Penalty shootout - backwards movement of ball

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

Comments about this discussion:

Started

14B.7.2 Penalty Shootout

...The ball must be kept in motion towards the goal line (no backwards movement allowed) and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete..

 

Based on this rule we have always ruled that ANY backwards movement of the ball ends the attempt of a penalty shootout. Is this how other countries rule this?

Our rules are based on the ice hockey rules however when they are talking about the ball remaining in motion towards the goal it just means that you cant stop and go backwards. You can however stick handle the ball backwards (i.e. toe drags and 360 spins)

 

This is a legal goal however based on the what our definition says in english I would rule this illegal in unicycle hockey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r5Up2i8eiA 

 

I would prefer that we allow a greater range of stick handling in penalty shootouts, seems silly to allow side to side stick handling but a toe drag would be illegal (as the puck moves backwards).

Comment

Spinoarama Goals

More goals

Comment

We rule that it depends on the movement of the ball. I can see the benefits of changing the rule to depend on the movement of the player, as long as it’s clear and easy to judge. It might be a question of someone trying it out and reporting back if it creates more play overall.

Comment

I most of the scenes on youtube I was in doubt the ball remains in motion towards the goal. And I assume increasing danger action.

No misunderstanding, I like to see this in ice hockey but not in unicycle hockey. With our current rule the chances to score are high enough.

Comment

This is something I've been thinking of for quite some time, and I would be very interested in seeing how it works out in unicycle hockey. It'd certainly give the possibility of some nice goals! As Magnus said, could someone try this out?

Comment

I believe it has just been a misunderstanding of their rules by us when we used them.

I'm not sure sues why you think it would be more dangerous Herbert.

The real difference I think is that it allows the ability to actually stick handle more than just left/right. Stick handling can be diagonal, forward backward or include toe drags, none of which I think change the danger level of an attempt on goal. I'm talking about the lead up to the goal not necessarily the last 1 second before shooting. The hockey goals only look dangerous because of how close they get to the goalie.

I think this is more to do with their superior ability to stop and how close you have to get to the goalie to score in ice hockey. If you disallowed their ability to stick handle forwards/backwards/diagonal they would still be that close to the goalie before shooting. We don't need to be that close so I don't see why it would increase danger.

Comment

You can do what you want to do (moving your unicycle and blade forward and backwards or spin around) so long as the >ball< keeps in motion towards the goal line and the goalie is not endangered. If you don't try this trick close to the goalie and the goal, I believe you will reduce your chance to strick - maybe you will become an expert than it is your point (please sent us a video).

Comment

My point is that in our rules a really standard goal like this Penalty Goal would  not be counted. All the movements of the puck between 1:28 and 1:31 would be illegal because he stick handles the puck backwards (while continually moving forwards) .

Can anyone come up with a good reason why someone doing that on a unicycle should be illegal. No part of that would be more dangerous as you have suggested, it is just stick handling.

 

I cant see why we want to remove the ability to do more creative, impressive stick handling from our game? Surely we want our game to be more interesting to watch not less. Otherwise why not just do a soccer penalty shootout and have 6.5m shots on goal....

 

The ice hockey penalty shot appear focus more on the continuing "forward movement" of the player not the puck and I believe that whenever the unicycle hockey rulebook committee stole this from their rulebook (I was not playing back then) it was a misunderstanding of the text.

Comment

So I was actually thinking a bit more about this, and it would be super easy to judge (probably more so than now). In ice hockey some parts of the players go forward while others go backwards (like when they spin around). In unicycle hockey you can simply look at the wheel and as long as it's moving forwards it counts. Only in the case where someone would turn more than 90 degrees would it not count (we might want to specify that you can't turn around and go backwards?).

I don't think this proposal adds any additional danger to the game, and in any case that's regulated elsewhere. I do think it could add some more spice by allowing more movements. If anything, saying that just the ball must roll forwards allows much more movement for the player which could ultimately be more dangerous (think, riding backwards in front of the ball or similar).

Comment

I agree and think it should be ok for the ball to go backwards but not the unicyclist. 

Comment

I not sure on what we discus here in the moment. The topic is "Penalty Shootout", this shootout has nothing to do with a penalty, it is only a designation for a shootout from ice hockey. When we do this? > "... If the game ends in a draw and a decision is necessary, play is continued with extended time. If it’s still a draw, a decision is reached with a penalty shootout." This shootout has to be done only in case of a decision is necessary.

For more than 20 years the rule says that the ball (and the rule says nothing about the driver and his wheel or stick) must be kept in motion towards the goal line (no backwards movement allowed). > A simple rule, easy to judge as well from a C-class referee. Or we discus about 5 % or less of our playing time per game if needed! And let me guess only 5 % or less are able to do this stick handling.

@Gareth: "... I would be very interested in seeing how it works out in unicycle hockey. It'd certainly give the possibility of some nice goals!" I agree!

Why not use the players with high technology in stick handling their skills the time in the two halves oft the game and the extended time? Why is it so impotent to show this skills in a Penalty Shootout?

 

 

Comment

Ultimately we want the best teams to proceed to the next round. The best way to decide who's the best team is a regular game, then comes overtime and golden goal rules, then these penalty shootouts. Allowing more movements allow players to demonstrate better skills. If we used straight penalty shots from the 6.5m line, there would be more randomness and less and skill at play.

I think it'll be equally easy to judge if the player is moving forward than to judge if the ball is moving forward. The only thing that changes is which element of skills the players will need. I'm softly in favor of the rule change, even if it would be nice if someone can try it in their practice :)

Comment

For more than 20 years the rule says that the ball (and the rule says nothing about the driver and his wheel or stick) must be kept in motion towards the goal line (no backwards movement allowed). > 

I don't believe the age of a rule should play a role in whether it can/should be changed. Most sports alter rules to make the game more attractive to watch/play. I do believe a large proportion of players do very little training to be better at stick work, however I do believe players who have put in effort to improve stick handling should be allowed to use those skills to help decide a match.

A simple rule, easy to judge as well from a C-class referee.

If the rule was that the player must always be in motion towards the goal I believe this is just as easy to judge as the ball needing to be constantly moving towards goal. I believe it would be even easier perhaps, doing stickwork parallel to the goal line from side to side quickly is actually quite hard to assess 100% if one of their hits makes the ball go slightly off parallel and backwards. However players are unlikely to ride side to side almost parallel to the goal line with very quick changes of direction like is seen in stick work. I think it would be much easier to see if a player is no longer moving forwards than it is the ball in most cases.

 

Or we discus about 5 % or less of our playing time per game if needed! 

I don't think the duration of play that it affects means we shouldn't discuss it. How often do teams slow down play at the restart requiring referees to penalise them? Yet we are discussing that here.

And let me guess only 5 % or less are able to do this stick handling.

In my opinion this is a VERY bad statement. Why not reward players for putting in effort to become better players? I believe it is better to entice players to train and improve than encourage them to not bother because you cant use those skills when it counts. I believe spectators would also. 

@Gareth: "... I would be very interested in seeing how it works out in unicycle hockey. It'd certainly give the possibility of some nice goals!" I agree!

Why not use the players with high technology in stick handling their skills the time in the two halves oft the game and the extended time? Why is it so impotent to show this skills in a Penalty Shootout?

Time cannot always be extended and what reason makes it sensible to not allow them to also use it if a penalty shootout is taken.

Again why would we reward players in a penalty shootout who don't practice to improve their skills instead of the players who have.. We may as well put in handicaps for teams while we are at it so players don't have to improve if they don't want to...

Comment

For more than 20 years the rule says that the ball (and the rule says nothing about the driver and his wheel or stick) must be kept in motion towards the goal line (no backwards movement allowed). > 

I don't believe the age of a rule should play a role in whether it can/should be changed. Most sports alter rules to make the game more attractive to watch/play. I do believe a large proportion of players do very little training to be better at stick work, however I do believe players who have put in effort to improve stick handling should be allowed to use those skills to help decide a match.

A simple rule, easy to judge as well from a C-class referee.

If the rule was that the player must always be in motion towards the goal I believe this is just as easy to judge as the ball needing to be constantly moving towards goal. I believe it would be even easier perhaps, doing stickwork parallel to the goal line from side to side quickly is actually quite hard to assess 100% if one of their hits makes the ball go slightly off parallel and backwards. However players are unlikely to ride side to side almost parallel to the goal line with very quick changes of direction like is seen in stick work. I think it would be much easier to see if a player is no longer moving forwards than it is the ball in most cases.

 

Or we discus about 5 % or less of our playing time per game if needed! 

I don't think the duration of play that it affects means we shouldn't discuss it. How often do teams slow down play at the restart requiring referees to penalise them? Yet we are discussing that here.

And let me guess only 5 % or less are able to do this stick handling.

In my opinion this is a VERY bad statement. Why not reward players for putting in effort to become better players? I believe it is better to entice players to train and improve than encourage them to not bother because you cant use those skills when it counts. I believe spectators would also. 

@Gareth: "... I would be very interested in seeing how it works out in unicycle hockey. It'd certainly give the possibility of some nice goals!" I agree!

Why not use the players with high technology in stick handling their skills the time in the two halves oft the game and the extended time? Why is it so impotent to show this skills in a Penalty Shootout?

Time cannot always be extended and what reason makes it sensible to not allow them to also use it if a penalty shootout is taken.

Again why would we reward players in a penalty shootout who don't practice to improve their skills instead of the players who have.. We may as well put in handicaps for teams while we are at it so players don't have to improve if they don't want to...

Comment

Nobody is stopping you to learn and to show better skills. But all your learnt skills were not good enough to decide a game in the regular + extended play time. (I believe the spectators would like to see those skills during the regular playtime and will not wait to see those in a shootout.)

Now there is a simple need to make a decision, chances 50:50; usually a coin would be used.  What we name as "penalty shootout" is not a penalty (A 6.5m is a real penalty with 70-80% chance against the goalie.) it is a kind of decision finder by keeping the chances more or less around 50%.

As a decision finder you may use options: the coin (again), or if you like to see more goals we can use the 6.5m or for friends of long distance shots we can create a special shootout, a shot from the center mark onto an empty goal or with our special shootout rule.

 

Comment

Nobody is stopping you to learn and to show better skills. But all your learnt skills were not good enough to decide a game in the regular + extended play time. (I believe the spectators would like to see those skills during the regular playtime and will not wait to see those in a shootout.)

What is the benefit of now allowing people to use greater skills in the penalty shootout? I still don't understand this? First you said it is dangerous, second that to hard to referee. I cant see why it is more dangerous or harder to measure than what we currently have.

Now there is a simple need to make a decision, chances 50:50; usually a coin would be used.  What we name as "penalty shootout" is not a penalty (A 6.5m is a real penalty with 70-80% chance against the goalie.) it is a kind of decision finder by keeping the chances more or less around 50%. As a decision finder you may use options: the coin (again), or if you like to see more goals we can use the 6.5m or for friends of long distance shots we can create a special shootout, a shot from the center mark onto an empty goal or with our special shootout rule.

Or you could keep it as a penalty shootout. An ice hockey penalty shootout is much more exciting than a soccer penalty shootout. Seeing "more goals" as you put it does not necessarily make it better to watch, which is why a soccer penalty shootout is less exciting, it is largely chance with less skill. The ice hockey shootout showcases more skill and less chance.

Why are you now discussing removing the penalty shootout completely?

Comment

Proposal and other information

OLD RULE

 

14B.7.2 Penalty Shootout

The goalkeeper must be close to the goal line, at least until the attacking player has had contact with the ball. The Referee places the ball on the center point and the player taking the shot will, after the whistle of the Referee, play the ball from there, trying to score a goal. The ball must be kept in motion towards the goal line (no backwards movement allowed) and once it is shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the ball off the goal post and/or the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal), and any time the ball crosses the goal line, the shot shall be  considered complete.

 

NEW RULE

14B.7.2 Penalty Shootout

The goalkeeper must be close to the goal line, at least until the attacking player has had contact with the ball. The Referee places the ball on the center point and the player taking the shot will, after the whistle of the Referee, play the ball from there, trying to score a goal. The player must remain in motion towards the goal line with no backwards movement or stopping allowed. Once the ball has been shot, the play shall be considered complete. No goal can be scored on a rebound of any kind (an exception being the ball off the goal post and/or the goalkeeper and then directly into the goal), and any time the ball crosses the goal line, the shot shall be  considered complete.

 

 

Pros: Allows a full range of stick work when completing penalty shootout including forward backwards stickhandling, toe drags, behind the back passes etc. Rewards players who try and better their skills by allowing them to use these skills to win a game, instead of handicapping them for the players who choose not to practice. Enables more interesting goals with higher skills shown which is a beneficial for live spectators, advertising our sport (social media etc) and enticing people to take up the sport as it looks cool. 

Cons: People who don't train or want to improve their stick handling will have less of a handicap than they used to against a better player. It has been argued it would be more dangerous but I don't see why this would occur.

 

Changes to gameplay/refereeing/tournaments: A penalty shootout may involve more exciting goals than it has previously as there will be broader range of movements to utilise. By requiring the player to always be moving forward instead of the ball it will take a similar amount of time for a penalty shot to be completed. Previously you would need the ball to move forward very slowly if you wanted to slow down the penalty shot, now you would need yourself to move forward very slowly, unlikely to see a change here particularly as the slowing down of penalty shots has never really been an issue. Refereeing should be unchanged or slightly improved. Whether someone has stopped/ridden away from the goal line is potentially easier to assess than whether the ball has moved away from the goal line when someone is doing fast side to side stickwork parallel to the goal line.

 

If people provide feedback on whether or not this should be voted on it will either go to proposal or be ignored.

 

Comment

I would vote yes on this. 

Comment

I would vote yes :)

Comment

"Cons: People who don't train or want to improve their stick handling will have less of a handicap than they used to against a better player. It has been argued it would be more dangerous but I don't see why this would occur."

Sorry, nobody is stopping a good player to improve his stick handling and to show it and due to decide a game in regular playing time! (As a team captain I would slang my team college not showing his leanrt skills during the regular playing time for deciding the game earlier; it is stupid and it is with high risk for the team to wait for the shoot out!)

The current method of the shoot out works perfect, it is only a decision finder. Why changing a perfect rule for this purpose?

"It has been argued it would be more dangerous..." This is true, because at the beginning of this discussion several liked scenes ended next to the goalie (our goalie have to protection as in ice hockey). Later on other scenes were linked but these are not so spectacular.

There will come not one more spectator in our gym hall only for a chance that a shoot out might happen and the hop in a team might be such a good player who will wait to show his learnt skills only in a shoot out.

Comment

I don't think any good player or team would wait on purpose to show their skills until a shootout and try to keep it a tie. With this change of rules, people can still show their stick handling during the game as well as if there is a shootout. The only thing this changes is it gives the team with better stick handling an advantage in a shootout.

Comment

Exactly. To suggest that teams will wait until a shootout to show their skills shows that you are missing the point of this.

And though the linked videos show that players end up next to the goalies is part of the fact that in ice hockey they have the ability to stop in a VERY short amount of time, which we can't do on unicycles. You can stop that close to the goalies based on our current rules, it's probably less likely to happen with this rule change as stopping finishes your attempt.

We currently allow players to ride up to the goalie 1 on 1 throughout the whole game while also being able to move the ball backwards to get the ball past the goalie, I'm yet to see a large amounts of injuries as you suggest, or players stopping 5cm away from the goalie as you suggest... If players don't choose to stop 5cm from the goalie in regular play when they can move the ball backwards in a 1 on 1 why would they now?

The fact that something works perfect does not mean it cannot be improved. You have offered no realistic reasons (that I see) for why our current rules is better or the new proposed rules is worse

 

Comment

I never suggested something like this "or players stopping 5cm away from the goalie as you suggest..."!

Developing and using skills should go with the current rules. During normal the game it is allowed that the ball is dragged, flicked or lifted on the stick. But in case of a free shot this options are not allowed.

And the shoot out rule only allows to move the ball forward. You can use skills which are inside this rule. My impression remains we should change rules without a need. It only a simple special method of decision finding, it could also be done by a simple 6,5m shoot out.

 

Comment

1) I think it is worth to have this discussion. In Switzerland we almost never had discussions about this topic, but I see your problems/thoughts Steven.

2) The arguments of Herbert do not convince me at all. For me, it seems to be more a blockade of rule changes. Indeed, maybe it's not a world-shaking change - but if there are no cons, why not?

3) Nicolai and I would also vote yes for Steven's proposal.

4) Last thought: I don't know if there are any situations where a player rides back (move away from goal-line) while the ball still moves forward. If there are such situations, then this players have to change their behavior with the new rule. I couldn't find such a situation (except a player falls down from unicycle, gets back on the unicycle and continues). If others do find examples, I have the additional idea to use the new rule from floorball: at least (either) the player or the ball must always be in forward moving.

Comment

Ok there appears to be general consensus on this.

 

The last thought is Christian's about the floorball rule. Here is a video showing allowed or not allowed goals and why. It is very clear cut.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujps2Z-z1Yc

 

 

The floorball rule basically has that the player or the ball must always be moving forward. As long as the player doesn't stop and drag the ball backwards while stopped then it is fine.

Player is stopped but ball is moving forward is fine - unlikely to see this as it will be moving away from the players control

Player is moving forward but doing stick handling where the ball moves back is fine

Ball is stopped/going back and Player is stopped/going back - not fine

 

 

 

Comment

The goalies in ice hockey and floorball have extra protection in their clothing, they are more flexible in their movement, have special rights in the direct goal area and they are cover a bigger area with their bodies. The chances are quite better for these goalies, players require good technical handling to score.

In unicycle hockey the goalie and the shooter have approximantly the same chances, it's 50 to 50 to score, this is fair to everybody in a shootout only for decision finding. With this suggestion the advantage is going to the shooter.

Referring: It is easier referring with the focus only on the ball instead of have a switching focus on the ball and the bottom end of the wheel of the shooter. In an other discussion voters complained on the poor quality of referees. Please aware this sport is not only for expert players and expert referees on "A"-leval.

 

Comment

Body

Pros: 

Allows a full range of stick work when completing penalty shootout including forward backwards stickhandling, toe drags, behind the back passes etc. Rewards players who try and better their skills by allowing them to use these skills to win a game, instead of handicapping them for the players who choose not to practice. Sorry wrong! Nobody is handicapped using theses skills, a player is not limited to use this skills during normal playtime plus extra playtime. When all these skills were useless to decide the game With a following simple shootout (only if required!) the game will be decided.

Enables more interesting goals with higher skills shown which is a beneficial for live spectators, advertising our sport (social media etc) and enticing people to take up the sport as it looks cool. A shootout has to be made only if required. No spectator, advertiser or other people will wait to see these skills only perhaps, these people like to see these skills already earlier.

Cons: People who don't train or want to improve their stick handling will have less of a handicap than they used to against a better player. Correct, the trained skills should be used during normal playtime.

It has been argued it would be more dangerous but I don't see why this would occur. Unicycle hockey should be a non-contact game. Approximately halve of the linked examples are ending in a crash with the goalie because these stick handlings happens as close as possible to the goalie. Our players/goalies have no body or head protection.

 

Changes to gameplay/refereeing/tournaments: A penalty shootout may involve more exciting goals than it has previously as there will be broader range of movements to utilise. By requiring the player to always be moving forward instead of the ball it will take a similar amount of time for a penalty shot to be completed. Previously you would need the ball to move forward very slowly if you wanted to slow down the penalty shot, now you would need yourself to move forward very slowly, unlikely to see a change here particularly as the slowing down of penalty shots has never really been an issue. Refereeing should be unchanged or slightly improved. Whether someone has stopped/ridden away from the goal line is potentially easier to assess than whether the ball has moved away from the goal line when someone is doing fast side to side stickwork parallel to the goal line. Potentially greater percentage of goals scored in penalty shootouts however both teams will have the same conditions. There is no need for a greater potentially percentage of goals in shootout, one goal more than the opposing team is good enough to find a decision.

Note: Implementing this rule change to start with as it has been pointed out that it would likely be easier to referee than floorball rules where the ball OR the player must be moving forward. If the rule is positive then at a future time we may discuss the floorball rule if we think it is necessary to improve ruling/gameplay.

This proposed change of gameplay should be tested first in a national league prior it should become a international rule.

Nobody questioned so fare what is the penalty for the shooter if there was a high risk to injure the goalie ( no goal?) and what should be the penalty for the goalie if he fouls the shooter to prevent him to use his skills (6,5m +?).

 

Comment

Sorry wrong! Nobody is handicapped using theses skills, a player is not limited to use this skills during normal playtime plus extra playtime. When all these skills were useless to decide the game With a following simple shootout (only if required!) the game will be decided.

A shootout has to be made only if required. No spectator, advertiser or other people will wait to see these skills only perhaps, these people like to see these skills already earlier.

Correct, the trained skills should be used during normal playtime.

Unicycle hockey should be a non-contact game. Approximately halve of the linked examples are ending in a crash with the goalie because these stick handlings happens as close as possible to the goalie. Our players/goalies have no body or head protection.

There is no need for a greater potentially percentage of goals in shootout, one goal more than the opposing team is good enough to find a decision.

I'm not going to respond to these comments as I already have previously in the discussion and no one  on the committee has agreed with them so at the point it appears to not be necessary..

 

 

This proposed change of gameplay should be tested first in a national league prior it should become a international rule.

We haven't specifically trialed any rule changes so far in national leagues before implementing. The only one you've asked to trial in national leagueslis the one you disagree with..

Nobody questioned so fare what is the penalty for the shooter if there was a high risk to injure the goalie ( no goal?) and what should be the penalty for the goalie if he fouls the shooter to prevent him to use his skills (6,5m +?).

We haven't discussed theset penalties for the shootout as it currently stands either. So if we want to approach the topic of fouls during shootouts then we can have a chat about it separately.


Copyright ©

IUF 2018