Use of the wall

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

---

Comments about this discussion:

Started 29 Jun 04:51

I'd like to propose adding a new rule aspect, as the use of the wall has increasingly led to debates in the German league: To what extent is a player allowed to use the wall to his or her advantage?

To provide more clarity, the following wording could be included in the rulebook:

"The wall must not be used to gain an advantage. A wall play is considered illegal if a player plays the ball while leaning on or holding the wall.
It is also not permitted to push off the wall in order to move into a more favorable position.
Brief support against the wall may be tolerated if it serves solely to prevent a fall."

Comment 29 Jun 10:10

Yes, I agree that this rule can lead to discussion and I'm in favour of including clarifying sentences. I generally agree with the suggestion.

I'm not sure whether all the suggested sentences are necessary, and in my opinion, the following should suffice. I tried to avoid the term "wall play" as it may be ambiguous.

Comment 30 Jun 07:17

The player has to be riding the unicycle freely. He or she may use the stick as support but must not rest on the goal or the wall or something similar. It is not sufficient to release the goal only quickly for the time while the goalkeeper takes part in the game. A short support on the wall to avoid a dismount can be tolerated however if a player gains an advantage over their opposition by pushing off a wall or using a wall to avoid dismounting, it is considered illegal.

A player who is falling off the unicycle may take part in the game until touching the ground. A remounting player
must sit on the seat and have both feet on the pedals before participating in the game
again. If a player who is not riding a unicycle shoots into their own goal, the advantage
rule applies for the attacking team and the goal is valid.


I  think this sentence
Using the wall as support is considered illegal if a player plays the ball while leaning on or holding the wall.

is already covered by

He or she may use the stick as support but must not rest on the goal or the wall or something similar.


We are very strict on walls in Australia. If you use a wall to get an advantage over your opposition (you use it to stay up, or you push off the wall for a sharper turn) then it means that your opposition are a better rider and were fouled by you.

Similar to the rule about not penalising things that do not affect the game. Players are not penalised if they are well away from play. As soon as you have two people going for a ball though, if one pushes off the wall to spin themselves they would be fouled.

Comment 30 Jun 14:53

Thanks Steven for the suggestion!

Now I feel that the addition of "to avoid dismounting" somewhat contradicts the previous sentence. Is this necessary, could we rephrase (I'm myself not entirely convinced)?

... if a player gains an advantage over their opposition by pushing off a wall or using a wall as support, it is considered illegal.

I think the most important aspect is gaining an advantage.

Comment 01 Jul 12:34

"The player has to be riding the unicycle freely.

He or she may use the stick as support only.
but must not rest on the goal or the wall or something similar. It is not sufficient to
release the goal only quickly for the time while the goalkeeper takes part in the game.

Using a goal or a wall as support for gaining an advantage is illegal.

A short support on the wall to avoid a dismount can be tolerated.

A player who is falling off ..."

Comment 01 Jul 17:21

I imagine the original inclusion of "A short support on the wall to avoid a dismount can be tolerated" was to cater to allowing learners to take part. Specifically learners sometimes can ride but require the wall to mount.

I think is a difference between using the rulebook for fun club play or lower level tournaments vs high level tournaments. In high level tournaments A and (most of) B the player should be able to not use the wall at all.

Perhaps we remove it and low level tournaments can put in their own leniency towards letting novices touch things to stay up.

Comment 02 Jul 18:35

The player has to be riding the unicycle freely. He or she may use the stick as support only. Using a goal or a wall as support for gaining an advantage is illegal.

A player who is falling...

 

So this is a very strict interpretation. Any touching of wall COULD be penalised.

Based on our rules of not penalising fouls that don't affect the game I imagine a goalkeeper leaning on the goal while play was at the other end, or someone using a wall to mount outside of play most commonly wouldn't be called as a penalty?  I imagine lower level tournaments would tell teams if they were going to be more lenient on these interpretations and allow novice riders to use walls or goals.

Comment 04 Jul 01:29

Does you give here an example for using “Teams have to agree on a specific amount of elbowroom before playing.”?

Comment 04 Jul 02:22

"Using a goal or a wall as support for gaining an advantage is illegal." I didn`t said: "has to be punished." which would be by my interpretation very strict. The door for "To keep the game going, rule violations that do not influence the course of the game should not be penalized." remains open.

Comment 04 Jul 08:51

14B.5.3 Riding The Unicycle
The player has to be riding the unicycle freely. He or she may only use the stick as support. Touching or holding the wall or goal to gain an advantage over your opposition is illegal. A player who is falling off
the unicycle may take part in the game until touching the ground. A remounting player
must sit on the seat and have both feet on the pedals before participating in the game
again. If a player who is not riding a unicycle shoots into their own goal, the advantage
rule applies for the attacking team and the goal is valid.

 

I think this wording should work. The rule of keeping the game going would still apply.

 

Comment 05 Jul 11:25

As a voter I would agree to the above new wording and could go for proposal. Now a short time should be waited for an anwer from who has opend this discussion. If optimization in wording is needed could be done during reviewing phase.

 

Comment 13 Jul 03:31

Just one thing: as in the other proposal we should change "he or she" to gender neutral "they". Not sure if it would get overwritten?

Comment 17 Jul 01:01

I am satisfied with Steven's wording suggestion. Thank you very much!