defence.

Ensures players raising stick are not doing it to hit the ball down field reducing chance of any sort of dangerous stick raising.

 

Cons of putting in a 2m blanket vicinity around goal and stipulation that you need to be defending a shot on goal:

You can still bring your stick higher than hip height which supposedly can increase injury.

 

 

Thoughts: 

Has anyone actually seen an injury from defenders lifting their stick to crossbar height to save a goal? I have only played 5 years but I see a goalkeeper raise their stick to that height maybe once every 100 saves, if it is that height they usually just use their hand. Consequently I have never seen any injury from this type of play. Are we worrying unnecessarily?

Similarly people worried that raising the 24" wheel diameter allowance from 618 to 640 was dangerous because "24's are already too hard to control" but I haven't seen any changes in injuries at the hands of 24" unicycle riders.

 

Comment

I agree with you Steven.

Comment

Hear hear. I think when someone can defend with the stick over the whole goal area it typically has the potential to change the game as it changes how often goals can be scored from further away. It would be sad to have to rule those as goals, since it does take real goalie skill to defend against those hits (as well as real shooter skill to place the ball that way in the goal). This is exactly the type of hockey we wanna play.

Comment

Old Rule

14B.10.4 High Stick

The blade of the stick must always be below the players’ own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered. Exception: In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal.

 

 

New Rule

14B.10.4 High Stick

The blade of the stick must always be below the players’ own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered. Exception: When defending a shot on goal in the direct vicinity (2.0 m from goal line) of one’s own goal , the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal.

 

 

 

Pros: Clarifies that the stick raised to crossbar height is when defending a shot, not when clearing the ball. These types of movements are much safer than when clearing the ball down field as they are generally low force. Clarifies that only defenders within 2.0m of their goal line can use their stick in this manner. This makes it more likely that those who raise their stick to crossbar height are within the vicinity of the goal and are more likely to be goalkeepers defenders.

Cons: Compared to what the rule was previously I see no disadvantages of this wording over the previous wording, only advantages.

 

Changes to gameplay/tournament/refereeing: Remove the ability of players to legally do high sticks while clearing the ball from their end. Unlikely to change anything in regards to player safety, this rule was previously more relaxed than this wording, allowing high sticks from defenders when clearing balls. I have never seen any injuries due to the more relaxed wording of this rule so unlikely to see more injuries after we make it more strict. It should still be possible for referees to rule this during gameplay, it is clear when someone is defending a shot on goal and the 2 m vicinity is already used for other parts of the game. Referee's should be able to rule this.

 

 

 

Comment

If we can have everyone say whether they support this or not I will make a proposal or we will ignore the proposal.

Comment

I support the way you've worded this :)

Comment

It is true, we use the distance of 2m, but in this all cases the ball is not (except from face-off the ball is falling down to the dropping position) in motion. We have 1m, 2.5m, 6.5m and so far 1.20/1.80m

In cases the game is in motion we do not use a fixed distance in meters and centimetres we describe distanced the referee is able to see: own hip, hips of all players in the vicinity (an another open vicinity ≠ 2m), vicinity of the ball (defined as the ball within the radius of the outstretched arm length plus stick).

What do you mean with 2m from the goal line? The sketch is showing 2 options: From the goal line next to a goal post and all 2m forward from the goal line + halve cycle around the middle of the goal line. The area it will cover will be nearly double or half size.

 

Second, if you use the sentences in the above order I get an other understanding: For it sounds now as follows:

In first line on the playing field you have to take care, no player should be endangered. But if you ride close to your own goal the rule "no player should be endangered" is now inoperative, forget everything with hip height, key is now the exception, "...can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal."

Therefore I brought a week ago the sentences in this order:

The blade of the stick must always be below the players’ own hips and

as an exception only for defending in direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal

but never be higher as the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered.

Please think about your wording prior making the proposal.

 

Comment

Herberts Diagram

What do you mean with 2m from the goal line? The sketch is showing 2 options: From the goal line next to a goal post and all 2m forward from the goal line + halve cycle around the middle of the goal line. The area it will cover will be nearly double or half size.

I believe the diagram on the left is correct however including the dark blue portion of your sketch.

In first line on the playing field you have to take care, no player should be endangered. But if you ride close to your own goal the rule "no player should be endangered" is now inoperative, forget everything with hip height, key is now the exception, "...can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal."

I disagree that riding near your own goal means that you no longer follow "no player should be endangered". The rules already state in 14B.8.1 General Considerations: All players must take care not to endanger others. The game is non-contact: the opponents and their unicycles may not be touched. The players must take care not to hit an opponent with their stick, especially after a shot. The rule we are looking at bringing in does not say "you can now hit players with your sticks". 

We currently and for many years have had a rule that allowed a goalie/any defender to lift their stick higher than waist height up to crossbar height when near their goal. We are actually trying to make this rule even safer by only allowing defensive blocks to be raised to crossbar height so in theory it will be safer than it is currently. It is a mistake in my opinion to assume just because someone can bring the stick to crossbar height it means it is going to cause injury.

I don't think anyone on this committee has seen any injuries from the rule in its current form, so if the new rule is even safer, reducing injuries from 0 to...... 0 seems safe enough. No need for the line about "never higher than the hips of player sin the vicinity who might be endangered"

If you implement that extra line you are more likely to make the entire rule redundant as there are almost always people within the vicinity of defenders. Particularly if a goalie has his own defender within his stick reach he cant use his stick at crossbar height.

The real point I think most people don't agree with is that this rule is already very safe, why are we going overboard?

Comment

I am the one who has seen injuries due to high stick in front of the goal, only a handful no hard injuries and every time the injurer apologized - Good luck. The injurer mentioned that they didn't want to endanger someone but the rule gave him the right to rise the blade so high.

You and me we are on the same line (non-contact game and so on) but others like to read the version with the order of sentence how they like to do. Therefore I suggest to bring the sentences and halve sentences in an other order, so nobody should have a chance to misunderstand the rule (as excuse) and the purpose of it. The exception should not be red as a licence to risk an injury.

If you like you may change from "...the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered." to "...the hips of all opponent players in the vicinity who might be endangered."

And what is now the definition of the vicinity of one's goal and what should be the difference between in wording "vicinity" and "direct vicinity"? (compare other rule with "vicinity".

Comment

I do not like an exact measurement when the game is ongoing. As you cannot measure it when it happens its only a guideline for the referee. This may cause more complaining from the players as it is no more only in discretion of the referee. I think it's easier to have a soft rule than to think every time "is the player now within 2m of the goal?" (Giving a guideline to the referees so all referees interpret the rules the same should be done at a competition)

I like the idea of adding some words that only when defending a player may rise the stick as high as the crossbar. Maybe we can add a few words that no other rules may be violated, e.g. " ... violating no other rules ... "? I would not be specific to be clear that only the "high-stick-rule" can be violated.

@Herbert: Can you say something more about these injuries? E.g. Were these injuries caused by blades which were raised as high as the crossbar of the goal or higher? And do you know the distance to the goal?

Comment

I can remember 4. I start with myself, I was next to the goalie the shot came from ca. 8m to a edge of the goal, I was hit at my right hand from goalie's blade, after 5min pain I could continue with playing. (The goalie was focused on the ball in 8m distance, the rise of the blade was a reflex movement.) i an other game our shortest player, he played ducked, was hit with the blade at his throat, more shock than serious injury. I remember 2 situations as referee, both situations were similar to my situation, only hit hands. In all situations the goalies didn't took care of other players. The goalies didn't realised that it is only an exception to raise the blade up to cross bare height. So far I can remember there was no direct chance to score a goal, games were restarted with a corner ball or the ball was in goal anyway.

Only the referee who has whistled knows what he has seen and why he has whistled, somebody injured, blade higher than cross bar, high stick out of the vicinity of the gaol, advantage rule, the ball was traveling directly toward the goal and would denitely have entered the goal without being touched by another player, or.

I prefer a soft rule as well because players in front of the goal are in motion and only the referee will be able to decide does it look like to him that some other in front of the goal might be endangered or not, probably advantage rule, and what should be the penalty.

Comment

A challenge with this rule is that we have no special goalie privileges, yet we clearly play with goalies (even if they're on rotation). I've only seen this rule in use where it was clear who was defending the goal and how they did it. Thinking more about it you definitely do have to take care in a different way as a goalie/defender/player when the stick can suddenly be raised higher, especially if multiple people raise their sticks at the same time.

Might it make sense to make it a factor who's closer to the goal or similar? Like, only players who are closer to the goal than opposing players can raise their sticks higher or similar? There could be a player shooting a ball from the left that had to pass a defender standing within 2 meters from the goal and the goalie, but who would have a team mate on the right of the goal or in front of the goal. This is kind of the situation that could become dangerous, especially as more people start standing in front of the goal. Not sure if it can be formalized or is up to the discretion of the ref, but there are some situations where no one can safely raise their sticks – mostly when there's a lot of people in front of the goal though.

Comment

Only real agreement I see here is that people agree that you should only be able to raise it if defending a shot on goal. We sort of have a consensus that you shouldn't be able to endanger players by doing it, but the rules already say that you mustn't endanger players. We don't have a consensus on distance or anything really.

 

This is what we have currently. Arguably "safer" than the old rule as it doesnt allow you to do high sticks hitting the ball away.

 

Old Rule

14B.10.4 High Stick

The blade of the stick must always be below the players’ own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered. Exception: In direct vicinity of one’s own goal, the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal.

 

New Rule

14B.10.4 High Stick

The blade of the stick must always be below the players’ own hips and the hips of all players in the vicinity who might be endangered. Exception: When defending a shot on one’s own goal , the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal.

Comment

When defending a shot on one’s own goal, in its direct vicinity the lower end of the stick can be raised as high as the crossbar of the goal.

The vicinity must be kept otherwise this exception would allow for defending a (assumed) shot on 80% of the playing field. Only the word "vicinity" left soft and blurred.

 


Copyright ©

IUF 2018