Preface
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I am in favor of removing this sentence:
“Teams have to agree on a specific amount of elbowroom before playing.”
This phrasing is misleading. We have an official rulebook, and referees are responsible for enforcing it. If teams make informal agreements to interpret or apply rules differently, it undermines the referee’s authority and creates inconsistency.
Comment
I'm fine with removing this sentence but I also think that this preface has no direct meaning for any rules.
Comment
I remember 2010 UNICON in New Zealand. In the preliminary round we played on smaller playing fields as in 14D.3.1 Dimensions prescribed. In the final round we played on a huge playing field, much bigger as in 14D.3.1 Dimensions prescribed. On other UNICON the goals had not the exact inside dimensions of goal openings 1.20 m X 1.80 m as in 14D.3.2 Goals prescribed. This was a fact given by the local officals. It didn't undermine the referee’s authority. If teams haven't agreed on a specific amount of elbowroom before playing (making informal agreements to interpret the rules) unicycle hockey had not happen on these UNICONs.
Therefore I believe this phrase is still nesserary and should not be removed.
Comment
I see Herbie's point, i do agree to Malte too though. Maybe a rephrasing would work in the sense of allowing some lee-way in the case of missing the right goal cages or something like that. But the current phrasing kinda feels like teams chat beforehand whether they would want to allow subs for the tournament or not, for example.
Maybe something like „If standard playing conditions (e.g. size of goals, field dimensions, equipment) cannot be met, the tournament organizer may make necessary adjustments in consultation with the teams.“
Comment
I understand the concerns raised by both Malte and Herbie, and I appreciate the thoughtful examples and perspectives shared.
From my point of view, the sentence "Teams have to agree on a specific amount of elbowroom before playing" does indeed raise questions due to its vague wording. As Malte rightly pointed out, it might be misunderstood as an encouragement for teams to make informal rule changes, which could undermine the role of the referee and lead to inconsistencies.
At the same time, I fully agree with Herbie’s observation that certain adaptations — such as using different goal dimensions or field sizes — have been a practical necessity at past tournaments, especially at international events like Unicon. These adjustments did not compromise fairness, but rather enabled the games to take place despite logistical limitations.
In my opinion, it’s important to strike a balance:
We should avoid encouraging informal negotiations between teams that go beyond the rulebook, but we should also acknowledge that minor deviations from standard playing conditions may be necessary in some situations — provided they are communicated transparently and agreed upon by the organizer and all participating teams in advance.
Therefore, I support a rephrasing of the sentence rather than removing it completely. Fin’s suggestion points in a good direction. A possible wording could be:
"If standard playing conditions (e.g. field size, goal dimensions, or equipment) cannot be met, the tournament organizer may define appropriate adjustments in consultation with the participating teams."
This keeps the rulebook as the foundation while allowing for practical flexibility when needed — and ensures that decisions are not made ad hoc by individual teams but are handled in a transparent and organized way.