Contradiction between 14B.8.1 and 14.B.9

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

Comments about this discussion:

Started 20 May 07:45

14B.8.1 reads:

"To keep the game going, rule violations
that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized."

14.B.9 reads:

"In every instance of a violation of the rules the referee must penalize the oﬀending team
or play the advantage."

This is a clear contradiction in my eyes. 8.1. suggests that a high stick somewhere on the field not near the ball shall be simply ignored. Under Rule 9 however, referees are instructed either to play the advantage or to give a free kick.

For me 8.1. is the way to go here, but i see some merit to point out that behaviour warranting 2- or 5-minute penalties should also be sanctioned (or an advantage given) even when it occurs outside of active play.

What do you think?

Comment 22 May 10:42

I agree. I would delete the sentence from 14B.8.1 as there only fouls and not penalties are described. Instead, you can include it under 14.B.9 and change the sentence there slightly, e.g.

New 14.B.9

"In ~~every~~ an instance of a violation of the rules the referee must penalize the oﬀending team or play the advantage. To keep the game going, rule violations that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized."

Before

14B.8.1 reads:

"To keep the game going, rule violations
that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized."

14.B.9 reads:

"In every instance of a violation of the rules the referee must penalize the oﬀending team
or play the advantage."

Comment 23 May 00:58

Thank you for raising this point. I agree that these two rules somewhat contradict each other.

I like the suggestion to combine both sentences within one rule. However, I think this rule could still be more specific. What is considered "not influence the course of the game"? If someone falls off the unicycle or has to dismount (but far away from the ball) is this considered influence? What about careless but potentially dangerous play (e.g. riding around with a (much too) high stick), will this be considered influence?

While there will always be some room for interpretation, I think the rules should at least gives some guidelines.

Comment 24 May 04:57

I understand "must, have to" is a strict order without no assumption - "shall, should" is a not so strict order with possible assumptions.

Instead of "In every instance of a violation of the rules the referee must penalize the offending team or play the advantage."

Does this do?: "In case of a violation of the rules the referee should penalize the offending team or play the advantage."

Comment 19 Jun 04:39

End of discussion - no Proposal?

Comment 19 Jun 06:56

I'll read through everything and start doing stuff on the weekend

Comment 23 Jun 20:24

"In instances of a violation of the rules, the referee must penalize the oﬀending team or play the advantage however, rule violations that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized."

Would we be happy with this?

Responding to Nicolai's point

What is considered "not influence the course of the game"? If someone falls off the unicycle or has to dismount (but far away from the ball) is this considered influence? What about careless but potentially dangerous play (e.g. riding around with a (much too) high stick), will this be considered influence?

There is some vagueness, but I feel that ANY foul that hinders the opposition, no matter how far from the ball would influence the course of the game.

The instances where I feel you could argue that rule violations do not influence the course of the game are things like

Keeper bumps their goals at the opposite end of play moving them out of position, they then move them back into position while play is still at the opposite end.
A player is riding and overbalances and does a high stick away from play
Potentionally: a player rides too close to a keeper at the opposite end of play and they contact softly in that they both must dismount, they both remount while play continues at the other end. I think this would be different it was a defender and attacker at the opposite end of play, as the defender and attacker are constantly moving around the field and any time they are knocked off removes their ability to travel to where they want. The keeper sits statistically, so if they briefly dismounted and play was far away and they were able to remount and be comfortable well before they were involved then I think it woudl not influence the course of play

Comment 25 Jun 15:13

"In instances of a violation of the rules, the referee must penalize the oﬀending team or play the advantage. However, rule violations that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized."

Thanks for the suggestion. I think this goes into the right direction.

I think it could be nice to also add that "each rule violation that would lead to a 2min penalty shall be considered influencing the game" (or similar). I think this should be obivous but I also think that it would be better to write this explicitly.

Comment 29 Jun 02:57

Steven's suggestion is good. Thank you!

Comment 30 Jun 04:30

I like Steven's wording and agree to Nicolai that we should include a 2min (and 5min) penalty sentence.