Stick attacks - more precise wording

---

Comments about this discussion:

Started 11 Jun 05:04

I would like to bring up the issue of stick attacks as a discussion point for more precise wording in the rulebook. Excessive force or stick attacks (e.g., from above) should be more clearly defined. The current rulebook states:

14B.8.1 General Considerations
“(…) Only in the vicinity of the ball (defined as the ball within the radius of the outstretched arm length plus stick) may a player touch an opponent's stick with their stick to block them. However, this contact may not be hard. It is illegal to turn the blade of the stick upside down in order to hook into an opponent's stick. Raising the opponent's stick is allowed in principle, if not done using exaggerated roughness. If the opponent's stick is raised to a high stick, it is always considered exaggerated roughness.”

I propose the following improved and more detailed wording:

Stick Contact and Stick Attacks

1. Ball orientation must always be clearly recognizable. The decisive factor is whether the stick action creates a realistic chance of gaining possession of the ball. Only in the vicinity of the ball (defined as the ball within the radius of the outstretched arm plus stick) may a player touch an opponent’s stick with their own to block them. Stick actions must be controlled, purposeful, and performed without excessive force. Uncontrolled "hacking," "tapping," or forcefully knocking the opponent's stick away must be whistled as a foul. If a stick attack directly causes a fall, it is to be considered a foul.

2. It is permitted to lift the opponent’s stick once from below. In situations of unclear ball possession and close proximity to the ball, the opponent’s stick may be lifted to prevent them from receiving the ball. If the lifted stick rises to a high-stick level, this is considered exaggerated roughness.

3. It is illegal to turn the blade of the stick upside down in order to hook into an opponent’s stick.

4. Stick contact at blade level or just above is generally allowed. However, this contact may not be hard. As a guideline, the lower part of the shaft (approximately the lower 30 cm) is considered acceptable contact area. Contact at hand level is considered non-ball-oriented and is prohibited.

5. Downward strikes onto the shaft or blade from above are to be penalized as fouls (stick slashing).

Comment 18 Jun 04:19

I agree, that there's the need for a more precise ruling and i like the suggestions here.

Comment 23 Jun 00:00

1. Ball orientation must always be clearly recognizable. The decisive factor is whether the stick action creates a realistic chance of gaining possession of the ball. Only in the vicinity of the ball (defined as the ball within the radius of the outstretched arm plus stick) may a player touch an opponent’s stick with their own to block them. Stick actions must be controlled, purposeful, and performed without excessive force. Uncontrolled "hacking," "tapping," or forcefully knocking the opponent's stick away must be whistled as a foul. If a stick attack directly causes a fall, it is to be considered a foul.
   
   I find the wording of trying to rule on controlled and purposeful stick hits very very difficult. I dont know if I would include this. I think the viscinity of the ball rule does the most to ensure players stick hits are more purposeful.

 

1. It is permitted to lift the opponent’s stick once from below. In situations of unclear ball possession and close proximity to the ball, the opponent’s stick may be lifted to prevent them from receiving the ball. If the lifted stick rises to a high-stick level, this is considered exaggerated roughness.

I think the vicinity of the ball does enough to ensure that people are only lifting sticks of people who could touch the ball. I dont personally see the need for the "once". Only worse players in our leagues attempt to lift sticks repeatedly and it generally works out badly for them. Perhaps you have people who are more skilled at this technique?

 

1. It is illegal to turn the blade of the stick upside down in order to hook into an opponent’s stick.

I agree

1. Stick contact at blade level or just above is generally allowed. However, this contact may not be hard. As a guideline, the lower part of the shaft (approximately the lower 30 cm) is considered acceptable contact area. Contact at hand level is considered non-ball-oriented and is prohibited.

I agree

1. Downward strikes onto the shaft or blade from above are to be penalized as fouls (stick slashing).

I agree

Comment 23 Jun 03:15

I am not familiar with icehockey therefore I tryed to find a good explenation for "slashing" I found e.g.:"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9qymi2CVMg". I understood that this action has to be hard. Other way round, if not so hard a downward strikes onto the shaft or blade from above are kept allowed.

"Uncontrolled "hacking," "tapping," or forcefully knocking the opponent's stick away must be whistled as a foul." What is "uncontrolled"? What is "tapping"?

"Contact (a stick) at hand level is considered non-ball-oriented and is prohibited." Yes, it should be a safety rule.

I agree on Stenven´s comment "to to lift the opponent’s stick once from below."

 

Comment 29 Jun 12:38

I agree too that there is room for making these rules clearer. However, I'm a bit hesistant with some of the suggestions.

About 1)

What do you mean by "ball orientation"? That the stick goes towards the ball? This is not entirely clear in my opinion.

If the criterior is to have a realistic chance in getting the ball, I could imagine that 80-90% of current actions would need to be considered a foul. However, this may also depend within which time-frame posession needs to be gained. E.g. lifting an opponents stick does not directly lead to ball posession but may within a (few) second(s).

About 2)

This does kind of contradict 1). I agree that this should be allowed, but suggest to rethink / reformulate 1)

About 3)

I agree, but would also like to include any kind of hooking (which may also be from the side or even bottom up). Ice hockey rules could give some guidelines here.

About 4)

Sounds good, I'm in favor

About 5)

Sounds good.

Comment 30 Jun 06:44

Hi Nicolai,

thank you for your comment. I would define ball orientation as mentioned in point 1) as "in the vicinity of the ball (defined as the ball being within the radius of an outstretched arm plus stick)." The aim for the player should be to gain possession of the ball through a controlled action through the stick tackle. The purpose of my rule is to prevent someone from simply hitting my stick just because it's nearby, and striking my stick more than once within milliseconds — which, in my view, would be an example of an "uncontrolled" tackle.

Comment 30 Jun 08:17

About 3) Simple: "It is illegal to turn the blade of the stick upside down in order to hook into an opponent's stick." This would cover all kind if hooking.

About 4) "Contact a stick at or close to hand levels is considered non-ball-oriented and is prohibited." I think this would be better than "the lower part of the shaft (approximately the lower 30 cm)" and obviously indentified as a safty rule.

About 5)  "Downward strikes onto the shaft or blade of the opponent's stick from above is allowed in principle, if not done using exaggerated roughness." or in better wording.

About 2) "It is permitted to lift the opponent’s stick once from below." I can´t see an advantage to restrict this behavier to "once" and questioning within what a time frame. Nicolai had indicated a good reason "lifting an opponents stick does not directly lead to ball posession but may within a (few) second(s). Therefore I would be against a rule change.

About 1) How should be recognized ""Uncontrolled "hacking," "tapping, ..." The player who is doing this (unfine) behavior has a good argument, he is doing this very controlled, the player likes to make the opponent uncertain and this will probably lead to ball posesion short time later. This behavior should kept for legal defending if it ends not in exaggerated roughness. If the rule would change here the rule would not more clearly defined and opens only other grey areas. Therefore I would be against a rule change.

 

Comment 30 Jun 14:23

Thanks for clarifying Malte!

About 1) I would prefer, if we rephrase this, I see what you want to say, but I'm a bit confused by this sentence ;-). Additionally, I think it should be also allowed, to attack the ball / opponent in such a way that they lose control of the ball. So an action without a chance to gain possession of the ball. However, I do agree that this attack should be oriented towards the ball and not with excessive force.

Comment 02 Jul 18:53

I think the only thing we agree on is tightening the hooking rule and adding the slashing rule. I think our slashing wording doesnt need any words mentioning hands because we already have the words in 14B.8.1 General considerations of "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.:"

 

14B.8.1 General Considerations
“(…) Only in the vicinity of the ball (defined as the ball within the radius of the outstretched arm length plus stick) may a player touch an opponent's stick with their stick to block them. However, this contact may not be hard. It is illegal to use the blade of the stick in a manner that enables the player to restrain an opponent's stick (hooking). Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on an opponent’s stick that, in the judgment of the referee, is not an attempt to play the ball, shall be penalized (slashing). Raising the opponent's stick is allowed in principle, if not done using exaggerated roughness. If the opponent's stick is raised to a high stick, it is always considered exaggerated roughness.”

Examples of Slashing Rules

 

 

 

 

Hockey USA Rulebook

Slashing is the act of a player swinging their stick at an opponent, whether contact is made, or not. Any forceful chop with the stick on an opponent’s body or opponent’s stick, on or near the opponent’s hands, shall be considered slashing.

IIHF Rulebook
Slashing is the act of a Player swinging their stick at an opponent, whether contact is made or not. “Non-aggressive” stick contact to the pant or front of the shin pads should not be penalized as slashing.

Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on an opponent’s body, the opponent’s stick, or on or near the opponent’s hands that, in the judgment of the Referee, is not an attempt to play the puck, shall be penalized as slashing.

NHL Rulebook

Slashing - Slashing is the act of a player swinging his stick at an
opponent, whether contact is made or not. Non-aggressive stick
contact to the pant or front of the shin pads, should not be penalized
as slashing. Any forceful or powerful chop with the stick on an
opponent’s body, the opponent’s stick, or on or near the opponent’s
hands that, in the judgment of the Referee, is not an attempt to play
the puck, shall be penalized as slashing

Comment 04 Jul 19:34

New

14B.8.1 General Considerations
All players must take care not to endanger others. Exaggerated roughness can lead to
injuries and must therefore be avoided. 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. Only in the vicinity of the ball (defined as the
ball within the radius of the outstretched arm length plus stick) may a player touch
an opponent's stick with their stick to block them. However, this contact may not be
hard. It is illegal to turn the blade of the stick upside down in order to hook into an
opponent's stick. Raising the opponent's stick is allowed in principle, if not done using
exaggerated roughness. If the opponent's stick is raised to a high stick, it is always
considered exaggerated roughness. Intentional delay of the game is not permitted and
may result in a penalty and the stoppage of time. To keep the game going, rule violations
that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized.

 

 

14B.8 Fouls

14B.8.11 Stick attacks

Only in the vicinity of the ball (defined as the ball within the radius of the outstretched arm length plus stick) may a player touch an opponent's stick with their stick to block them. However, this contact may not be hard. It is illegal to use the blade of the stick in a manner that enables the player to restrain an opponent's stick (hooking).

Any downward or forceful chop with the stick on an opponent’s stick that, in the judgment of the referee, involves excessive force, shall be penalized as slashing. Raising an opponent’s stick is permitted unless it involves excessive force, such as causing the opponent’s stick to reach high-stick height. In such cases, it shall be considered slashing.

 

14B.8.12 Intentional Delay Of Game

A delay of game foul shall be called when a team intentionally delays the restart of play. Examples include deliberately hitting the ball out of bounds, taking excessive time to execute a free shot, slowly returning to their own half after scoring a goal, or deliberately delaying the restart after conceding a goal.

Comment 06 Jul 11:03

I am happy as General Considerations are shrinked to general and specifically rules will go under separate headings.

New

14B.8 Fouls

14B.8.1 General Considerations
All players must take care not to endanger others. Exaggerated roughness can lead to
injuries and must therefore be avoided. The game is non-contact: the opponents and
their unicycles may not be touched. To keep the game going, rule violations that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized. Fouls don't always affect game control; therefore, referees need to find a balance for the right opportunities for risks to be let go for the game flow to continue.

 

14B.8.11 Stick attacks

Only in the vicinity of the ball (defined as the ball within the radius of the outstretched arm length plus stick) may a player touch an opponent's stick with their stick to block them. However, this contact may not be hard.

14B.8.11 a)  Hooking

The use of the blade of the stick in a manner that enables the player to restrain an opponent's stick is illegal.

14B.8.11 b)  Raising stick

Raising an opponent’s stick is permitted unless it involves excessive force, such as causing the opponent’s stick to reach high-stick height (14B.8.10), is always considered exaggerated roughness.

“Slashing”:

I as well had a look at “slashing” and in the history.

Unicycle hockey is a non-contact sport – ice-hockey is a contact sport and player must wear different kinds of body protection.

(“NHL Slashing Rule History: In years prior, some referees would allow players to tap the opposing puck carriers gloves (in an attempt to make him mishandle it) and not call a slashing penalty, while other referees would enforce the rule and call a slashing penalty. This allowed for a lot of confusion and inconsistencies within the games. … As a result of the leniency, hand injuries became more frequent. So, starting with the 2017 season, NHL officials began closely watching for stick infractions that followed the exact criteria of a Slashing penalty. As a result of the stricter enforcement, the game has seen fewer injuries directly related to the change, as well as a more consistent and balanced game for players and fans.”)  “Slashing is the act of a player swinging their stick at an opponent,…” Therefore, the slashing rule in ice-hockey is a kind of safety rule to reduce brutal action.

Don’t compare apples and oranges!  Unicycle hockey is a non-contact sport!

“Any downward … chop with the stick on an opponent’s stick that…”  cause me problems as an defender.

 

14B.8.11 c)  Shlashing

Downward chopping an opponent’s stick is permitted unless it involves excessive force.

Any forceful chop with the stick on an opponent’s stick, on or near the opponent’s hands, is always considered exaggerated roughness.

 

14B.8.12 Intentional Delay Of Game

If a team intentionally delays a game by

deliberately delaying the restart after conceding a goal by slowly returning to their own half or

taking excessive time to execute a free shot or

deliberately hitting the ball out of bounds or

generating a sum of minor fouls

is illegal.

 

 

I am not sure if there is a need to say something on strategical and tactical fouls. If “YES” I will give a starter:

Strategical foul: Strategical fouls violate the traditional norms of cooperation and agreement to the essential rules and regulations of the game or are perhaps not part of the games at all.

Tactical foul: Tactical fouling happens when a team loses the ball in the opponent's half and, before the counter-attack is even launched, commits a foul to immediately stop play.

 

Later on the fouls should be grouped, as a first idea:

Personal foul: Involves illegal personal contact with an opponent.

Technical foul: Refers to unsportsmanlike non-contact behavior, a more serious infraction than a personal foul.

??? foul: ???

Comment 06 Jul 18:26

My original wording was this

Any downward or forceful chop with the stick on an opponent’s stick that, in the judgment of the referee, involves excessive force, shall be penalized as slashing. Raising an opponent’s stick is permitted unless it involves excessive force, such as causing the opponent’s stick to reach high-stick height. In such cases, it shall be considered slashing.

The reason raising a opponents stick above hip height was added into the slashing penalty was because currently when you hit someone's stick above hip height the ref rules high stick and does the high stick signal. If someone lifts their own stick above hip height the ref ALSO rules high stick and does the high stick signal.

When two players are trying to get a ball and one does a high stick. We have one signal for high stick and it is unclear who the referee is penalising.
If we added "hitting someones stick above hip height" to the slashing rule instead of leaving it as a high stick then it immediately is clear who the referee is penalising when a call is made.

Comment 08 Jul 18:28

Herbie did you have any other thought? I didnt understand most of what you wrote. Particularly "Don’t compare apples and oranges!  Unicycle hockey is a non-contact sport!" so I am unsure if I explained myself afterwards

 

Comment 09 Jul 05:17

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/to-compare-apples-and-with-oranges. Ice hockey is a contact sport (with a lot of body protaction)- Unicycle hockey is a non-contact sport (bodies +unicycles), therefore don't use the same rules. I said: the slashing rule in ice-hockey is a kind of safety rule to reduce brutal action. - “Slashing is the act of a player swinging their stick at an opponent,…” Swinging begins mostly over hip-height - in unicycle hockey we allready avoid this behavior with the high stick rule. 

Now I come to the idea to avoid the word "slashing" because this is to close to ice hockey. An what might be a better word for chop if you mean a harder touch? "hit" or "strike" would be an option as well for translation. Here follows a newer version of my 3rd option for stick attacks:

14B.8.11 c)  Shlashing Hitting Stick

Downward hitting an opponent’s stick is permitted unless it involves excessive force.

Any forceful chop with the stick on an opponent’s stick and any hit on or near the opponent’s hands, is always considered exaggerated roughness.

And if you put together and read in one go

14B.8.11 Stick attacks

14B.8.11 a) Hooking

14B.8.11 b) Raising stick

14B.8.11 c) Hitting Stick

it will easy recognized (as well for translation) what kind of stick attacks are allowed and which not. 

 

Comment 09 Jul 11:50

In my opinion, you can swing the stick also horizontally.

I prefer the word „slashing“. Anyone familiar with ice hockey will know the gist, although it may be defined slightly different. Also, I think a proper german word would be „Stockschlag“ which translates to slashing. Moreover, using the title „Hitting stick“ is the opposite of what is meant (or is for sure ambiguous). That title would talk about rules where a stick is hit and not where the stick is used to hit (at least in my understanding).

Including the location to determine whether its considered exaggerated roughness also does not make sense in my opinion. It could be included to determine danger or a potential 2min but not „exaggerated roughness“.

Comment 11 Jul 07:56

I understood comparing apples and oranges, but not what you were referring to. Thank you for the clarification.

I don't see a reason to avoid the word Slashing because it is used in Ice Hockey. I watched a few examples in Ice Hockey and there are plenty which are not overhead swings but horizontal or only smaller chopping actions. That could also occur in unicycle hockey.

If others genuinly care about the name they can suggest other options. I don't think "hitting stick" works 

Comment 13 Jul 06:53

I have found maybe useful wording in US Lacrosse rules.

Rule 5.7.1: “Swinging a crosse at an opponent’s crosse or body with deliberate viciousness or reckless abandon, regardless of whether the opponent’s crosse or body is struck.”

How it Works: At all levels of play, officials must judge whether a swing is vicious, reckless or both. The threshold for vicious and reckless swings is higher at the higher level compared to a lower level.

A vicious swing is most clearly defined as one that would do serious damage if a player were not wearing equipment. A huge two-handed swing that crashes down on ... is a vicious swing because ... A reckless swing is one that demonstrates a lack of control.  There are a few things to pay attention to here, in particular “reasonable access” and “no apparent attempt.” There is a difference between a defender timing a check ... to disrupt an offensive player’s rhythm and just wailing on ... the stick. 

 

Here an other reason the slashing rule from ice hockey shouldn`t used due to some other key words:  Slashing is the act of a player swinging their stick at an opponent, whether contact is made, or not. Any forceful chop with the stick on an opponent’s body or opponent’s stick, on or near the opponent’s hands, shall be considered slashing.

"I don't think "hitting stick" works" Would "hiting a stick" work? 

Look at the body of proposal 65: "Including a slashing sign would give the referees an extra sign to show aggressive stick hits." to be in line with, Would "Aggressive stick hits" work instead of "slashing"? 

 

 

Comment 13 Jul 07:27

Aggressive stick hits still sounds stupid. If anything "Aggressive stick contact" sounds the least silly.

Comment 13 Jul 08:03

@Herbie: I still don‘t understand why you don‘t want to use „slashing“. I can‘t find any reason in your comment. Could you state it in German including what you would use as a title (also in German)? That could help to understand where you want to go und what your „problem“ is with „slashing“.

Comment 13 Jul 08:11

I'm fine with this idea Herbie as it would allow you to explain it as naturally as you want

Comment 14 Jul 02:27

An example for a not overhead swing but horizontal: https://www.tiktok.com/@magentasport/video/7436373246204726561 but this is not a stick attack.

"Aggressive stick hits still sounds stupid."? - I  used only your wording from proposal 65!

The heading of this discusion is "Stick attacks - more precise wording", not discussing "body hits" or "swinging around without hitting something" what the rule "slashing" includes as well. Therefore the wording"slashing" from ice hockey should not be used for a kind of a stick attack in unicycle hockey.

 

 

Comment 14 Jul 03:29

We borrow many terms in our rulebook for close but different rules. I think our faceoffs/corners/penalty shootouts all have differences.

 

We use the term hooking which is different to ice hockeys rules for hooking. You suggested Hooking above with the wording "Hooking: The use of the blade of the stick in a manner that enables the player to restrain an opponent's stick is illegal."

Hooking in the ice hockey rulebook says "Hooking is the act of using the stick in a manner that enables a Player to restrain an opponent. If the stick goes against the opponent’s hands / or near the opponent’s hands, it shall be penalized as “hooking”...


An example for a not overhead swing but horizontal: https://www.tiktok.com/@magentasport/video/7436373246204726561 but this is not a stick attack.

Hooking in ice hockey rules is also not specific to restraining the stick, but you used the name hooking in your suggestion above despite this difference?

Some slashes in ice hockey are aimed at the stick. Some hooking in ice hockey are aimed at the stick. What is the difference in using the terms for rules? 

 

"Aggressive stick hits still sounds stupid."? - I  used only your wording from proposal 65!

After writing 20+ proposals and more to come, the body of my proposals is quick text as the rest of the proposal provides enough information but I cannot submit the proposal without a body. If you look through my proposals, the body is neither designed to be a heading, or well written. Many of the body's  (Proposal 57, 24, 23, 22) don't have proper sentence structure or well-thought-out wording