14B.9.1 Free Shot

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

Comments about this discussion:

Started 29 Jun 14:53

Before the Proposal deadlline increases we had the Discussion about a direct free shot. (see closed discussions)

I want to restart this discussion.

We had the chance to test the direct Free shot on a Tournament in Austria. During the tournament i tried to talk to as much people as possible to get thier feedback. Most of the teams and players are happy with the new rule.

To keep the rules simple we tested the following variant:

All fouls in the goal zone were executed as a normal corner following the current rules. All fouls outside the goal zone were allowd as a direct free shot (except long shots). The defending team had to keep a distance of 2m.

After this tournament i see the following things as a benefit for the game.

There are much more tactical options to play the freeshot.
The chance to score a goal is higher than the currant way. In my opinion that can halp to prevent fouls becaus it is more dangerous to get a goal. If there are less fouls it will help to make the sport safer.
For the defending team its more dangerous to take a tactical foul during a counterattack. -> less fouls ->more safety
Especially for the worse teams its easyer to score a goal with a direct free shot. At our tournament the weaker teams had more opportunities ti equalize the game. -> games will be more exciting.

My suggestion after this test the feedbacks of the teams and players and my own experience during the games as a goal keeper is the following rule change.

OLD:

The free shot is indirect. The player executing the free shot may only touch the ball
once until a contact by another player occurs. The ball shall be hit with the stick, not
dragged, icked or lifted on the stick. Opposing players must keep a distance with their
unicycles and their sticks of at least 2.0 m from the ball.

NEW:

The free shot can be played as a direct or indirect shot, subject to the long shot rule. (14B.7.2 Long Shot). The player executing the free shot may only touch the ball
once until a contact by another player occurs. The ball shall be hit with the stick, not
dragged, icked or lifted on the stick. Opposing players must keep a distance with their
unicycles and their sticks of at least 2.0 m from the ball.

Al fouls in the goal area will still be a corner with the curret rules.

Waht guys do you think about that?

Comment 30 Jun 03:54

Cool to see, that you were able to test it. I wonder how free shots at, say, 7 meters would be taken. Did you see some of those in the tournament? Did the whole defending team block the goal or have there been other tactics?
I'm asking because my main concern is the higher potential for bruising and injury, when people are able to hit a ball hard with basically unlimited preparation time and kinda close to the goal..

I do however see the positive points here, especially the fact that fouling becomes more dangerous.

I am not decided here.

Comment 30 Jun 08:02

I wont support direct shots on goal unless we abolish corners.

It seems to me that it is a worse outcome to receive a corner than it would to receive a direct free shot 6.6m in front of goal.

Being fouled 6.6m in front of goal is a good outcome, being fouled 6.4m in front of goal would be a terrible outcome. If my team was fouled I would ask the referee can I take a direct penalty 20cm further back rather than be forced to take a corner.

Comment 30 Jun 14:47

Previous discussion on direct free shot: https://iuf-rulebook-2025.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/32

Thanks Pascal for trying this out and for reporting your experience. The Swiss National Team also tested this during one training (in April I think) and it was generally perceived very well. We applied the adapted rules from floorball to prevent too large differences between a free shot and a corner:

The free shot shall be taken where the offence was committed, but never behind the imaginary extensions of the goal lines, or closer to a goal post than 3 m. A free shot behind the imaginary extension of the goal line shall be taken from the nearest corner point. A free shot closer to a goal post than 3 m shall be moved out to the distance of 3 m.

Could you @Steven support this rule?

@Herbie: Could you give some additional information in what kind of situation this incident with the eye occurred? This should never happen but I think it's also important to know how it happened.

Comment 30 Jun 23:01

I like the idea of removing corners for fouls given inside the 6.5-meter zone and using the 3-meter distance rule — even if we don’t change the direct/indirect shot rule.

I don’t really support the direct shot rule. Most of the time, it just encourages players to hit the ball as hard as they can at defenders from only 2 meters away. Good teams will use it to create smart tactics, but in B-League (about 50%) and in C-League (almost 100%) of players will probably just try to blast the ball through the defender and hope it goes in. Only teams that are evenly matched with their opponents and have good ball control will actually try to build a play from it.

For example, if Australia got a free shot against Swiss 1 (which probably won’t happen, haha), we wouldn’t be strong enough to pass the ball around and create a goal. If we’re only 4.5 meters from the goal and allowed to shoot directly, our best option is to just hit the ball as hard as possible and hope it gets through the defenders. There’s no reason for us to try a complicated pass — we’re just not good enough against a team like Germany or Swiss 1.

In a game against strong teams like that, we usually only have about 0.2 seconds to shoot before a defender takes the ball from us. This rule change gives us the only moment in the game where we can shoot hard without a defender blocking us right away.

Other weaker teams will probably do the same thing. Do you think my assessment is wrong and outmatched teams will try to create plays from direct free shots?

Comment 30 Jun 23:53

That’s a good point. As with a lot of these rules it’s tough because there’s such a wide chasm between elite teams that practice and refine plays and tactics, and the hobby teams (like us!) that tend to play by the seat of their pants. That’s why imo the timeout should only be applicable to knockout games, as lesser teams typically won’t really be able to utilize it in any meaningful way as a strategy. I like the idea of more 2 minute penalties being called for fouls to encourage power play type strategies instead of more situations where players can whack the ball at defenders. Although I don’t have strong feelings as I don’t know how it would actually play out in tournaments. I think the idea for direct shots would be kind of like soccer where there’s elaborate schemes to take and defend them, I just don’t know if it would work for this sport in the same way.

Comment 01 Jul 10:12

Information on the eye accident. More than a couple of years ago on a the final tournament of the German championship the goali what very hard hitted from short distance (~ 1.5-2.5m) on her left eye. For more than a year she was not allowed to play in danger of total eye lost. Nowaday she is on this eye nearly blind and from insurence a small sport pension. She swopped to my team to carry on playing on lower level and wearing a helmet with eye protection. Myself I was hit very hard 4-5 times on an eye (probably not in the center) as defender, after a day paine was nearly gone and I could see well. Back to discussion.

I dislike the option direct shot. I believe nobody will injure a defender seriously. I believe that some shooters are try to pretty hurt an defender in hope next time the defender will not set the boddy between attackers shot and goal. Careless or recklessness or an injure of a defender is accepted. Be hited by a very hard played ball considered exaggerated roughness. A direct freeshot I believe will encourage exaggerated roughness or injuries accepted. In unicycle hockey we have usually no kind of eye protection (Switzerland and Baveria excluded)! We are play not icehockey or other hockey sport where boddy protection is prescribed.

Comment 01 Jul 10:40

I support the introduction of the direct free shot but can also understand the arguments raised by Steven and Herbie. The concern about injuries, especially from hard shots at close range, is valid — serious eye injuries must absolutely be avoided.

However, I don’t see this risk as being limited to direct free shots. Even under the current rule, which only allows indirect free shots, the ball can be hit very hard and deliberately played against an opponent — for example, to create a rebound or even to deflect the ball directly into the goal. In fact, weaker teams could also use this as a tactic, since the current rules do not clearly define how an indirect free shot must be executed.

In this sense, introducing the direct free shot could actually increase clarity and fairness, as it creates more transparent tactical options and allows for more structured gameplay.

At the tournament in Austria, both weaker and very strong teams were present. Among the better teams, it was clearly visible that the new rule was used with a tactical mindset — not just hitting the ball hard, but making deliberate decisions between taking a direct shot or passing. In the end, it’s always a strategic decision: is the direct shot likely to be successful, or is it better to keep possession?

A complete protection from injuries — as in any sport — cannot be guaranteed. That’s why I believe that the argument about powerful shots alone is not a sufficient reason to oppose the rule change, especially since such shots are already possible under the current rules.

From my perspective, the new rule provided more tactical variety and made the games more exciting — without negatively impacting the flow or fairness of play.

Therefore, I support introducing the rule.

Comment 01 Jul 16:17

@fin yes we see some 7-8m schots an nearly all were blocked by one player (2-3m distance) between the ball and the goal abd the rest of the defending team blocked the pass.

@steven I see your problem with the weaker teams wich can´t play a pass to thier teammates. At the moment you have 4 attacking and 4 defending players. One of the attacking players had to shoot so there are 4 defending players to cover 3 attacking players. If we allow direct free shots it will be equal attecking and defensing players because one from the defending team had to block the direct shot. So i think it will be easier for the weaker team to pass. Like Benjamin explains we didn´t see that in this tournament. Its a good point that its will be better for the defending team foul behind teh 6.5m than before. We did this in the test to keep it simple but i also think we need a solution for this problem.

@nicolai thank you for your experiences fron the Swiss team. I think it will be a way to solve steve´s problem but for mee is seems a little bit to complicated with the 3m rule. because we need much more markes in the goal zone. I think 3m are a little bit to close to put the Goalkeeper and a defending player between the ball and the goal keeping the 2m distance to the ball. Mabye we can do a mixture of both variants.

All fouls outside the goal zone will be a free shot at the same point the foul happens. All fouls between the extended goal line and the groundline will be a corner. And all fould between the 6.5m line and the extended goal line will be moved out to the nearest point of the 6.5m line. For example: The foul happens near the wall 2m before the extended Goal line. The free shot will be taken at the 6.5m line with a distanc of 2m from the wall. What do you think about that?

@Herbie I´m a goalkeeper in the swiss league. During this time I didn´t have any panalty or 6.5m with a potentially headshot hight. A direct free shot is like a 6.5m you have much time to do a precise shot. Most of the high shots were in high speed situations with a defending player nearby or in training. Because in this situations you don´t have much time to look and do a precise shot. I think its your own decision and risk to wear a face protektion if you are afraid of headshots.

Comment 01 Jul 17:17

Even under the current rule, which only allows indirect free shots, the ball can be hit very hard and deliberately played against an opponent — for example, to create a rebound or even to deflect the ball directly into the goal. In fact, weaker teams could also use this as a tactic, since the current rules do not clearly define how an indirect free shot must be executed.

No one does this now, that suggests trying to deflect a shot off a player into the goal is not a viable strategy. Purposely trying to get a deflection off a player is much harder. You are aiming for a small spot on a player that would result in the correct deflection. In contrast, a direct shot at goal means you are aiming for somewhere within the 180 x 120 goal, this is a much easier target to aim for.

Weaker teams may still be worse than their opposition, even with equal players, having even players at the time of the free shot doesn't make a bad team any better at passing/trapping/shooting under pressure. When teams are outmatched in games, hitting an incredibly hard direct shot will be much more likely to result in a goal than the team passing.

If you also consider players at a lower level where BOTH teams are weak, often these lower level players do not use teamplay or pass much in games. Players will often keep the ball and take shots instead of pass. The goalkeepers are also worse at a lower level. If you give these lower level teams 2 meters of space, infinite time, a worse keeper, and allow them a direct shot on goal, hitting it as hard as possible at the goal is probably an attractive option over trying to pass to your teammate who can't trap properly.

There are also plenty of strong athletic teams playing in the B league in UNICON who are French basketball teams. Their passing is usually not at the same level as better teams. Would they try to make a pass?

I think this rule change assumes that the majority of teams are

a) Are technically proficient: can pass, trap, ride well enough to execute good plays

b) Think comprehensively about tactics

Comment 03 Jul 07:41

Thanks for all your ideas and thoughts!

I am not convinced direct free shots within the goal area up to 3 m to the goal (who measures that?) are a good solution. you force one or more defenders in an close area between 2m from the free shot spot and the goal. i think blocking, touches and dismounts are very probable in such a situation, which is not favourable.

What is the actual problem direct free shots shall solve? Does it solve the problem or does it create more problems?

I don't think we should abandon the corner shot - it is a nice free shot alternative, just to justify direct free shot directly from behind the 6.5m line. the corner shot should be the strongest free shot after the 6.5m, because it penalises fouls in the goal zone.

Are there maybe some more other variants to strengthen the corner shot? I think about the penalty corner in field hockey, where all defenders are on the goal line and all but one attackers are behind the 6.5m line in our case. one attacker passes the ball from the corner behind the 6.5m line from where the other attackers can take a shot.

Comment 03 Jul 14:37

I think the direct free shot and changing the rules when a corner shot is given should be somewhat independent.

Who measures the 3m? I would say the referee, or we add some markings (e.g. 5) that each measure 3m from the goal posts.

Is in your opinion the corner shot the strongest free short after the 6.5m? I'm not sure and I would rather go for a free shot 7m in front of the goal. The idea of changing the rules when a corner shot shall be given is to make smaller differences between fouls that are committed 6m or 7m in front of the goal. E.g. compared to soccer where a foul in the goal area gives a 11m, we generally only give a corner shot. Moreover, there will still be many situation where a corner shot will be awarded, so we will keep the corner shot.

Why I think changing the rules of the corner shot makes sense (without considering direct or indirect free shot): Imagine a situation where many players are close to the goal with a few defending players between the ball and their own goal. Now, an attacking player is fouled (e.g. SUB) 4m in front of the goal. The current rules would give a corner shot, so the ball is again much further away from the goal. With a rule change, the previous situation could be much more closely recreated, putting the ball directly in the "dangerous zone" in front of the goal, also increasing the chance to score a goal for the attacking team.

Adding special rules for the corner shot makes - in my opinion - everything more complicated, thus I'm against this.

To not make the space between the execution point of the free shot and the goal too tight, we could also do a 4m distance instead of 3m.

Comment 06 Jul 12:20

I tried to scale what has been said “more risk to be injured” against “more tactical options”, my personal scale was going down at “more risk to be injured”. If I were allowed to vote I would vote against a rule chance to allow direct free shots.

There was a discussion around the advantage of corner shots. I try to remember my suggestion: Move the free shot from the rear extension of the goal lines (corner marks) forward to the 6.5m line a mark now 2m from the sideline away if a foul happens in the goal zone. (You can see this mark in Option B at https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipP2RQdWyGoc4iV71SmjYBMdnTU2WhX6txIhBD_VLj7QRyVy8nft9xK_V16csUwx0A?key=LTNjckxwaWI2NEhVVWVfamV2NUpYcmpuZERib0JR at discussion Playing field dimensions)

Would this probably opens more tactical options?

Comment 10 Jul 15:02

i see two pionts in this discussion.

1) allow a direct freeshot

2) change the corner rule.

so i think we schould split up this discussions.

Comment 10 Jul 15:13

@herbie i think the change to a direct free shot will not increase the injurie risk. With the current rule you can also do a "direct freeshot" for this you need 2 players in the moment. On touches the ball a llitle bit and the other player shoot. The result is the same and this is a often seen tactic.

@steven maybe yes for weaker teams it would be an option to hit the ball as hard as possibel to score a goal. But against better teams it would not be a real option because they know how to defnd a direct freeshot. I think we shoul write the rulebook for the higherst level and not for B or C level. For example in the rulebook it is not allowed for the goalkeeper hold on the goal but in C mostly this will be allowed.

Comment 11 Jul 01:53

@Pascal thank you for your example of an indirect-direct freeshot. "With the current rule you can also do a "direct freeshot" for this you need 2 players in the moment." If players would prever to execute a nearly direct freeshot they may do it in above way in accordance with the current rules - therefore no need for a rule change to allow a direct freeshot!

I like to follow this key rule: "All players must take care not to endanger others. Exaggerated roughness can lead to injuries and must therefore be avoided.

@Pascal "I think we should write the rulebook for the highest level...". Or said with other words: "The rules should be writting for the top 10% of all players and the rest of 90% may follow (or not)." Most of us wont to improve Unicycle hockey 1.0 to Version 1.x. If you like to talk about a game changing unicycle hockey 2.0 (for the top of the world experts) you should ask for opening a new committee.

Comment 11 Jul 03:34

Many lower level players take a shot on goals despite having a 2 on 1 overlap against a defender. "Not being a real option" does not stop players from taking a shot when they can. They are often selfish when they see a chance to shoot on goals!

I must have said this 4 times now, but with large discrepancies in team strength, it is still a better option to take the direct shot on goal and hit it as hard as possible rather than pass.

When the Australians play the Swiss, it would benefit the Australians much more than the Swiss to be able to have direct shots on goals.
The Australians wouldnt be able to pass effectively from the free shot to have a chance to score against the Swiss. We couldn't even effectively pass it to a player within the 2 m zone and take a shot from that.

For us a slap shot as hard as possible, hoping to get it through the bodies would be more likely to lead to a goal. I can't be certain how each team would play, but Australia, Twin Cities in Bermidji, UK team at IUC 2019 are three examples of teams that would be better to hit a massive slap shot than pass. The rule change benefits us most, but I still don't think it makes sense.

I think we shoul write the rulebook for the higherst level and not for B or C level. For example in the rulebook it is not allowed for the goalkeeper hold on the goal but in C mostly this will be allowed.

The C comp at UNICON relaxes rules to allow less skilled players take part (like holding goals, don't have to mount at the exact same spot etc) it doesn't add more rules. You are looking to remove rules, but add more rules in at a lower level.

This isn't purely a problem at lower levels. C players can't slap shot, so it isnt a real safety issue in C. The issue is in A and B if you have matchups that have a high level of skill but the lower level team still has the ability to shoot hard shots if give time.

Comment 11 Jul 06:02

The free shot rule and the corner rule should not be changed (and discussed) independently of each other.

If you just change one of them the other one gets useless or overpowered, they are connected. The corner is a free shot too.

Comment 11 Jul 18:22

@herbie yes its right that the indirect direct freeshot is possible with the current rules but when you decide this tactic you only have one option in this moment and the defending team can see that befoer shooting. With a direct freeshot you have much more options and it will be harder to defend. I dont want to whrite a seperate rulebook for the best 10% but i think we should write it for the best players so you can adapt it for B and C level if you think its needed.

@steven i see your problems changing the rule. On one side i understand your agrumentation the weaker teams will mostly shoot direct. On the other side there will be more chance for the weaker teams to score a goal. What means the games can be closer and more exciting. At our test in the tournament we didn´t see that the weaker teams only shoot as hard as they can. In this test all levels do both variants and used the new tactical options.

What do the others think about that. Especially the voting members? I would like to hear all opinions.

Comment 16 Jul 18:12

I’m opposed to direct free shots for the reasons Ole outlined.

Comment 19 Jul 08:07

"With a direct freeshot you have much more options". I disagree, You have exactly only one more option - the direct shot, all other options are the same to indirect shot.

Comment 20 Jul 03:15

Yep, Herbie is right and I'm still opposed to direct free shots.

Comment 21 Jul 02:38

There is a large amount of division between those who do and don't support this proposal. At least 3 voting members and 2 non voting members are opposed. 3 Voting members are for. Larissa and Ryan I am unsure on. I beleive this probably should not go to a proposal or vote?

Comment 21 Jul 14:53

At the moment we have some proposals with this situation. So i think we should do the same with this an see if we find a majority. 4 voting members are for and 3 against. All other voting members is unsure. I think we should give them a try like the timeout or the increasing of the goalpost distance. If it fails it fails.

Comment 22 Jul 01:56

The non voting members are still hockey players. If we extrapolate 5 against and 4 for the change we are suggesting that 55% of people playing hockey are against the rule change.

Should we be attempting to pass a rule that would make very large changes to the game when only 45% of people support it? I wouldn't even want to vote on removing corners with those numbers.

Comment 22 Jul 12:45

At the moment we have that much proposals we don´t know they pass or fail. For this reason I think it´s not a goot idea to stop a democratic process only for one proposal.

Comment 24 Jul 03:14

The majority of Germans teams didn't support the rule change to remove the flick pass from a legal the free shot. They didn't adopt this rule into their competition for a number of years after it passed. They specifically chose to disregard it.

How certain are you that they all support changing the free shot to allow direct shots?

I am certain most in Australia don't see a need for it..

Comment 24 Jul 04:48

In Switzerland we discussed it at our referee meeting and i talked during the season with the Players. After our tournament we made a opinion poll.

I know you are against the change and its not sure this finds a majority but i think that is no reason not to do a secret voting.

At the beginning it was not sure if the Tactical Timeout finds a majority now we have a 10 to 1. Please don't stop democracy, let to a secret voting and then we have a final decision.

Comment 03 Aug 17:43

Ok maybe fot this committe yes. But does this comitte really represent the full spectrum of opinions. I don´t think so. At our tournament were we tested the new rule nearly all of the clubs are happy with the new rule. In switzerland i think over 90% are in favorur or it dosent matter for them. Are you sure only 45% will support this?

In Switzerland we discussed it at our referee meeting and i talked during the season with the Players. After our tournament we made a opinion poll.

At the beginning it was not sure if the Tactical Timeout finds a majority now we have a 10 to 1. Please don't stop democracy, let to a secret voting and then we have a final decision.

Since the Swiss league is spoken for, but Pascal was unsure whether the German voters on the rulebook spoke for the German league, I contacted any contacts I had in the League to ask their opinion. The national team had a discussion, the other representatives I contacted were teams ranked in the 20's on their table, so a lower level.

The national team discussions were that they would prefer not to make shots direct without further trialling. They have discussed polling their entire league to gauge overall opinion, but this would be a long term thing. The two representatives from the teams in the 20s would prefer not to make shots direct.

It will still go to vote, as planned

Below are the responses I received

I will discuss it in our group. My first impulse is that i don´t like that change. The first think that comes to my mind is that it may be unesessary dangerous. I someone like Luc can take an aime and shot with the best position to the ball, her can shoot really hard. Within 2-4 m distance to the ball he can hit anywhere.. up to the head/eyes. As a defender you just have to stand in the way and hope for the best. Why risk that situation? Chances of scoring are low.

We just have had a little discussion about your questions . But it’s the most of us are interested not to change the rule, because shooting directly isn’t necessary to have a better playflow are anything else important advance. It cools down to play after a foul and we think this will be general a better situation

Why does this need to be decided so urgently? For such a big change, shouldn’t there be more time to gather more opinions?
Whose opinions are we supposed to represent/gather? Those from the A squad? Or is it about getting a general sense from all of unicycle hockey Germany?
I've spoken to a few people and they didn't think it was a good idea to test such a big change at a World Cup. The tournament is too important for that.